patrick.net

As someone who works with people with disabilities who are reliant upon government healthcare, I can state with no equivocation that government healthcare stinks. My wife and I run a group home for six girls with developmental disabilities. We have spent many hours calling around trying to find doctors who will provide care to our girls who are on Medicare. The doctors who do tend to be ones that you wouldn’t want to see; their reputations are less than stellar. My own personal doctor, who takes private insurance, has already warned me that he will be retiring if this bill gets passed. He is originally from England but left there because the government was mandating hours and numbers of patient visits per day for G.P.s. I also work with the government on funding for people with disabilities on Day Program and Residential activities. Each day is a long argument with a government representative as they attempt to cut funding for our clients (10 percent cuts across the board already this year, and denial of services for one out of every ten clients). The government on the one hand will pay 20,000 dollars a month for a placement for one guy while denying service to another, even if the first's disability is no more pronounced. There is no logic to the system. Before this, I worked in the schools with people with disabilities. Your claim that elementary school is a good example of something our government runs and does right doesn’t bear up to scrutiny. Fifty cents out of every education dollar are spent on the bureaucracies of the Department of Education and State Departments, rather than on education itself. Our country also falls behind other countries who spend a lot less on education. The arguments in favor of Pelosi’s plan (it's not Obama's plan after all, it's the Congress') are similar to those that were used to create the Department of Education. Considering how poorly that has turned out, I don’t trust the government on this plan either. I do not oppose medical reform, as someone who pays 200 dollars out of pocket a month for asthma medication not covered by my insurance I would certainly like to see the cost of medical care reduced (and considering my medication was pioneered by the French, I do not have a huge issue with other countries as a lot of people do). My fear is of government bureaucracy doing a worse job than what it replaces. I fear Italian style Corporatism, where government money supports businesses it chooses to work with whether they are effective or not. So again, please let us have some health care reform in this country (perhaps starting with things we could perhaps all agree on, such as doing away with denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions, Medicare and Medicaid reform, Tort reform to manage health care costs), but let's not turn it into warfare. According to almost all recent polls, this is a 50-50 issue, and in a democracy that should mean meeting halfway.

I find BubblePopper's post interesting.

Could a logical inference be that California representatives and senators screwed up and didn't do their job of getting a share for the battery companies in California ? Or that the California companies weren't nimble enough to open branches in Indiana or Michigan ? (maybe better anyway for tax state reasons).

I'm not saying you are wrong, as I know nothing about this. But I would hope that maybe the battery story is not over yet for western companies with promising technology. Maybe they can sell themselves to companies in Michigan. Or maybe the next round of stimulus will include a piece for them.

It seems to me that in future technology oriented businesses there is a place for government support. Especially businesses that compete against entrenched interests. Energy is the perfect example, because oil and coal are still the cheapest, and yet they have costs that hit us in the future with pollution, global warming, and with skyrocketing costs when supplies dwindle if the more "renewable" replacement hasn't been developed.

