Sunday Guests Fret Public Naivete on ObamaCare Benefits as Friedman Blames Poor Communication
Reeling from the possibility the Supreme Court might undermine ObamaCare, two members in good standing of the liberal media elite, both with the New York Times, took to the Sunday shows to lament the lack of public recognition for the great benefits of the law. “On health care,” columnist Tom Friedman rationalized on NBC’s Meet the Press, “that’s partly a failure of communication.”
A befuddled Friedman advanced the liberal narrative that blames communication, not facts, as he wondered: “How do you go a year and a half where so many Americans don’t even understand the benefits of this legislation when they apply to them? And that gets to this administration, which I think has been abysmal at communicating some of its most important agenda items.”
That framework would make a lot more sense if applied to a conservative President facing a media hostile to his policies. That’s certainly not th case with this administration where the media have been consistently promoting Obamacare.
(Actor George Clooney offered a similar formulation on last week’s Meet the Press: "George Clooney: If Obama Were a Republican He’d Be Considered ‘Very Successful’”)
Over on ABC’s This Week, Matt Bai assured the roundtable the public will come around to embracing the benefits once they realize “all the good things that could come” from ObamaCare:
The history of big social legislation like this that there is this period before it kicks in, before people get used to the benefits, where there’s a lot of anxiety. The government is doing something big, it’s expensive, and then the benefits kick in and people start to build their life decisions around it and suddenly it’s an entitlement and you can just never change it, even if you should. We’re still in that interregnum period here. And I think there’s a lot of anxiety in the public, but there’s not a sense of all the good things that could come...People aren’t really aware of what the law does in a lot of cases.
Bai stumbled into why conservatives are so anxious to kill ObamaCare: Once people become dependent on it, “you can just never change it.”
From the April 1 Meet the Press roundtable, moderated by Joe Scarborough who cued up Friedman:
TOM FRIEDMAN: On all these big issues -- energy, health care, education -- we seem only capable of sub-optimal solutions. Sub-optimal solutions that lack any kind of, you know, planning, due diligence. Everything feels like some Rube Goldberg contraption that we cobble together at the last minute.
JOE SCARBOROUH: In this case, Tom, we cobble together a piece of legislation that Chuck Schumer is saying, a year and a half later, the American people don’t understand but when they understand it, two-thirds of them won’t be against it. Doesn’t that just speak -- they’re the problem.
FRIEDMAN: Yeah, there are two issues there I say. How long do we remain a great country when all we can do, on biggest challenges we face, are produce sub-optimal outcomes. On health care -- that’s partly a failure of communication, it seem to me. How do you go a year and a half where so many Americans don’t even understand the benefits of this legislation when they apply to them? And that gets to this administration, which I think has been abysmal at communicating some of its most important agenda items.
From the roundtable on ABC’s This Week:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to bring this to you, Matt Bai, a lot of debate on if this goes down – let’s assume that for just a second – how big a blow this is to President Obama or is it in some way liberating to him going into the general election?
MATT MAI, NEW YORK TIMES: You know, for reasons Terry [Moran] was just talking about, I think it’s kind of a political loser either way for the President in a sense, because the history of big social legislation like this that there is this period before it kicks in, before people get used to the benefits, where there’s a lot of anxiety. The government is doing something big, it’s expensive, and then the benefits kick in and people start to build their life decisions around it and suddenly it’s an entitlement and you can just never change it, even if you should. We’re still in that interregnum period here. And I think there’s a lot of anxiety in the public, but there’s not a sense of all the good things that could come.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, some of the benefits.
BAI: Some have kicked in. But the exchanges don’t go up until 2014. People aren’t really aware of what the law does in a lot of cases. So, I think for the President to be re-litigating this, either legally or politically, is actually not especially helpful for him politically.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yea, sure
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 3:52pm.
The GREAT orator didn't communicate the law well enough, that's why we all hate it and understand it to be the tyranny that it is. Had he communicated it better, I would have embraced the tyrannical march.
2700 pages. Maybe Obama should learn more than 3 things about it. No one fully knows what's in it. That was THE POINT OF IT, stoops!
They cannot communicate what they haven't read
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 9:14am.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi cannot tell anyone all that is in this monster bill, because they haven't read it. They rely on staffers and the lobbyists who wrote it to feed them talking points about all the goodness.
