In between waiting for more election results and doing my Kegel exercises last night, I happened to catch Mitt Romney's appearance on The Late Show. Dave and Mitt talked about cars, Mitt's dad, and the ex-governor's new book, No Shame: My Hair Is A Testament To Our Greatness. I'm pretty sure that's the title.
Inevitably they talked about politics, and Dave brought up the issue of health care reform. Romney acknowledged that health care is expensive, and offered that the country should imitate what his home state did to provide health care for the uninsured. At that point, I was intently listening. But my curiosity suddenly took a nosedive when he complimented the health care system by pointing to its excess and luxury.
As in keeping with his book's title, he said, 'Kings and queens look to the U.S. when they need medical attention.' (paraphrasing) And I'm sure the world's royalty does in fact take advantage of health care here. They just hop in their private planes on a moment's notice, cross the Atlantic, and savor all that U.S. medicine has to offer. But in propping up our system with his ridiculous assertion, he underscoreded his earlier statement about the expense one meets when seeking out a physician's care.
I don't argue that most Americans would prefer reaping the benefits of our system's technology and know-how; But most can't because it's out of financial reach. All the technological bells and whistles are awesome, but at some level, they amount to nothing but instruments of defensive medicine. Someone without coverage can't get hold of all the nifty medical gadgets out there. And those people who do have insurance sometimes have to fight tooth and nail with an insurance bureaucrat in order to get a simple CT scan done.
Mitt Romney knows that our health care system is broken, and he knows that more people need access to it. But confusion and conflict arise when he wants to leave us with the impression that everything is just as peachy as his chiseled good looks. If we want to measure the adequacy of our health care system, we should look to our own home grown testimonials, and not those of foreign royalty.
23 comments:
I didn't see it so I don't know how badly he failed to get his simple point across:
Yes, we need to improve our delivery of basic health care and contain the out of control costs. Everyone agrees on that.
But, the "profit motive" inherent in our system is the reason why we are far and away the world leader in cutting edge health care research, treatment and medicines.
Giving govt. more control will hurt that. Proponents of the single-payor system or even those that advocate all health care professionals become employees of US govt. don't realize how much damage that would do (but good thing those proposals have no chance of passing).
Perhaps taxing some of that "profit motive" would help us offer people access.
If we are "far and away," then we have some room enough to step back and rethink the delivery system.
I really don't see how having more people paying for health care would hurt the system.
- A former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee is close to being indicted for misuse of federal campaign funds.
- After replacing the Democratic Governor of New York who was forced to resign under the cloud of a prostitution scandal, the new Governor of New York has elected not to run for re-election and may be forced from office for abusing his position.
- The Democratic Senator who heads of the Banking committee chooses to retire rather than run for re-election based in part to the cloud from back door deals from mortgage lenders in exchange for favorable votes.
- The Chairman of the House Way and Means committee is being forced from his seat because of kickbacks in the form of travel benefits from lobbyists.
- All of this follows on the heels of the absolute fiasco what is the state governing of Illinois.
The only question remains; How did Karl Rove and the Damn Republicans pull this off?
I am not a Romney supporter and I dont have the answer to these questions.
But exactly how many speeches of Romney's have you listened to or how many initiatives of his have you read? How much research have you done on what accomplishments he may have had as Gov. of Mass.
I am willing to bet that your answer is "none". I am willing to bet that because he is not a Democrat, you have dismissed him entitrely, except for the occassional opportunity to try to diminish and belittle him as a future policital candidate , such as you have done here.
Am I wrong?
Health care is not a luxury, but a human right. And there's no point in having the "world's best health care" when you can't access it because you can't afford it and/or don't have insurance. I've had to use hospitals in the UK, Australia, & Spain & the only difference between the care I got in those places & in the US was the fact that in the UK, I didn't get a bill, in Australia, I paid the equivalent of US$35 for an ER visit, complete with exam, medication, & tests, & in Spain, US$50 for yet another ER visit. Compare those with a recent ER visit here in the US, which all told, was $2000, with a co-pay of $200.
FREE health care for all
FREE food for all
FREE government jobs for all
FREE housing for all
FREE transportation for all
every one is the same, it is not FAIR that some people
work hard in the private sector, are more productive,
are smarter, and contribute to real wealth production
the truth is ONLY people who own property and
and invest pay taxes.. so the entire government
is paid for by the wealthy and the productive.. families of four who make less than 50k a year
DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES but why should we expect the idiot dependency welfare class of Laredo to know this.
