"Keep the guvmint out of my medicare!": Insurance Lobby Organizes Elderly Hecklers

Perhaps, but I cannot say that we "deserve" a true democracy as we still haven't proven ourselves capable of being able to think for ourselves. Honestly, the people in America, well the majority anyways lacks as Aldous Huxley put so well "Propaganda Education", we the people of America have so far failed to see through transparent attempts of propaganda and shallow thought, rather we just blindly follow the easiest path.

Now of course that is human nature to follow the easiest path but for example in the case of the recent presidential election(which I might add seemed more like a massacre) many many people that I met literally just repeated the exact words off of a news network in their support for Obama or Mccain.

As you might assume, I was terribly disappointed at my home country's citizens in that they are a essentially a large army of sheep that follow the rich shepherd.

What we need is not a true democracy, what we really need is an education that teaches people to think for themselves and give them the ability to actually make a judgement in everything, and not just following what the media says. In my deluded eyes, this may perhaps and hopefully lead to the true democracy we deserve, one that was forged by people who are capable of thinking for themselves and resist those alluring forms of propaganda in order to do what's right, which still is subjective.

 

Rum&Coke:

To paraphrase your excellent observation:

If people only got the governance they deserved, then every dictator in history would have been vindicated.

You've explained the only reason to remain an activist in places like the States: To affirm by one's very existence that fine-print democracies are corporate-run dictatorships with tireless PR. If they weren't, then I and others like me would be represented proportionately, and the endless domination of propaganda, recalibration, suppression, nullification through the manufacture of spurious contrary information, hired opposition, legal manipulation, and the channeling of all this to appear independent and/or isolated wouldn't be necessary. Nor would it be necessary to tamper with voting machines, discourage voters and invalidate their ballots, or rezone to make opposing votes invalid. In a true democracy, the system wins no matter who's elected simply because the consensus is accurate. (Of course, in a true democracy, there would be no electoral college.)

Ulterior powers behind the fine-print democracy don't simply lie to us. They take great time and expense to prevent us from declaring their lie to the world. The reason world citizens are unaware of anti-corporate sentiment in America is because the machinery of corruption and equivocation drowns it out systematically.

(This also explains why supermonkey's aversion to down-home atavism has led to tentative research into pursuing citizenship elsewhere: representing the fairer alternative isn't always worth it for harassed individuals. Harassment doesn't have to take place at the hands of police and authority figures. It can grow so entrenched in the collective dynamic that common citizens become the enforcers once the right combination of controlling symbols is activated: Eagle x Flag - Muslim + Sickle/Swastika = Insurance Companies x Gun Lobby - Universal Healthcare + Democrats.)

In situations like this, the mass hallucination of a free country never quite takes. A significant percentage of the population, however demoralized, always knows better. What's more, those who remain unaware aren't being given the truth as truth. Even private citizens who would willingly champion corporate interests under any circumstances deserve the right to so in a fairer context no matter how self-defeating their views might be. Thus, North American citizens deserve true democracy, universal health care and sufficient education to separate practical variables from charged symbols and ad hominem barking.

Nexxo's weariness of this debate is completely understandable: He's a passionate romantic attempting to tell himself that love isn't worth it. His sustained eloquence on these boards over the years is proof that he, like the rest of us on this thread, is burdened by untimely empathy.

 

This clip exposes and explains the phenomenon we've been discussing. It's also entertaining (for those who need incentive to watch).

 

I'm leaving? Why am I always the last to know?

No, I'm not leaving - at least, not any time soon. I was pondering a move to Anchorage a while back, but at the moment it's just not feasible. Other than the heat and my increasingly annoying family, I have no real reason to leave. I enjoy my job, and Houston does have a lot to offer.

The only reason I'm turning down invitations to family get-togethers is because, like Nexxo, I've grown tired of the same old debate every time. I stopped watching TV for similar reasons. But that alone isn't enough to make me want to leave town, or the country, altogether.