Not even Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who co-sponsored the bill, read it. When asked if he had read it, he replied that he didn't because it's written in legal jargon that he doesn't understand.
They have done a poor job communicating what is in the bill, because they'd rather not get caught looking like a deer in the headlights when people ask them questions about the specifics.
2700+ pages of legislation and the knowledge that most Dems have of it probably doesn't fill a page.
I believe they assumed that most Americans would be so thrilled with a few PowerPoint bullets that we wouldn't want to know the details. They now know that their assumption was wrong -- we're not a dumb as they take us to be.
A note to Friedman ... If the
Submitted by Captain Repus on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 3:57pm.
A note to Friedman ... If the Supremes overturn Dr Obama it is for one reason only - THE LAW VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ... perhaps the terms and conditions of this old document haven't been adequately communicated to you my friend. I personally don't know a single person who doesn't fully understand what Obamacare is and isn't.
Many junior colleges around the country offer classes on the constitution. Perhaps you should attend one of them you partisan moron.
When the battle began with
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:22pm.
When the battle began with the Catholic Church over contraseption people woke up. They wanted to know whar else was in the bill. Contraseption was not in there. It came from the twisted mind of Sebilius. If it is not stopped she is going to take a lot more liberties when writting the rules.
this is a point I OFTEN make...
Submitted by dmacleo on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:37pm.
Sec of HHS was given unprecedented powers to do whatever he/she wants. its BAD.
Yep
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:17pm.
We've already gotten an inkling of it, including HHS's granting of waivers to over 1400 organizations. If Obamacare stands, we likely to see burdensome HHS regulation unleashed on us.
Should a little thing like that matter?
Submitted by Russian55 on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 1:47am.
I've actually heard people say things like: A little thing like the Constitution shouldn't be allowed to stop President Obama from doing what he wants. Neither should the Republican control of the House.
After all, the people elected Obama to represent us.
Honestly, there are people who BELIEVE this weird line of reasoning. They don't understand why the Senate should be allowed to stop Obama from putting whoever he wants on the Supreme Court or even REMOVING the ones that disagree with him.
And we let these idiots vote....
---
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords in the first place!
Really?...I have never heard anyone say anything even
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 2:07am.
remotely like that, publicly or privately, about Obama or any other US President in my entire life.
That aside, we're very happy you're now in this country, and that you are as well. You certainly appear to be.
Jer
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 2:37am.
I spend a lot of time associating with black people. The body shop that does the work on my son's show car is all black. I also get to listen to the black radio stations a lot. If you want to hear these things hang around black people on a personal level and listen to their radio jocks promote these ideas. Obama is given a total pass and can do no wrong in their eyes due to racial profiling. We do not allow racism to affect our friendship but it does affect our politics.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening, cocodrie.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 3:01am.
Are you assuming I haven't associated with and don't hang around black people on a personal level? If you are, you are profoundly mistaken.
I don't listen to black radio stations a lot, but I've listened enough to have heard some pretty extreme and troubling remarks about politics and race.
That said, I still have never heard anyone of any color at any time or at any place state that Obama--or any other president--can do whatever he wants regardless of the Constitution.
Jer
Jer then you must have mighty
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 10:48am.
Jer then you must have mighty selective hearing.
➚Statistically speaking
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 10:58am.
Statistically speaking, why should black people care about things like politics and taxes?
Please excuse me for this moment of clarity. Any minute now, I will revert to the inane.
Here you go.
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 12:57pm.
Gov. Jack Markell, the Democratic governor of Delaware and the vice chairman of the National Governors Association, told The Hill that the meeting was “very good” and said many of the governors were responsive to ideas about bypassing Congress.
So there. Now you've heard something remotely close to it. Pretty darn close actually. Plenty more lamentations from lefties about how Obama should bypass congress. He did, come to think of it, when
And there are many more. In fact, he has a campaign called "We Can't Wait", which is directed at exactly that; bypassing congress when he doesn't get what he wants.
Tom,,,,
Submitted by fivestring_assassin on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:04pm.
Perhaps the reason this is so unpopular is BECAUSE people know what's in this law????
Ever think of that????
Naw, he's just a typical lib
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:08pm.
Thinks cause he cant get a grip, no-one can.
America will remain a great
Submitted by d1carter on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:07pm.
America will remain a great country when we remove the propagandists in the legacy media...
More exposure of the leftist
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:15pm.