We have an income tax?
TB, you're pretty much on target there. I've had a passing familiarity with Romney.
I think Romney is smarter than to go around justifying our health care system with the fact that rich foreigners come here to get better.
Like I said, he talked about how Mass. provided insurance for more of its citizens (I need to look into that) but it's that one statement that puts him on par with bumper sticker slogans, and Tea Party members.
<< I really don't see how having more people paying for health care would hurt the system >>
I agree - if we're to stop denials of care for pre-existing coverage then we definitely need to get young healthy people enrolled.
Obama wants to it now when costs are so high. Republicans say bring costs down, more people will get enrolled and then we take steps to snare the others.
And we already tax the hell outta the "profit motive" - you know most doctors pay more in income than alot of people make in salaries.
DG - I've already said we need to improve access, but it would be incredibly stupid to remove the incentive to be on the cutting edge of medical research. and, sadly, that incentive is money.
Offer the smart kids in college the big bucks to be researchers and doctors.
We put doctors on salary and they'll go to Wall Street, etc.
"Health care is not a luxury, but a human right"
DG- What color is the sky on your planet? Are the inhabitants friendly?
Do you folks really think that you should only have access to healthcare if you can afford it? Are you okay with people losing their homes & life savings to pay off medical bills that insurance refuses to cover? Do you think that if you have cancer & are poor, tough shit to you pal, go die quickly? I'm not the one who lives in Crazy World; YOU are.
Health care is NOT a luxury. A fancy car, or big screen TV is. You can live without a fancy car or TV; you can't live (well or long) without healthcare.
As for for-profit, privatized health care, costs keep going up, but the profits aren't being plowed back into research & advances that will benefit patients. That is being funded by the government. The profits are going straight into corporate coffers, to shareholders, & to high-level executives. Private insurance companies care only about one thing: Money. They don't give a shit whether you get access to the "world's best health care" or not.
And if our system is so great, why aren't any of the civilized countries changing to privatized health care?
Floppy, Doctors in the UK are on salary & they are living quite well. As are the doctors in Spain & Oz.
Men do Kegel exercises too? Maybe that alone could help men's health in general
you have the right to be fat, lazy, and stupid,
but that doesn't mean I have to pay for it.
most people who want FREE services in welfare
entitlements, want someone else to pay for it because they pay little or no taxes themselves.
la verdad
Everybody, do your Kegels.
DG - yes, the doctors over there do quite well. I never said they don't.
But, they do well practicing medicine using techniques and drugs developed in the U.S. of A.
There's a reason why we are the world leader in innovation.
and that reason is because of the profit motive.
Yes, it's cruel to think of basic health care in terms of profit, and that's why I agree with those that say we have to improve our delivery system, but don't kill off the incentive to be innovative.
Even in communist Soviet Union, guess which govt. workers were allocated the big apartments, cars with drivers, summer lake houses? The engineers developing cutting edge technology for their military and space programs, that's who.
And they still couldn't keep up with our private sector govt. contractor engineers.
since the RICH are the only people who pay
INCOME TAXES,, doesn't it make sense that Bush's
tax cuts went to the rich....
in other words HOW CAN YOU GIVE A TAX CUT TO PEOPLE WHO DON"T PAY INCOME TAXES!!!
amazing the stupidity of the followers who suck in every word spewed by the liberal welfare state left
since the RICH are the only people who pay
INCOME TAXES,,
Um, Anon, I'm not even in the same zip code as "the RICH," but I pay taxes at a higher rate than they do.
Even if you get a refund, if it's less than what was withheld from your paycheck, you pay taxes.
Floppy: And they still couldn't keep up with our private sector govt. contractor engineers.
The Soviets were bluffing; they knew we had a bunch of dummies scared of their own shadows & so all they did was pretend they had a bunch of nukes & then laughed while they watched the US bankrupt itself building weapons we'd never use.
As for private contractors: Like Halliburton (which feeds our troops rotten food, provides them contaminated water to drink, & builds showers so under-code that soldiers have been electrocuted in them) & Blackwater, which did all this with BILLIONS of tax dollars? Not exactly something to be proud of.