-monkey

 

Heheh, trending topic on Twitter:

#WeLoveTheNHS UK system: designed to help patients, sometimes fails. US system: designed to screw patients, usually succeeds

 

I don't even know if this is supposed to help or make things worse.

 

That sums it up very well.

Prestidigitwheeze is right, I suppose: cynics are just idealists in a sulk. I believe in national health care (and social care and education), and this is one of the reasons I work in the NHS. To anyone studying market forces and comparing the health costs vs. effectiveness statistics between the NHS and US private health care it should be blatantly obvious what is the better system. The UK NHS offers comparable health outcomes to US health care (and in certain key measures, better outcomes) for one-sixth of the cost.

Look at Cuba: best health care in South America, with child death rates lower than in the US (despite the US' ongoing efforts to embargo the export of drugs and medical equipment to Cuba). Conversely, look at what uncontrolled market forces have done to the state of the world economy.

When you are ill or injured, all you want is to be made better. You do not want to have to choose between 17000 superficially different (but equally expensive) products. You do not want to have to choose cut-rate health care because that is all your budget allows. The idea that free market competition cuts costs is a delusion bordering on the psychotic: comparing the price of petrol across different petrol stations provides a quick and easy reality check. Market forces do produce cheaper products --but of cheaper quality. A Daewoo is a great cheap little car, but it simply is not a Volkswagen or Lexus. Organic sausages from a butcher's are a different meat from the value range sausages you find in Iceland. And when it comes to your health you really don't want to have to rummage in the bargain basket.

Free market economy is, basically, survival of the fittest. There is no place for sick people in it.

 

Because I confused you with Cthippo in my zeal to tailor my response to you personally. Ironic, innit?

I'll have to visit that city in Texas. I've only ever been to Austin (home of the overly qualified) and San Antonio, and both places were sufficiently quirky to pique my interest. There is also my friend's continuing Austin diary: "Thursday: Watched a dead cow float downriver. . . ."

Another excellent quote, and indicative of the illogic of those who continue to disrupt the debate:

If the chief virtue of the free market is to ensure competition, then how can it be expected to support those who are unable to compete?

 

Ok i was going to stay out of this thread, until i read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8198084.stm

wow Stephen Hawking must have died years ago then. How can someone supposedly debating the future of US health care, imply that Stephan Hawking is an american and then go on to say that he would be dead if not for US health care when

What have these people been promised that makes them want to stop these debates to improve the lives and health care of every american from happening? Have the health care insurance companies bribed these people into doing things like this, or is it just about opposing obama, lest he take there guns away. Do these people genuinely not want there country to improve or do they just find this sort of thing fun?

I believe that all these people who go to try and stop these debates have just been brainwashed by other people, like Palin saying that it would produce death panels like we have in the UK apparently. Then there's the people who just think because the political party they didn't want to get into power got into power they have to try there hardest to undermine it, even when its trying to do something good for them. Also there's the "gun touting god fearing" american who just thinks that its all communist, and communism is evil (im sure Karl Marx had pure evil in his heart when he argued the virtues of communism). Also haven't these people seen star trek? If that future isn't communism i don't know what is, and i don't see them in uproar about that.

Something that really stuck out to me about the american health care system, i saw when i was about 12 at my grandmothers house. She was watching one of those american talk shows (riky lake or something) and on the show that day was the parents of a young kid that needed a heart transplant, but couldn't afford it. I think in the end they got all the money together through donations, but if it wasn't for the appearence on that talk show there daughter would have died. In the UK that wouldn't happen, they'd try there hardest to get that child a heart and not care about the money it'll cost, because they're saving someone's life. The parents wouldn't have to go through the stress of trying to get the money together to save there child and not knowing if they'd make it in time. I mean the NHS isn't perfect, but the main problem over here is that there isn't enough doners of organs, especially young children, because there parents understandably don't think there kids will die, so don't register them for organ donation, but if the organs are available if someone needs a transplant on the NHS it will get done, regardless of cost, social class, or any thing else that could influence the operation (except of course organ compatibility).