Would certainly be beneficial to the Nation. The media is pathetic these days.
Want to hear them squeal like a pig?
Submitted by Bodini on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:44pm.
Want to hear them squeal like a pig? Propose a 50% federal tax on advertising revenue!
Friedman
Submitted by CivilWarGuy on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 12:11am.
Friedman's spouse, an heiress, has given at least $50,000 to the Democratic Party and Obama.
Anyone surprised to learn this?
Let's sum it up.......
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:40pm.
S.S., D.D.
Many (most?) U.S. citizens
Submitted by Car 54 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:47pm.
Many (most?) U.S. citizens are low information voters; those who don’t pay attention to legislation or elections until the last minute and single source voters who get all of their news information from biased outlets such as Fox News. A prime example of this is the hundreds of tea partiers who walked around with signs that read “Get your government out of my Medicare.” They weren’t even aware that their cherished Medicare is a Government program. This is because they don’t pay attention to reality and live in a bubble-enclosed world of conservative punditry.
While it is true that the Obama administration didn’t fight back in an organized fashion, chalk up the low polling numbers to Obamacare (an early right wing jab from Frank Luntz) to the high highly organized and endless right wing disinformation campaign.
I guarantee you, if the tea party crowd knew all of the benefits they are now receiving and will eventually receive from Obamacare, their signs would read “Keep your Government hands of my Obamacare!”
The United States is the only advanced, prosperous nation in the world that does not have some form of government sponsored/supported healthcare for its citizens. Most other advanced nations view nationalized healthcare as a human right . It’s sad, really, when you think about it. How many on this site alone benefit by having their older children able to stay on the family health plan, the closing of the doughnut hole for older seniors, the mobility and lifestyle improvements afforded by not being kicked off your plans for pre-existing conditions? The CBO estimates that when people stop going to emergency rooms for routine healthcare (because it is the only way they can get it), the average family plan will cost $1,000 less per year than it does now. That’s right, people flocking to emergency rooms cost people with healthcare plans about $1,000 a year.
But no, it’s about principle, my friends. Paying $500 a year in a penalty because you can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it is way beyond the pale.
~Mummy, but Mummy, everyone else has one! *snivel*
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:50pm.
The United States is the only advanced, prosperous nation in the world that does not have some form of government sponsored/supported healthcare for its citizens.
When did Medicaid and Medicare vanish into thin air, and why didn't anyone tell me?
Sorry, I meant healthcare all
Submitted by Car 54 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:45pm.
Sorry, I meant healthcare all thier respective citizens, not just the poor and elderly.
~Oh, so you want the government to pay for the rich
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:49pm.
and physically able, as well?
Tell me, where does the government get it's money from?
Wrathful
Submitted by Car 54 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:24pm.
Here is a link to the list of developed nations with universal health care. I suggest you take a look at it because the countries have a range of approaches. http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-b...
The opening paragraph states:
“Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception [1]. The following list, compiled from WHO sources where possible, shows the start date and type of system used to implement universal health care in each developed country [2]. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.”
Enjoy! But remember, being the dead last developed nation without universal healthcare is not a badge of honor, nor is it ethical or moral.
In terms of where the money comes from, most countries adopt universal healthcare because it saves the citizens money. Big time.
You must be a FORD
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:35pm.
Found on the road dead
For all practical purposes we now have universal health care. Anyone, including half of Mexico can get treatment just by going to an emergency room or to a free clinic. What you want is federal bureaucratic control of our medical decisions. I'd rather have my doctor tell me what treatment he desires for me than have Present Obabble tell me to go home and die and offer to have someone help me enter eternity.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
cocodrie ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:36pm.
Car 54 = Fixed Or Repaired Daily.
Yep.
Ford.
MD
Also...
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:54pm.
Go join and post on the Daily Beast. They agree with poorly thought out screeds and have a whole plethera of "everyone knows" knowlege that is completely wrong but serves as a short hand for the logic of your arguments.
Go home!
Hope they can help you with that...
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:49pm.
A universal health care system in this country would immediately collapse of its own weight ! Once we have to take care of all of the liberals born with out a brain (that is all of them) there is no way to pay for it.
Don't worry car 54
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:59pm.
Obama will solve the problem healing the poor and elderly. His death panels will assist them in leaving this world without wasting money on treatment.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
That's why it's good, my little Socialist
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:59pm.