Great blog Patrick, keep up the good work!
I'm both French and American, The French system was great in the 70's but as any social structure it became big as people always ask for more rights, more social, more free stuff, up to the point where the system became heavy, not enough people to pay for it, too many people to receive and abuse, the system became inefficient so some people started to take some extra private insurance, or use some private hospital.
In the US the current system also has some issues, I was working for a private company for 12 years with a good healthcare insurance, one day I needed a scan, no problem I got the scan and it didn't show anything bad, then 2 years later I changed from employee to small business owner and decided to use the same insurance. I was refuse (I'm young, and make a good salary), I couldn’t believe my eyes. It took me 8 months of fight to get insured (also the insurance was so inefficient dealing with my files - this was like a big fat administration, files were lost etc...). I learned during this process I got refused because of the scan I receive 2 years before (remember, they didn't find anything on the scan, I guess scan = more risk -> we do not want to insure), so I finally got to see a doc for a checkup and then the insurance insured me as the doc didn't find anything, but what if I did have something? I'm sure the insurance will have never insured me, even if I paid monthly this insurance for 12 years (insurance are so expensive in the US, $1100/months, I have 2 kids). At this point I realize the system was really bad.
As a rule you want to keep your work force happy, workers should be able to insure themselves and their families without any extra help from the gov.
Few words about Socialism (Be careful for what you wish for): Social need to stay for a small amount (%) of the population in order to work, social should only be for people that really needs help (for instance, wife with kids who lost her husband, very bad sudden sickness etc...), the other people must work and contribute to the life of the country. It is very hard to not fall in the trap of doing more and more Social for people that do not need it (as Social attract more social, the gov grow and self nourish itself), where do we set the threshold/barrier? what define too much social? who get, who doesn't?. What happen in France (and some other European countries) is more people that do not really need some social and could help more the country complain and start to also beneficiate of the Social system, the taxes increase, social rights increase, unemployed rights goes up so people can earn as much money not working than working, so why working?, the gov become bigger up to the point where the gov become the 'mother state that feed us all’ as we say in France, this is so sad, this is so shameful.... I know so many young guys who are not working in France, they just became lazy (they just watch TV the whole day), and because the way human works and the gov allowing and facilitating/encouraging this behavior (by allowing unemployed people to get as much money as low rate workers, or having free whatever), I know many people that say “I work for the administration and we do not do anything” (some have low salaries and do not pay taxes). The taxes for others are really high, someone needs to pay for the others.
I wish more American could see the danger of Socialism and how it start simple with good intention but grow naturally and quickly (in 10 to 20 yrs) as something you cannot get rid of anymore. The French government even offer free transportation, free museum??? (I guess this way unemployed people can spend nice days while other are working and paying for it ;), free Medicare and so many other things to unemployed people, most of those people could work but choose not to work (if you know all the gov tricks to get money, and trust me people learn them quickly, people can almost get as much money not working than working as I mention earlier). At some point a presidential candidate asked for unemployed people to at least contribute a little bit to the country as they are paid to do nothing, just to do few hours per weeks to clean up the cities or whatever, it was the end of his political career, Socialism imply selfishness as the gov is the mam and everybody expect from it. I guess our French revolution displace our dysfunctional King by the dysfunctional gov where the nobless has been replaced by the gov people (they have so much more right than private sector workers, this is disgusting, why can they retire at 50 or 55 when the private sector is a 60). Remember, France did have the perfect system in the 70's but Social imply more social, this is like a cancer spreading (this is the way humans work (always want more free stuff)), this is up to the point of becoming a country of none equality for all and less liberty for the one who work (our French moto is "liberty, equality and fraternity" ;).....
I guess any system needs to be base on a strong ethic and have a controlling system to check if the ethic is well respected.
Going back to health care, we should look at what is bad in our health care system and think on how to fix it, but I do not believe socialism is the long term solution. I cannot see how a gov that is already unethically correct (all those bailout to unethical people, mistakes made by the fed, lobby etc) could solve this issue without clearing up first the ethic question.
It is critical that US does not become like Europe, most of the Social system in Europe are failing badly and are deep down, every year I travel in Europe and I can see the countries getting poorer, the criminality going up, worker complaining of taxes, and more people not willing to work. Once again Social must stay small for people that really need it, people who can work must work to help and contribute to the country and people who work must be able to buy insurance (even if they already are sick). I can’t believe we are in 2009 with such issues!
I do not know the solution to those issues, but I wanted to share these few feeling with you
Carpe diem
Wil

ahasuerus99,

Good post. Ultimately, part of the issue is not that things run by the government are not bad per se, its things run by OUR government that cause grief.

And a lot of that stems from the fact that our politicians placate to the political lobbies and their own personal self interest rather than doing what is best for the country. You brought up the education system as a frame of reference. Part of the problem with the bloated beauracracy there is directly correlated to a very strong teacher's union lobby. How did this housing bubble get the extra boost it needed to rise to moronic proportions before crashing down like the Hindenburg? Hey, how about we ask the National Association of Realtors and THEIR powerful lobby about that. Let's all jump on the ethanol bandwagon despite the fact that it cost nearly 7 times as much energy to produce ethanol than it does gasoline. Why do? Helllloooooo corn lobby!

Maybe what we really need to fix in this country is the entire lobbying system and do away with it once and for all. Now that is something that may finally give us the baseline framework we need to move forward and get things accomplished effeciently around here.

Moneybags says

The problem we have now is there is no trust… after all the mistakes the GOV made on the economy , why should we believe they will get this right. I personally dont know what the answer is

The system definitely needs reforming, however, the lack of transparency (for decades) is making us all crazy. It is clear that crony capitalism has taken over... we should all be joining together to resist this. Do you all really think your representatives (whether Dem, Rep or Indpend) are fairly representing you? Whatever your ideology may be, we need to work together here and work on true reform. These nonsense arguments are a diversion from the true issues. There will always be the wingnuts on the extremes. I would like to believe that most people want to be reasonable, fair and logical. Maybe I'm dreaming :)

Interesting: Big Business goes big for health care reform

My good gracious, this goes against the memes of the day! What now? Kill the messenger (e.g., "Stossel's a radical righty nutball ...and just ignore those sourcing links in the article")? Or perhaps, once again, neither side of the "common-man" debate has a complete understanding of the roles of the major players?

