Obama Would Not Take His Own Health Plan
by Big Dog on Jun 25, 2009 at 21:31 Political
Barack Obama had his big infomercial on ABC last night and it looks like those poll numbers that are slipping are for real as the show had the lowest ratings of any show of the night including some reruns. Perhaps people are just tired of seeing him day in and day out. Since he is pushing this crisis in health care through and wants it done yesterday and since those without health insurance think of nothing else I would have figured he would have had 46 million viewers. I mean, he was talking about health insurance for that number of uninsured (though that is not an actual number).
He struggled the entire evening and could not make the sale. He had a hard time explaining what he wanted and he was vague in a number of areas. He received tough questions and was not very good at answering them. These are not my observation because I did not watch it. I am basing this on the observations of those who did and on the view of the network that carried it.
Obama gave away a little secret. It has long been speculated that the wealthy will not be bound by this (and Congress will be exempt) because they can afford what they want. They will not be denied care because it costs too much. Obama fits in that category. When he was asked if his family needed some treatment or care that was not covered would he live by that decision. He said that he wants his family to get the best care. In other words, as a millionaire he will ensure his wife and kids are cared for government plan be damned.
The bill is loaded with double talk and methods to disqualify the insurance you already have. It is designed to make you take government health care.
On the campaign trail Obama promised that if you liked your plan you could keep it. He said he would ensure you were not put on the government’s plan. Now he is saying that if your employer drops coverage then he can’t control that. He promised that you could keep it so he should find a way to keep that promise. Perish the thought. He wants us all on the government plan.
A commenter here likes to say that those without insurance or those with inadequate insurance are a burden to us all. We are all paying for them and they are a drain on society. Even if you pay your own medical bills he claims you are a burden and that your risks are built into his premiums (that is how a risk business works. Same for car insurance, homeowner’s insurance, etc).
What seems to be missing is that with government run insurance those of us who pay taxes ARE paying for everyone else’s insurance. A government run program is paid for with our tax money so we will be paying for the health care anyway.
The British hate their system and the Canadians have it no better. Those who are satisfied with it are the ones who do not get sick. Once they get ill and require a lot of care they rapidly find out how bad it is.
Obama failed to seal the deal. He made it clear that he would not adhere to it if it meant his family could not get care.
If it is not good enough for Obama and his family then it is not good enough for the rest of us. We are his employers and he should not forget that.
Say no to Socialized medicine.
Big Dog salute to Stop the ACLU.
Related:
John Lott
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: abc, health care, no deal, Obama, socialism
This is just one more reminder that the private sector and competitive market forces, not the federal government, are the best means to meeting our country’s rapidly expanding health care needs.
I was looking for a way to try and do something positive about it, and just signed a petition with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce here to help emphasize that. We need to get involved!
The man hemmed and hawed when it was pointed out that the government plan would push out any private sector insurance- “It does not make any sense that private sector companies would not be able to compete with the government.”
Oh really? The government would set the bar so low that other companies would not be able to compete.
What do you expect from a man who does not know how the world works?
A government run insurance company would bottom line the wrong priorities, and wasting money on $300.00 boxes of Kleenex.
That’s Change we don’t need.
Bigd: “The British hate their system and the Canadians have it no better.”>>
DAR
Let’s do a little checking.
“National Picture — In 2005, the majority (85%) of Canadians were very or somewhat satisfied with the health care services they received in 2005.”
http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=7
Let’s look at the Brits. First a bit on cost:
***
…in 2003, the per capita out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare in the U.S. were $722; while in the UK they were only $208.
…with numbers extrapolated for inflation, the average resident of the UK would have saved somewhere around $30,000 over their U.S. counterpart.
But that’s just the difference in out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket costs are nothing compared with a nation’s overall medical expenses….
…the 2005 per capita cost for health care in the U.S. was $5,290 while in the UK it was only $2,230. That’s $3,060 per person per year. Over the course of a lifetime that sort of money adds up. In simple terms it means that [a UK persons] lifetime health needs will cost his society about $180,000 less then our own [US] will cost us.
…According to a 2002 survey of U.S. taxpayers earning between $25,000 and $50,000 per year conducted by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, 22 percent of middle class Americans postponed receiving care. Twenty-three percent had problems paying for the care they did receive and 13 percent did not get necessary drug prescriptions filled.”
Back to satisfaction: US
“Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system’s costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation’s health care system, including 54 percent “very” dissatisfied.
Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.
Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs — a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change. While the system is seen to have gaps, flaws and an uncertain future, it’s also seen to work for most people.
Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively….
Still, cost concerns are prompting some evasive action: Nearly one in four Americans, 23 percent, say they or someone in their family put off medical treatment in the last year because of the cost. (Among uninsured people, this soars to 49 percent.)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
(Date: 2003)
Gallop did a careful job here and asked the same questions in the US, UK and Canada.
Result:
“It is a testament to national health systems that people in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts are.
On a less relative basis, the fact that 72% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and 50% are dissatisfied with the quality of medical care are cause for concern. Regardless of how these numbers measure up to those in Canada and Great Britain, they indicate that the U.S. healthcare system has considerable room for improvement.”
Lot’s more detail Gallop
So we see, your claim does not stand up.
D.
No, it holds up quite well. The idea that people are satisfied deals with a number of things. The major innovations in medicine come from our country and the costs for the best care in the world are more. The report is quite easy, those in Britain and Canada who are satisfied have not suffered anything more than a minor illness or injury. Those who have had more serious problems become quickly disillusioned with the care.
Americans expect top notch and will not settle for the rationing that happens in Canada and Britain. Polls are nice and they can be extensive but they are not the be all end all. You last NYT poll was Obama voters 2:1 over McCain voters which certainly skewed results.
The studies show that Canadians come to America and Brits come to America for treatment because it is the best and you will get it immediately or as close to that as can be. I know those claims about Americans going to other countries but those seem to be for care or treatment that is not approved in the US like certain drugs or procedures. Only wealthy people can do this which once again shows the wealthy will get what they want and need but the less fortunate will be stuck with what they are told. Obama admitted as much in his infomercial.
A 2004 study shows the myths of the Canadian system.
From a 2002 Mises article
Take individuals in Canada who suffer from large kidney stones, for example. In the USA, a procedure called lithotripy is readily available. (This method uses sound waves to break up large stones so individuals can more easily pass them.) Canadian medical authorities, on the other hand, rarely make such treatment available and make those victims of kidney stones deal with them in the most painful way. (Not all U.S. kidney stone sufferers are given lithotripy, but they almost always receive more intensive care than do Canadians.)
Since all medical prices are controlled by the Canadian authorities, treatment of kidney stones is less expensive north of the border, at least on paper. However the real costs are borne by the consumers of such medical malpractice. It may be cheaper according to some accounting ledgers to make people stand in line and wait (and wait and wait) for basic health care, not to mention needed surgery, but when one factors in all the opportunity costs, suddenly Canadian medicine is no longer so cheap.
The best care in the world comes at a price.
About reporting health statistics. If people are denied or forced to wait for care for certain ailments and die waiting then how their death is reported makes a big deal for the statistics.
In Baltimore the crime stats are manipulated and police shoo criminals away instead of arresting them. Murders are reported as a single when a number of folks die if they are ever reported as a murder. The result is that the crime stats “seem” to be improving when it is not true. Even Baltimore cannot keep from being on the bad city list despite the numbers manipulating. That same manipulation can occur in reporting mortality rates.
The only people who are happy with the Canadian or British system are those who do not have to use it.
My friends in England can’t wait to come here because they hate what they have there. And my friends work in the health care system…
No, your claim doesn’t hold up at all. You don’t respond to my points and just repeat the same old jingoistic junk (“we have the best care in the world”) as if simply repeating something makes it true.
When Gallop asked the Canadian’s and the Brits and the Americans the same question about satisfaction with the health care system, the US gets creamed. You can’t just dismiss this with a hand wave and a claim that those people haven’t been sick. That’s ridiculous. Read the data, look at the charts. Get informed.
Bigd: The idea that people are satisfied deals with a number of things.>>
DAR
Yes, but it is the greatest indicator of the populaces satisfaction with their, healthcare, system. Obviously! And when you ask this question of the people who live in these respective countries “the US gets creamed.” Now you might ask yourself why that is. I happen to know.
I bet if you did a poll of satisfaction with the postal systems, the US would win and Canada (at least) would get creamed. This is because the Canadian postal system (as I remember) notoriously lousy, and the US postal system is very good.
But for some reason, the US just can’t get it’s health care act together and this is borne out when we ask the people living under the different systems. Again we see the US system spends for more, and gets worse results.
BIGD: The major innovations in medicine come from our country and the costs for the best care in the world are more.>>
DAR
Actually, that’s a little nationalistic rubbish. The US health care spending (much of it government/socialist) dwarfs other countries so we would expect it to produce a lot of innovation. But we find the US wastes even more money on advertising designer drugs than it spends on R & D. Tiny Canada, with the population of California, actually produces a disproportionately higher percentage of medical innovations. Maybe it’s all of those billions they save from not feeding 1,300 insurance companies and not wasting 100’s of billions on drug advertising.