Thank you for explaining why our medical system is so much better than those other countries.
When I had pneumonia, I was more than happy to pay my $150 out-of-pocket deductible to get in and out of the hospital in three hours, rather than sit and suffer while some government bureaucrats decided what to do, whether it was in the budget for them to treat a pneumonia case.
Governments that pamper and baby their people, like you so badly want in this country, are governments of countries that are going absolutely nowhere.
Medical treatment is not now, nor has it ever been, a human right. Start a charity if you are so ridden with guilt over it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Good evening Bru
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:54pm.
We should never have allowed the private sector to provide our medical care and our health insurance.The private companies have saddled us with the finest medical system in the world. We should be ashamed of ourselves for leaving the rest of the world in the position of sending their people here for treatment. Instead of coming here for healing they could have stayed home and died of involuntary suicide.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
~It's a funny thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:56pm.
Back before the government got involved in healthcare it didn't cost so much. A coincidence, I'm sure.
LOL, health insurance is going to go DOWN $1,000/yr?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 5:12pm.
Better check with CBO on that one, dope.
Oopps, checked it! This from
Submitted by Car 54 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:53pm.
Oopps, checked it! This from the socialist rag Forbes Magazine. Other studies are sited on the Google, which you can personally check at Google.com.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/12/early-signs-that-obamac...
“The pay-off?
When measuring the change in health care costs for those participants who increased their visits to a primary care physician during the three year period while decreasing the number of visits to the emergency room, the study reveals that, on average, the total annual health care costs per enrollee fell from $8,899 in year one, to a startling $4,569 in year three—an almost 50 percent decline in the cost of health care per individual.
That’s a pretty huge savings.”
If you do the math, $4,500 in annual savings per individual times the 30,000,000 currently not covered is $135,000,000,000 of savings per year. You may want to read the entire Forbes article, as you may find it enlightening. Unless now because of this they are a RINO rag.
Figures lie, and liars ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:54pm.
figure.
Go figure, 54.
MD
Forbes Magazine has gone RINO?
Submitted by Car 54 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:30pm.
My, oh, my, my my!
Savings? How?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:01pm.
Considering those who are measuring the "savings" also control the reimbursement, this is illusory savings at best. If you drop the price but increase the quantity the net savings disappears. That $4,500 annual savings also does not include the number of people with catastrophic illnesses and the study is not adjusted for severity of illness, pre-existing medical conditions or other factors which are used in the calculation of standard health insurance underwriting requirements at the policy-making level.
As with ANY medical literature, the observed savings are applicable ONLY to that study population. It is not generalizable to the United States because of potential dissimilarities in underlying demographics, costing/reimbursement strategies and it was not constructed as a predictive economic model.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Stupidio 54, but you are citing a study which has limitations in and of itself. The authors would be smart enough to denote in the manuscript that more work would be needed in a larger patient population to prove out their observations. No single study is ever taken to automatically change any health care practice.
Car 54 + Studio 54 ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:11pm.
equals Stupidio 54.
Good one, doc sam.
MD
Interesting
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:03pm.
I never have understood the argument about "health care costs" and why they MUST BE REDUCED.
To me, that's just the talk of nosy busybodies who are bothered by how others choose to spend their money.
Like you, as you are a very big nosy busybody.
Anyways, if it is so wonderful to have the government pamper and baby people, can you explain why countries in Europe are going broke over this?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Do you realize that once you "give" people
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:07pm.
free doctor visits, they will utilize them, even if they don't need them. So this will add to the cost because more people will be going to the doctor because they don't see the money coming directly out of their own pocket.
NHS, anyone?
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:23pm.
This is EXACTLY what happened to the NHS in Britain when it was introduced. William I. Hitchcock chronicles this in his book The Struggle For Europe.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:31pm.
My dad was an ophthalmologist. Back in the day, Mack Truck's insured it's workers and they were entitled to a free eye exam every two years. You can bet every two years they were in like clockwork (they were allowed to come on company time, sweet deal). As things progressed and the costs of Mack Trucks increased and the quality didn't, the company revised some of it's benefits. No longer did workers get free exams every two years.
I'm sure you're not surprised to find out Mack workers no longer came for eye exams every two years.
It's my same issue with medicare. My MIL was always at the doctor because she didn't have to pay as much as $5 out of pocket, so she always wanted to see a doctor. This is so going to blow up in our faces.