Smells like 1913 all over again, when the common man triumphed through a new Constitutional amendment that paved the way for a rich tax, so that those eeevil top 2% of income earners could finally be taxed and pay their fair share! Take that, you rich bastages! Of course, the Sixteenth Amendment hasn't really worked out so well for the common man after all... but class warfare is a tried and true carrot in the politician's toolbox. Interestingly enough, 1913 was also the year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Remarkable coincidence, that.

And to what marcus said, in his response to BubblePopper's post:

Or maybe the next round of stimulus will include a piece for them.

Here's an idea: how about we suggest that the federal (and state) government stop subsidizing private businesses as much as possible? Perhaps, I dunno, let the markets do their thing? Artificially low interest rates (thanks Greenspan!) created not one but two malinvestment bubbles -- I'm quite ready for the federal government to start doing ...hell, pretty much nothing at all. After they repeal the Federal Reserve Act, that is.

Where's Andrew Jackson when you need him...

Diomedes says

Maybe what we really need to fix in this country is the entire lobbying system and do away with it once and for all. Now that is something that may finally give us the baseline framework we need to move forward and get things accomplished effeciently around here.

One solution: term limits. Would probably take a state-called and state-led constitutional convention and an amendment, but I'm all bout-it bout-it.

wil,

I have seen similar things in Canada as well when I was growing up in my home province of Ontario.

When we elected a very socialist New Democrat Party in the late 80s, our unemployment rate skyrocketted to something like 11% while our tax rate went through the roof. The media did all these studies finding tons of free loaders essentially living off the government teet and having whole welfare families that were actually living better than some of their contemporaries that were working. It put a tremendous strain on the system and invariably, it was unsustainable. Eventually, that government was ousted and we performed a huge reduction in welfare services and reduced taxes. That got the free loaders off of their asses and returned us to some assemblence of growth.

One of the things to recognize when it comes to healthcare (or anything for that matter) is that there is no panacea. If there was, we would already know about it. Any system will have flaws and any system will be exploited. Which is why we should take our take and think this through. I am all for health care reform. But if we want to truly accomplish it effectively, we need to be diligent and think it through. Shoving a solution down everyone's throat or rushing to get legislation passed means we will likely have to revisit it later. And there will be tremendous waste in that scenario.

One sidebar: my stance at this point is we, as a country, have WAAAAAY bigger fish to fry at this point then health care. Our economy is still in shambles despite what Larry "Crackhead" Kudlow would have you believe. Our wages dropped by the biggest amount on record, our housing prices are still going down and the minor bounce we have seen in the stock market recently is driven solely by speculation and fervor, not fundamentals. Not to mention we have too wars going on right now.

If I was Obama, I would basically make a televised appearance indicating that he has no desire to rush things and is merely bringing up the topic of health care for discussion. Let congress and the senate work and stew over it until the hash out something that looks viable. But everyone at this stage needs to take a step back and breathe deeply. If we make this decision based on emotion and toss a big 'fuck you' to those that voice concerns, then we are asking for trouble. And I am not talking about the idiots at these town hall meetings that quote Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like its scripture. I mean those that bring a cogent argument to the discussion and have valid points. Lets put it out on the table and come to a resolution. Shit, I hate to sound like I am condescending, but we are not splitting the fucking atom here! This is something that, if thought through correctly, can be done well.

I was born in the same year that my government adopted socialized healthcare in Canada. I am an educated, middle-class woman and I have never known any kind of healthcare but the kind that is provided by our government-run system. It has been a nightmare for my family and me. The following stories, told in second person and based on my personal experiences with socialized healthcare in Canada, constitute my personal warning to Americans.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboeuf-schouten1.html

Obama’s health care game show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuekTcSFfM

The collectivization of medical costs, both under government-imposed “private” medical insurance and under Medicaid and Medicare, raises medical costs in a variety of ways, each of which deserves consideration. In each instance, the perverted notion of the need-based right to medical care – that is, an alleged right to medical care that entails a claim on other people’s wealth or labor, which must be met with or without their consent – is what underlies both the collectivization of medical costs and the concomitant loss of the individual’s personal financial responsibility. In this way, it is a perverted notion of the right to medical care that is fundamentally responsible for the rising cost of medical care.