I love what this country has done in regards to the NHS, and i believe that Americans deserve a system as good as ours, even the ones who are against it, im sure they'd change there minds when they get to use it, and if not there would still be private health care for them, but unfortunately the system obama is proposing is nothing like the NHS, but people over there don't seem to realise that, and people like palin just go distorting the truth because she knows if she can defeat obama on this then she has chance to be president next election, either that or she really is that dumb.

This is not a stab at anyone here because the majority of americans (well at least 51% ) want reform, and are smart enough to see through the obvious lies, but its time america woke up to the fact that the cold war is over and your country deserves to be improved for the better.

Sometimes i think america would be better off just splitting from one country into separate states with there own laws, somewhat like the EU, then the religious extremist majority states can have laws where everyone has to go to church on sunday and you get whipped for sex without marriage, like sharia law christian style (and the people that don't agree can move), and the states where people want to improve there life quality can get free health care on the state reverse what bush did to the american education system with the "no child gets left behind" line, holding the smarter kids, and average kids back for the classes dumbest kids (might be wrong about this but thats how it sounded to me) and have world class health care and education, and reap the rewards.

Sorry if the last paragraph was extreme, but so are americas problems, and if they don't sort it out now in 20 years time when china is the worlds biggest super power and america is in decline and have missed the opportunity to put the measures in place to protect its citizens with health care, and produce citizens that can compete with china on something other than manual labour with a high class education system, then instead of being looked at as one of the best places to live in the world, i see it being one of the worst.

Feel free to shoot me down and flame me, i got quite emotive when writing this and for that i apologise, but I stick by everything ive said, no matter where we live we're all people in the end, and people deserve better than “survival of the fittest” as nexxo put it, and if a country like america, the “template for democracy” as it were, can't provide something like a health system that helps everybody, what chance to poorer countries have?

 

I must ask, do the people (excluding those who financially gain from the US system as it is) who are opposed to a NHS-like system know that they'll still be able to get private healthcare even if there is public healthcare?

 

Apparently they think if there is a system like NHS then they wont have a choice anymore to go private if they want. Which of course is a load of rubbish, but never underestimate human stupidity.

 

I have to say, I lol'd very hard at the Stephen Hawking bit. But such things does give you an idea of the ignorance of many of those fighting against. The problem in the US is that the political lobbies which exert a massive influence in Washington tend to be big business which obviously is always in favour of pure free market. This leaves the poor and less priviledged being forgotton about, while the people from the poorest states vote for the party least likely to improve their quality of life.

They are swayed by the 'Socialism is bad, mmkay' arguments, which still work due to the people buying in wholeheartedly to Cold War propaganda. The cynicism with which this is used infuriates me. As for, 'People get the the government they deserve,' Nexxo, I can't believe that you honestly think that. If these people are to stupid/ignorant/brainwashed to understand that these reforms (and more) are vital for a first world country in the 21st century, is it not people's duty to try to help them rather than abandoning them to their fate?

I cannot believe that the wealthiest country in the world has poverty and crime problems which are more akin to a third word country than a developed nation.

 

Unfortunately the lobbies opposed to the proposed healthcare reform don't seem to stand on much more than fear, disinformation and downright lies most of the time. It is highly frustrating to attempt a reasonable discussion on the matter once the average person has gotten into their head some manufactured lie about the legislation, i.e. the so-called "Obama death panel" decried by Sarah Palin and others.

To my understanding, this fear-inducing myth is based on a proposed provision that would cover "end of life counseling." This part of the proposed reform (from a Republican by the way) would cover a Living Will if the participant wanted one, as well as counseling and information related to end-of-life issues such as hospice care, etc. and the patient's own wishes regarding same. This has been deliberately distorted so that many of the townhall protesters believe the government will want to "pull the plug" on Grandma.

<face palm> This is all so very frustrating. And it fact it is getting a bit scary with the threats of violence and other stupidity against congresspeople in support of reform. Here is hoping that cooler heads prevail.