I have never met a soul who
Submitted by Car 54 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:42pm.
I have never met a soul who has gone to the doctor just for the heck of it. “Hey, I have some time to kill, let’s go for a rectal exam!” “I haven’t had my legs up in stirrups for almost a month. Time for a doctor visit, because I miss it sooo much!”
The reality is, annual checkups and preventative medicine are far less expensive that treating diseases that have that have long progressed. That is where the savings are.
But hey, if you like people in white coats pokin’ and probin’ places where the sun don't shine, all power to ya!
Car54
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:43pm.
Then you don't take care of older people do you? Or lonely people? Older people have a lot of aches and pains, and they like to see doctors and chat. It gets them out of the house, the people in the office are friendly and sympathetic.
I really don't care if you believe me or not, because I've lived it, working in a doctor's office and taking care of an elderly mother and mother in law. I'm not saying anyone should be denied a visit, but just that they should have, as your hero would say, some skin in the game.
You can add hypochondriacs,
Submitted by ThatDude on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:58pm.
You can add hypochondriacs, children of parent's who freak out over every little sniffle, and druggies (make the drugs free, and people will more actively seek excuses to get them.) Add to the list scammers of all sorts. It opens up more options to people who want to scam disability.
Also, considering that I work at a retirement home, I can confirm that many older people do go to the hospital out of boredom on top of the all too regular visits attendant to degrading health.
There are multiple mental illnesses for doc-seeking.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 11:36pm.
The first and most common are the drug-seeking behaviors of addicts. Typically, addicts have other psychiatric co-morbidities which is what we really try to treat in addition to whatever their substance(s) of abuse might be. Substance abusers are the toughest patients to treat because they will do, say and act in any manner necessary to get their drugs. Kind of like Democrats in an election cycle.
The second is the older terminology of hypochondria. Hypochondria arises from multiple mental illnesses, such as cluster B personality disorders focused on self and aggrandizement/attention to self. Another facet is conversion disorder, often termed "mass hysteria", something we saw a LOT during the various H1N1, SARS and anthrax scares. Oh Good Lord did we see that during the H1N1 scare in Texas. Another facet is a mood disorder with a combined personality disorder outside of cluster B. A good example of this is the OCD patient who is obsessed with communicable diseases and the compulsion manifested as hyper-cleanliness. What a combo--difficult to treat and difficult to see in the office because they want you to wipe down everything with bleach or some disinfectant product. The last bit of hypochondria-type behavior arises from dissociative disorders combined with personality disorders. The classic example is the parent with Munschausen's by Proxy Disorder. It really is not, per se, a singular diagnosis, but rather a combination of sociopathy (e.g. known cases where children were intentionally injured) to provoke attention and sympathy for the affected parent from health care professionals and staff. The second manifestation is really an attention-seeking or cluster B predominance with a schizophrenia component.
The idea that people do not go see the doctor to do something other than get an acute medical situation or for a preventative health examination is simply not true. Most of my practice would not exist on the psychiatry side otherwise.
Blonde is right, 54, you do sound like an ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:48pm.
infamous, oft banned
obnoxioussuperciliousliberal troll.Your first paragraph indicates perfectly the fact that you reside in la-la land.
MD
~Logic fail
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:50pm.
Anything perceived as 'free' or even discounted, is automatically more sought after.
And, usually, if it's "free",
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:51pm.
the rest of us can't afford it. But Toody or Muldoon doesn't care, he's counting on "free" because I doubt he has any "skin in the game".
For our reality deprived nosy busybody Socialist
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:59pm.
I suggest you go to Britain, or read Hitchcock's book for some enlightening information on that. Once you remove the price mechanism from something, and declare it "free", it is then open to abuse.
The exact same thing happens in Japan.
The reality is, annual checkups and preventative medicine are far less expensive that treating diseases that have that have long progressed. That is where the savings are. The reality is, nosy busybody, is that all those annual checkups and preventative medicine didn't do SQUAT to prevent me from getting surgery performed last year for a condition any doctor could have and should have seen.
Oh, and when I got the surgery done, I wasn't insured. Period. So I paid out of pocket after finding some awesome doctors my family was aware of.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Universal health care
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 8:03pm.
Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch." It will merely delude people into thinking there is one. To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now? Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now. If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving? No, because there would be no incentive to. But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.