And, btw, Europe is also doing a lot of medical research & in some ways, they are far ahead of us. And all the while, their citizens don't have to worry about being thrown out in the street or denied care because they can't afford to get medical care.
Whether the Soviets were bluffing or not that doesn't change my point that they handsomely rewarded success in their own way.
DG – Let’s break down a couple of your arguments:
1. “Health care is not a luxury, but a human right.” - With as complex a being as humans are, you cannot make morality appeals. Doesn’t work in a bench trial only to a jury.
2. "World's best health care" – We need to qualify “best”. Internationally, those with the most money will come to the US for treatment, but that quality is so high because of the cost, with profits providing incentive for more development. However, “best” could be a more utilitarian nature in which case, you would be correct.
3. “Private insurance companies care only about one thing: Money “ – you are correct here, but isn’t that the point of any business? Is the answer regulation of percentage profit back into low income distribution of care or R&D? who knows?
4. “Civilized countries” – c’mon now, red herrings? You know that our system is unique. Even try to equate us to Canada or Australia doesn’t work because the population differentials.
5. “I pay taxes at a higher rate than they do” – Unless you are assuming that the “rich” are cheating in their taxes, I would like to see how you have become the lone victim of our progressive tax system. Time to invest in a good accountant.
6. “The Soviets were bluffing” – Actually, it was we who were bluffing. The Soviet system depended upon the projection of strength (which still lingers today). We out spent them alright, but we recovered under Clinton. We went from 440+ warships to less than 200 in 20 years. The smart one’s are the Chinese.
7. “As for private contractors” – Companies and government are only people in the end, DG. You can continue to paint the “all good” and “all bad” political spectrum if you like, but you appear much too intelligent to be painted into that corner. Mercenaries and appropriate privatized government functions can be a very good thing, provided the proper oversight exists.
8. “Europe is also doing a lot of medical research & in some ways, they are far ahead of us” – You are correct here too, at least to some degree. But it is not Pierre strolling the Parisian streets, these are some of the same hardcore companies that you have painted as evil. They are, in large part, looking to provide for the wealthiest market (US) and the largest markets (Asia). Not exactly the most altruistic motives, but in the end; you need balance.
I used to think of myself as idealistic.
After a few years, I was holding fast to the promise of my naivety.
Today, I confront the fact that I must be stupid.
After 9/11, I was the first and loudest to embrace military tribunals for terror suspects.
In a debate that is equally as strong on either side; sometimes you just go with your heart. My heart said: “F*&K ‘em!”
Then came the rationed analysis. The more that I thought about and explored the issue, the more I have come to believe that terrorism can be fought by the military, but prosecuted in a civilian courtroom. Our faith in justice is what has literally made this country. Our faith in our system of justice.
I disagreed with the decision of New York, but there are truly few options. What is important is that I get it. Civilian trials.
I know that the means of obtaining the information of how we were led to capture the suspect cannot be disclosed and I get that too. But there are ways to insulate those disclosures. This is done with confidential informants in narcotics cases routinely.
And then reality reaches up and smacks me in the face: we are going back to military tribunals?
Really?
DG, don't argue if you are not informed it makes you look foolish.
check my post I referred to income taxes and a level
of 50 K for a family of four..
the facts are, only the wealthy support our government
through income taxes. I can't help it if stupid people
can not tell the difference between socialist insecurity
taxes medicare and medicaid withholding and income taxes. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEM,, the government (politicians)
keeps it's hold on people by encouraging this
false premise that the rich do not pay income taxes
or get a break.
wage earners think they are paying INCOME TAXES
because it is withheld from their checks and they
stupidly allow this process where the government uses THEIR money for a year and then returns it
in a pseudo philanthropic refund. What a CROC
wait till these lemmings find out, there are no real assets in socialist insecurity, and that too is a TAX
redistributed as an entitlement benefit (welfare) if
you are lucky enough to live that long.
bow to the man...SUCKERS
unDG - great post.
Anon (3/5 9:17 am) -
You're absolutely correct on many thinking the taxes they pay is what's withheld from their paychecks. I've had so many people bitch at the govt. in January for "raising their taxes" when their net pay was lower than in December because the the 2009 reduction to federal tax withholding tables expired in December.
let's call it like it is
free health care is not free and the only way the government pays for an entitlement is by taxing the productive.
as with most welfare plans it is the rich paying for
health care for the poor.
and that my friends are the pure hard facts
Post a Comment