Bigd: The report is quite easy, those in Britain and Canada who are satisfied have not suffered anything more than a minor illness or injury.>>
DAR
You pulled that one, directly from your bum. A scientific poll, as this was, of the three countries, should have the same ratio of sick people in the response pool. Your excuse makes *no* sense.
Bigd: Americans expect top notch and will not settle for the rationing that happens in Canada and Britain.>>
DAR
What a LOAD. Americans already experience and put up with rationing and perhaps even more of it. This is how insurance companies make and increase their profit, by denying care. That’s their job! This is why some hospitals have up to one billing clerk *per hospital bed* to try and negotiate with the insurance companies as they try to *ration care* and make more money. Oh, and those insurance companies all of people on the other end of line talking to those billing clerks. And we are all, collectively, paying their wages. This is a national farce.
You like to say the US has the “best care in the world.” I can bury you in scientific studies showing otherwise, in a range of categories.
Bigd: A 2004 study shows the myths of the Canadian system…>>
DAR
You tried this article before and I read it and responded to it. You apparently didn’t read it or understand it. It is specifically about Canadian medicare and the fellow, a rightwing hack on your rightwing Heritage site is still honest enough to finish with:
“Now, like most Canadians, I believe that our system is superior in many respects to the U.S. system…”
LOL.
Bigd: “[and] a 2002 Mises article…”
DAR
I already read and responded to this article. You ignored it.
Be wary of citing material from the Mises people. They aren’t taken seriously outside of anarcho-capitalist, extreme libertarian, Randian Objectivist circles. And with good reason. Nuttery gone to seed.
D.
There is no CRISIS in health care here in the United States that I have been aware of. Anyone can go to an emergency and get treated, they even have the in writing in English AND Spanish right in the lobby of the hospitals. Most of the people in the U.S. that do not have health insurance, don’t think they need it yet or think having fancy tv’s and cars are more important…the only place there is a CRISIS is in the dems mind.
Yes, because this is a way to begin to CONTROL the people through the government- there will be other ways to make them dependent on nanny government. This is the goal os Socialists, and the pathway to power in their minds.
I see, when you cite left wing sources for your supposed great Canadian or British care then it is OK but right wing sources are hacks.
Got it.
Of course all the Brits I know hate their system.
Does this poll from 2004 have anything worthy for you?
The poll, with a margin of error of ± 2.8% 19 times out of 20, indicates:
* Barely one in 10 Canadians (14%) now believes that that the country has an adequate supply of physicians, a significant decline since 1999 (35%).
* That latter finding is reflected by data showing that 49% of Canadians, or a member of their household, had to wait “longer than you thought was reasonable” to see a specialist within the past year. That is up from 31% in 1999, the year the CMA began conducting polls on access-to-care issues.
* Similarly, 38% of respondents offered the same response when asked about access to family physicians, up from 21% in 1999.
* Concern about access to advanced diagnostic procedures has also risen significantly. When asked if they had to wait “longer than you thought was reasonable” for these procedures in the past year, 31% of respondents answered affirmatively this year, compared with only 14% in 1999.
Source
Bigd: “you cite left wing sources for your supposed great Canadian or British care then it is OK but right wing sources are hacks.”>>
DAR
No, I often cite university studies and peer reviewed science. Are you trying to pretend that Gallop is a “left wing source?”
The Heritage Society is a right-wing thinktank that puts out all rightwing, all the time. It’s as if I quoted something put out by moveon. It doesn’t mean it is false, it means there is reason to be very skeptical of their claims. I read your articles and gave specific reasons why they didn’t accomplish what you wish.
BIGD: “Of course all the Brits I know hate their system.”>>
DAR
Maybe you should get to know some who aren’t whiners. This scientific poll by Gallop (which carefully asked the same questions of each country) trumps you talking about “the Brits” you “know.”
BIGD: Does this poll from 2004 have anything worthy for you?>>
DAR
Not really. It’s put out by a Newfie medical association, with ill defined terms (“longer than you thought was reasonable”?) with the clear goal of pushing people to appeal for more doctors and more medical care. That’s reasonable. Of course people are going to yeah, give us more doctors! People always want more of those and Canada does have problems with a shortages of doctors (and probably nurses). SO DOES the US, especially in rural areas. Note: Canada has *a lot* of rural areas.