 

First of all, I have nothing but good-will that the UK system works for its citizens, and I mean that sincerely. This is not an indictment of the system and I scarcely participate in these discussions anymore because it does degrade into us v. them discussions. What I find ironic is how passionately the proponents of this plan claim this is not nationalization or socialization of the health care industry but look at this discussion, not a single person has said the same. Everyone sees the writing on the wall which brings me to these "mob" protesters. They are not protesting everything you are defending, they are protesting the overarching implications to this bill and the means by which it is being sold and passed.

Yes, I have moved, 20-odd times between 4 states over my lifetime as favorable opportunities encouraged me an as unfavorable conditions chased me. I, and my family of 4, managed just fine. Being able to vote with your feet is the last, great freedom of the federalist system and is one of the key elements of the success of the European union. Plus, You have much more intimate access to your state representatives. If I want to talk to my state legislature this week, I can do that, probably face to face. Try that with your congressman or senator let alone a Health and Human services beaurocrat that has no accountability to you.

National systems work far better? Any proof of that? - Medicare/Medicate/VA/Social Security (and we have a record deficit this month - $187Billon - are all inept and/or bankrupt (oh yeah, don't forget the postal service). Your claim of return of federal dollars disproportionate to states may or may not be true, it doesn't really matter of the accuracy but it does give a good example of how the redistribution from a centrally located planner causes decent among fellow citizens. And it is predominately these southern states that tend to want to be more independent of the federal government, why is that?

Nothing wrong with being rich - agreed. Nothing with leaning on people with means when you need help, agreed. The means by which you do it - by the end of a gun is were we part ways. What other things would you rather have that you don't and let's get the whole list written for Santa.

Defense, monetary policy and trade are all responsibilities of the federal government as defined by the constitution, throw in mediating 3rd party disputes (justice) and that really sums up the real role of the fed and I find it enlightening that you happen to use those as points in your argument instead of other more, social-related responsibilities the gov has taken on. Unless you want to redefine it, which is why everyone is getting upset at this legislation.

That explains all the small boats full of sick people flooding into Cuba from destinations all over the Americas.

The 17000 different options are not the same in cost and policy and the fact that they are not affordable to all just proves the intrusion of government via heavy handed insurance and health industry regulations has had a negative effect on the situation. State and federal mandates drive prices up. Young people that should be able to buy what they need, like catastrphic coverage have to buy coverage like accupuncture and prostate exams.

Free markets do produce lower costs and product/service diversification. I would argue that saying government involvement in the market causes such things is psychotic. Each party enters the transaction expecting to benefit in the free market or the transaction doesn't take place.

Your analogy to gas prices is looking through the hole in the barn door and ignoring the door. First, I can find different gas prices at different stations. Just this morning I passed stations charging $2.38/gal and paid $2.19 at another about 2 miles down the road but that is a local condition. Imagine if you limited the supply of oil/gas to your country to just one competitor. You would be at the mercy of the supplier and you have to ask yourself, what force could possibly limit the number of suppliers? Not the market, not a free one.

Be careful here. This IS the debate. There might be some passionate people involved in this, but I thought you of all people here would be able to see what is going on. The media likes people screaming. I could take any of the protests against Bush over the last 8 years and show you some people that would turn your stomach, that doesn't discount the movement. Look around the rooms at all of these meetings and they are full of regular working/retired people that have been stirred up and are peacefully participating (many for the first time). Just because I think it's wrong/inappropriate/counter-productive that some Code Pink protesters crash senate commitee meetings doesn't mean they don't have a point and to discount the argument over a few weird members (and don't get me wrong, there are some), is wholly short sided and shallow

First of all, consumer's don't compete, they shop. Suppliers compete for customers. We as a society secure those who can't provide for themselves via private organizations and the government. The biggest outpouring of private social services in the history of this country with creations of organizations like the Red Cross, Salvation army, boy scouts and countless others happened when there was no insurance of any kind and virtually no government intervention in the market.