The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do. Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves? Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts. This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage".
The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only. In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system. (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care. France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time! This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.) Take a look at the history of Britain's NHS for an example.
Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south. Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.
I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program. (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.) But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them. While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy. And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity. The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor. The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200. The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south. I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.
Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.
2004: U.S.
2003: U.S. /U.K.
2002: U.S. /U.K.
2001: U.K.
2000: Sweden/U.S.
1999: U.S.
1998: U.S.
1997: U.S.
1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)
1995: U.S./Germany
1994: U.S.
1993: U.S./U.K.
1992: U.S.
1991: Germany
1990: U.S.
1989: U.S.
1988: U.S./U.K.
1987: Japan
1986: Italy/U.S.
1985: U.S.
1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark
1983: U.S.
1982: Sweden/U.K.
1981: U.S.
1980: France/U.S.
1979: U.S./U.K.
1978: U.S/ Switzerland
1977: U.S.
Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined. To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries. This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American.
I wonder what motivated all of these doctors. Pure altruism? The commitment to doing work for free? Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?
And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States? Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here? (And rewards such innovation?) Why do I not see any Canadians listed here? Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980?
Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Canada is seen on a relative equal par with the US
Submitted by gopcongress on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 1:55pm.
Keep in mind that Canada, although larger in land area, has less people than California. One cannot readily compare a population base that is 10 times less than another one. This is why people have these situations of "being amazed" when it's actually just a magnitude problem.
To that end, Obamacare has NO comparison, except perhaps with the Soviet Union (or perhaps Russia). Only societies steeped in Socialist mantra can effectively coerce their populace with such damaging edicts (NOT legislation). The insidiousness of Obamacare is not just related to medical doctrine, but to the entire spectrum of American society.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
I know the author of your Forbes link
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 11:21pm.
He is on every Saturday on the Forbes on Fox show. He is the liberal idiot that they had to hire due to Affirmative Action for the mentally challenged quota.
And yet, people still get in line to live here
Submitted by JeffC... on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 5:19pm.
They also come here to pay cash for medical treatment that apparently they're not getting at home.
Wait lists for basic treatment.
Government bureaucrats deciding who gets treated.
More MRI machines in a single U.S. city than in entire provinces or regions.
Hospitals without air conditioning and doctors on vacation during heat waves.
Cancer drugs deemed too expensive.
What kind of idiot would give that up by emigrating to the U.S.?
Bravo to Wrathful Brunette
Submitted by ant on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:32pm.
You're so right, Car 54. If someone told me years ago that the Feds were going to take part of our income and save it for our retirement years in the form of Social Security, I'd have thought, "No way, they'll end up raiding it and writing us IOU's", but so far, I....uh...nevermind..bad example. Well, if someone had the idea to make the government in charge of airport security, my cynical mind would've thought they would make special allowances for the actual profile of those who fit the terrorist template and instead harass and violate the dignity and rights of innocent citizens, I would have thought 'this could only lead to sheer incompetence', but I would have probably been wrong abo......oh, forget it. Okay, the Feds ARE given the responsibility of securing the border and defending it from all enemies foreign and domestic, defending national sovereignty, and putting the rights of it's citizens first and foremost, so to that end, surely if they can do a job they are actually supposed to do, they can manage those things they have no right to do, correct? I mean the border is certainly secure and even as far north as I am I don't see groups of foreigners working while Americans struggle or demanding special rights as law-breakers, except when I do, and there have only been a FEW reports of Islamic extremists wandering about amongst the general populace so.....well,...aww, forget it.
Then again, there is the actual duty of Congress to write and pass a budget, but I guess, just because they can't fulfill that one simple Constitutional duty (I mean, among the others they fail miserably at) is no reason to think they won't be able to handle the needs, in the human, expediance and monetary sense, of millions of Americans, right?
Low information voters--you mean like you?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:33pm.
So far, you have come up with cliches, regurgitated pap from leftist websites and garbage straight from the White House. You are a low information processing poster.
Are you going for Cut and Paste Poster of the Month?
Car 54? More like Car 1917
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:54pm.
The United States is the only advanced, prosperous nation in the world that does not have some form of government sponsored/supported healthcare for its citizens. Um, what is Medicare/Medicaid? Besides, you say this as though it is a BAD thing. It isn't. The United States is the only advanced, prosperous nation that is making medical advances. Something like 85% of medical advances and discoveries are made in this country. Those other countries that baby their people with "free" medical care? Why, they haven't done jack in comparison. Guess who the world turns to for medical advances? This country.