Theirs is more pronounced because of the obvious geographical and weather conditions. It’s hard to keep a doctor or nurse in a small remote area when he can make a hell of a lot more money sucking on the giant healthcare TEAT here in the US. If the US gets a sensible system and removes some of the massive waste and bloat, this will probably help Canada better hold on to it’s medical professionals.
It’s a geographical and sparse population problem then, and I see no reason to think the situation would be improved (but rather would be worse) if Canada had a US type system. But no politician would DARE mention such a thing in Canada. It would be the kiss of death. He would be laughed off the stage. Canadians are very aware of the US mess, so when they whine it is not in order to get anything like what the US has. They’re not saying: “Please give us a thousand for profit healthcare companies!”
As I mentioned, Canadians were “asked to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country’s health care system.”
So what is the cure? They can throw more money at it. Canada did underfund their medical system in the 90’s, now they are playing catch up in some areas.
But as the Gallop poll showed, when asked the very same questions, they are far most satisfied with their system and access, than Americans.
My sister is studying to be a nurse assistant in Vancouver BC. She is on some fast track and in a year she will be on the job and making $27 an hour. I’ll be staying with her some this summer and will see what I can learn.
D.
I watched a review of Canadian healthcare vs. American (existing) healthcare, and it wasn’t even close. Some in Canada have begun opening for- profit clinics for those willing to pay to forego the interminable wait for care of any kind. They are tired of faceless bureaucrats determining their fate, and they do not want to have to travel to the US for good care.
BLK: I watched a review…>>
DAR
Blake is careful not to even cite his reference here. He’s knows it’ll get roasted.
BLK: “…of Canadian healthcare vs. American (existing) healthcare, and it wasn’t even close.>>
DAR
Well here is: “The most comprehensive study that was ever under taken on the two health care systems.” It was done “jointly by Harvard University and McMasters University:
Overall, 14 of the 38 studies showed better outcomes in Canada, while only 5 favored the U.S. The remaining 19 studies showed equivalent or mixed results in the two nations. When the studies were combined statistically, the mortality rate was 5% lower in Canada.”
Link
DAR
So unlike your unreferenced “review” you watched on the Tee Vee, they did find it was “close,” but in fact, Canada’s results were a little better.
BLK: the interminable wait for care of any kind.>>
DAR
Already roasted, over and over. Hey Blake [you freeloading no insurance mooch], when you get sick and have a big health expense, what is your wait time going to be? Will it be based upon how long it takes to sell your house and that spare motor for your pickup? If you have a house. And what is the wait time for the tens of millions of renters who have no savings to wipe out? Infinite. Or they can go bankrupt (5,700 per day) and after so delay, maybe find a provider who will EAT THE COST and pass it along to ME. Talk about socialism! You’re welcome.
BLK: “…do not want to have to travel to the US for good care.”>>
DAR
Let’s spank that one again. I did some more checking. They took a huge survey and found:
“Only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 Canadian National Population Health Survey indicated they had received health care in America in the past year, and only 20 of these had gone to the U.S. specifically for that purpose.”
I know you aren’t very good at math Blake but let me point out that when you only have 20 people out of 18,000 doing something (.11%), it’s not really an issue.
It’s worth pointing out that some of the small number of those who do receive care in the US fall into these categories:
a) care given to Canadians while traveling in the U.S.,
b) Canadians working in the U.S. on business travel,
c) Canadians who move to the U.S. during the winter to avoid the cold (“snowbirds”).
d) For some it is more convenient to go to the U.S. than to travel long distances to healthcare facilities due to simple proximity.
D.
Are not those institutions extremely liberal?
Only 90 answered that they had not gone elsewhere for treatment. Isn’t it against the law in Canada to do that? If so, why would anyone admit to committing a crime?
BIGD: “Are not those institutions extremely liberal?>>
DAR
No, they’re extremely learned. But truth does seem to have a liberal bias.
BIGD: Only 90 answered that they had not gone elsewhere for treatment.>>
DAR
No, you have it backwards. Only 90, of the 18,000 said they went to the US. And only 20 of those (.11%), did so for medical reasons.
Bigd: Isn’t it against the law in Canada to do that?>>
DAR
No. Don’t be ridiculous. Not only can they come to the US when they want (of course), they can also go to Cuba, and do so all of the time. Free country and all that ya know. Wish we had that option.
Bigd: If so, why would anyone admit to committing a crime?>>
DAR
Cause it’s not a crime huckleberry. LOL.
Good grief.
(My Canadian wife is rolling her eyes now and asking me to please stop “playing with the morons.”)
D.