Comparing our current system, which has already been tainted by socialist-like restrictions to a fully social one is not particularly academic. It's like two people trying to sell a refreshing drink, one has vinegar, the other has water. Then the guy with the vinegar pours some into the other guys container and tells him "they will never buy it, it's got vinegar in it." The answer isn't to pour more vinegar in it.

and I'm out

 

The trouble is that free market conditions only drive down prices down to the maximum profit level - it doesn't matter if this value is anywhere near the actual cost to the company, just as long as enough people are willing to pay. And when there's not much point in dying rich lots of people are willing to pay through the nose for treatment/insurance.

 

People participating in free market do maximize profits, by many means, efficiencies are a main factor. It is in the producer's interest to maximize profit, and it is in the consumer's interest to drive down prices. But you concede the drive prices down, you said so yourself.

 

Try looking towards Europe, where in many countres, the UK, France etc. we have national systems which have similar standards of care according to almost all the statistics, as well as a lower per capita spending. The only people who would lose out in these situations are the insurance companies.

They are the same in outcome, more or less. What you need is a situation where there are fewer options, I mean how many people can have a real knowledge of the pros and cons of different treatments, they will most likely choose whatever the doctor recommends, which means that patient choice is an illusion. It's the doctors, hospitals etc. which make the choices, and they sure as hell won't be looking out purely for the patien, their own self-interest, ie. money will come into play, resulting in the situation we see in the US, where spends 16% of its GDP on healthcare, compared to 8.4% in the UK, and both have similar outcomes for patients. So which is the cheaper, free-market or 'Socialism.' 1(or more)-0 to Socialism.

What happens if said young people are in and RTA and need a leg amputated and expensive rehabilitation? Lung cancer? Crohn's disease? That idea is simply ridiculous. Everyone needs complete health cover as no-one can possibly know how or when they are going to get ill.

On the other hand, the transaction must take place for the patient. People will always need healthcare. This puts the insurance companies at a massive advantage already, so it is the patient who gets screwed over. Look at the figures I quoted earlier, that's the free-market working real well, isn't it? I sure as hell would not want to have to rely on that healthcare system.

I don't see anybody here discounting the opinions. What I see are serious discussions of the flaws in the U.S. system, and using evidence and arguments to back up their point of view that a nationalised health system is far superior.

Then why not institutionalise that help, and also drive down health spending as a result. Sounds like a win-win to me. It's hardly like private healthcare will disappear, it is still alive and well in the UK. Also, you seem to be under the impression that everyone gets a good quality of healthcare in the U.S. The poor undoubtedly get a worse standard of healthcare, if any at all, and it tends to be the poor that suffer from health problems the most. A good system I think not. And a purely free market one would be even worse for the poor.

We are not comparing th current system to Socialism. We are comparing the brilliant NHS to Socialism, and saying that Socialism is not evil, when used properly, it is a massive force for good (Exhibit A - the NHS). We are not saying that this would make it more acceptable to people, we're saying that people should accept it as it is a far superior system, as well as lamenting the fact that the people who need its help the most are the people who object the most. We are not bashing the people, we feel sorry for them and wish we could help.

 

I'm not talking about the discussion here, I'm addressing the way Prestidigitweeze (and others) are catagorizing the people they see on TV and dismissing the entire argument. This discussion is completely civil

 

to get the health coverage I have now.. I'll have to pay for the nhs like everyone else, and pay for private coverage on top of that.. already pay for insurance and it's expensive- think last checked was around 600 month

don't get it twisted.. your looking at everything from one viewpoint.. not only that but when employers drop health coverage.. what about people with pre-existing conditions.. they have no way to get private coverage- no insurance company would take them and they would have to be stuck with nhs even if they can afford otherwise.. is that too much to comprehend? oh noes reality!

 

Many employers do still offer health insurance in the UK. I worked in a Surrey NHS hospital, and even there, there were very few middle class patients. Plus the NHS is no worse than private healthcare, you just get your own room and the doctors are able to top up their salaries a bit.