Most other advanced nations view nationalized healthcare as a human right And they are wrong. Just as you are. Getting a doctor is NOT, I repeat, NOT, a human right.
Before I even need to consider seeing a doctor, I REQUIRE REQUIRE REQUIRE food, water, clothing, and shelter. Every single solitary day. By comparison, rare are the days someone needs to go to the hospital and see a doctor.
These "advanced nations" are advanced alright - in debt. That, or like our friends up north, they abdicate their duties to protect and defend their people to us so that they can pay to baby their people. And it's killing them. In 2030, 80% of the ON provincial budget must go to baby people with "free" medical care. That's before they pay out a nickel for infrastructure or education or other provincial responsibilities.
Did you know that the VERY FIRST recommendation of Greece, when its debt crisis first hit, was to privatize its medical system fully? O wonder why that is?
Guess what else, my little parrot of the party line? I am only partially insured but I needed to see a doctor recently. I went to an emergency room. (The reason for this is simple: I never have had a regular family doctor. Ever. Never mind why.) And because I paid everything right then and there, in part with an MSA - the hospital responded by chopping my bill by nearly 2/3. You'd sit on the ground, screaming like an infant, about how YOUR medical bill is everyone else's responsibility and not yours. Me, I went ahead and just paid for it. No one else paid my way there. They way it should be. If no one else pays for my food, my water, my clothing or my shelter - no one else should be paying for my doctor. In fact, I should simply pay as I use it - you know, like everything else, from food to my phone bill to my cable bill?
One of the things that makes this country great is personal responsibility. I am not about to sign up for bankrupting society just because you think America is a sick, evil, backward country because its government doesn't pamper and baby people like the "advanced nations" do.
If you feel so sorry for people who can't afford a doctor, you are free to start a charity on their behalf. Until then, quit trying to pick my pocket in the name of YOUR guilt. Leave me the hell alone to pay for my doc. And YOU pay for YOUR doc.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Kicked. ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 7:03pm.
54's.
arse.
To the point it now bleeds.
like.
his.
liberal.
heart.
MD
As a low-information voter I
Submitted by Captain Repus on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:00pm.
As a low-information voter I would suggest to Car54 that printing the 'Keep govt out of my medicare' signs cost the labor unions about $6 each (could have been printed in a non-union shop for $3.50) and the labor unions paying the protestors carrying the signs $20 each.
Oops.... I forgot the cost of renting busses to haul the sign carrier in.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Please try to treat yours a little better.
Where do
Submitted by oldfart on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 4:58pm.
they find these trolls? Opps - let me answer my own question - living in the I95 bubble.
Car 54 has been found, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 5:01pm.
now a shattered hulk; immobile because of the four flat tires of socialism, progressivism, Marxism, and Communism; rusted through from the inside out by the interior acid so prevalent in all the aforementioned isms.
MD
B-b-b-but Cuba has Universal Health Care!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:55pm.
So it must be good!!!!
I usually watch the panel
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 5:08pm.
part of Meet the Press but when I saw that there would be no decent conservatives on it I thought why waste my time and switched to the rest of a great Law and Order rerun. I thought Will and Coulter made a good team on This Week.
"How do you go a year and a
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:02pm.
"How do you go a year and a half where so many Americans don’t even understand the benefits of this legislation when they apply to them? And that gets to this administration, which I think has been abysmal at communicating some of its most important agenda items."
Now liberals have coalesced on the reason why they should stay home in November. The Obama regime failed in its job to communicate the agenda. This is an unforgivable failure.
Friedman, you horses petooty,
Submitted by HelloDare on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 6:09pm.
Friedman, you horses petooty, the bulk of Obamacare was designed not to go into effect until after the 2012 elections for a reason. Obama and the Dems didn't want people to know how truly bad it was until after he and the Democrates who backed it were reelected.
The problem isn't poor
Submitted by G L on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 8:00pm.
The problem isn't poor communication, Tom ol' buddy, it's poor legislation.
Exactly what is Friedman looking at in that pic?
Submitted by KyWriter on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 8:16pm.
He looks like he just uttered some typically blasphemous comment and is expecting God to strike him dead.
car 54 left out the biggest cost...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 9:47pm.
our freedom.
He sure did, that is the
Submitted by Sude23 on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 1:05am.
He sure did, that is the biggest issue here. If they can tell us... Sorry, Force us to buy something where does it stop? And we also know that the finacially bankrupt EU is an ideal template that everyone should aspire too. I mean they have only been asking to borrow money from us so they can keep from having a financial meltdown...
Remember - these are the 'intelligent' ones....
Submitted by Slyrr on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 10:14pm.
The liberal left has had their communist government medical takeover scheme hidden up their sleeves for literally decades. They've been plotting since the sixties at least to implement this as their end run around the Constitution, and their ticket to total, absolute and unfettered power over the masses.
They've been treasuring it, tweaking it, refining it and building it for at least fifty years. And now that it's finally on the docket - they expect us to believe it's because they 'weren't ready' to defend it??
They pushed it through illegally two years ago with a combination of cheating, bribery, threats and blackmail. Two YEARS. And Obama swore on the day he signed it that he'd spend every day knocking on people's doors to make sure they understood it. He's had the entire media totally in his pocket to pimp this law.
And now they're all whining and moaning that they haven't 'communicated' well enough? The liberal left have got to be the most incompetent, clueless, inept and foolish people in existence. Their signature piece of legislation - and they 'weren't ready'.
And THESE are supposed to be the smart ones.
The "journalist"?
Submitted by mmilesll on Sun, 04/01/2012 - 11:21pm.
Fried brain and the other idiot just keep proving why the Times is losing money and readers. nobamacare was crap and normal Americans knew that from the start, only the liberal wack jobs thought it was wonderful. Why are there so many really smart people in NYC and DC? You really really think there are?
Bending the cost curve ... up?
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 12:52am.
Friedman knows it's not true.
It's the only defense the left has when they are unable to deliver on their promises AND their promises are discovered to be bogus.
The fact is that virtually every major promise and claim of ObamaCare has been shown to be a lie ... and the people are realizing it more and more every day.
I sent my Democrat Senator a response to her "happy days are coming" e-mail concerning ObamaCare by noting, among several other things, that when she promised me that it would "bend the cost curve" of healthcare I didn't expect it to be bent UP.
Okay, I fibbed a little.
I KNEW it would go up but I couldn't help making a little joke.
I knew it was bad when...
Submitted by shayne62 on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 12:57am.
I know ObamaCare was a terrible idea when Congress exempted themselves from it. Tells you all you need to know.
I think the big give away was
Submitted by Sude23 on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 1:16am.
I think the big give away was when Nancy said we will find out what's in it when it passes... Because I always like surprises like the shredded parachute pack I just got could still be good... maybe that bee's nest is empty... Or maybe where another congressman said that they didn't read it because they need to have lawyers to interpret whats in it, I mean who wants to read 2700 pages... not like they get paid for it...
P.S. Forgive my spelling :-(
The more people become aware of what it does
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 8:48am.
The more they dislike it and want to repeal it. This should tell anybody whatever they need to know about it.
The next time any elected representative says that we have to pass a bill so we can find out what is in the bill, they should IMMEDIATELY be handed articles of impeachment for deriliction of duty and failure to keep their oath of office.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
LORD but
Submitted by chiefpayne on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 2:20pm.
these Democrat DUMMIES do not GET it YET!!!
The people of the US do NOT LIKE the government telling them to do something they don't WANT to do.
Those who have insurance now, see it going UP in cost and DOWN in functionality due to this!
Those who ALREADY HAVE Medicaid and Medicare are somewhat satisfied with how it is RIGHT NOW...and DON'T WANT you screwing around with it...because by the history of government intervention, they know it will only become screwed up worse than it already is!
Those who DON'T WANT health insurance, DON'T WANT the government TELLING them they HAVE to buy it!
What part of all this is it that the Democrats do NOT understand???!!!!!
Constitution Still Matters
Submitted by giatn on Mon, 04/02/2012 - 6:29pm.
The benefits or negatives of Obamacare don't matter. The "penalty" (not a tax)
mandate is unconstitutional. The federal government does NOT have police powers.
Obamacare is perhaps the worst piece of legislation ever passed and the costs are
prohibitive. It does not even meet its stated goals of accessibility or affordability. It
must be edited for substance and sustainability.