http://mises.org/story/3613

The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages

http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/19/the-hc-monstrosity/

“The bottom line is that doctors don't want socialized medicine — another flawed health care system like Medicare. They don't believe it will lower the costs or improve quality,” Brady said. “Medicare is already going bankrupt and not quality care. It also shifts medical costs onto other paying customers.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6563705.html

girlflower says

Let us all who love America refrain from making comments that are a little too “emotional”, what do you think? Let’s all carry this “conversation” civilly and concentrate on the issue. Let’s give thought-provoking comments, without the raised “voice” if you will, please. Thank you very much in advance

When the owner of this website writes that those who oppose ObamaCare oppose it because they are 'racist', you are done with any civility, thought~provoking commentary, and any possibility of concentrating on the issue. The issue is black/white to the OP nothing else.

I take it your answer is yes. It is too much to ask that I keep what I have.
Just send your money and mine to Washington and everything will be OK.
Sounds like a pinhole point of view to me.

We're already over the barrel, and have been since before you or I knew what a barrel was.

Meanwhile, where was the outrage on here when it came to other forms of government largess during these last few months? Nobody really shit their pants over the bank bailouts. No bluster over tax subsidized Cash for Clunkers. No outrage over the tax payer liability that is the expanded FHA and the INEVITABLE defaults due with that program. Again, how about PPIP? Ever read up on that one? Private gain at public risk doesn't qualify for a thread a hundred posts deep? Really? Does it just depend on what pocket the money comes out of, or is the better part of this contrarian filibustering coming from a few vested interests with multiple handles?

krateein says

The collectivization of medical costs, both under government-imposed “private” medical insurance and under Medicaid and Medicare, raises medical costs in a variety of ways, each of which deserves consideration. In each instance, the perverted notion of the need-based right to medical care – that is, an alleged right to medical care that entails a claim on other people’s wealth or labor, which must be met with or without their consent – is what underlies both the collectivization of medical costs and the concomitant loss of the individual’s personal financial responsibility. In this way, it is a perverted notion of the right to medical care that is fundamentally responsible for the rising cost of medical care.

The collectivization of road costs, both under government-imposed “private” toll roads and under Federal Highway Administration, raises travel costs in a variety of ways, each of which deserves consideration. In each instance, the perverted notion of the need-based right to driving – that is, an alleged right to be able to drive on a road after buying a car, that entails a claim on other people’s wealth or labor, which must be met with or without their consent – is what underlies both the collectivization of highway costs and the concomitant loss of the individual’s personal financial responsibility. In this way, it is a perverted notion of the right to use a road that is fundamentally responsible for the rising cost of transportation.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/12/health-care-meets-goldman-sachs/

Setting aside the debate, I am disappointed that these healthcare issues are appearing on the site, mixed in with the real estate story links.

Perhaps the thought process is that patrick.net is a large enough forum to showcase the issue, BUT - today's links were half healthcare, and half real estate. I come for the real estate, I get the health care stuff covered enough by the media.

I plead with patrick to reconsider this, perhaps a seperate page for those links, or broken out to seperate headers under the date at which the links are organized currently.

Please consider this, and hopefully you'll consider another option for organizing things seperately.

Thanks
Greg

I wanted to take the time to thank you for posting the healthcare links. Its a major issue and I find the links you post very informative.

I too appreciate the health care links. This is an especially HUGE issue for just another few months
(not that it won't be after that), but now is the time for us to get informed, and hopefully time for the ignorance to fade and for disinformation to be supplanted by facts and intelligent discourse.

If you don't want the health care links on Patirick's site, why not just not read them.

What's the heading that the links are falling under:

"Housing Crash News from Patrick.net (rss)"

I scan the links for interesting real estate articles, and health care doesn't fall into that topic - so I find it a waste of my time. Why not create a seperate page, perhaps patrick.net/health vs patrick.net/housing

Or perhaps, just another section on that page titled:

"Health Care News from Patrick.net (rss)"

It's not like I'm asking for them not to be here, I'm just asking that things be organized.

Thanks
Greg

Patrick,
I agree with you. Please go to youtube and search on health insurance hypocrites. You'll see video's I've posted.

You can also go to my site www.hey-its-all-about-you.com

Keep it up.

Wayne

ObamaCare would impose on all 50 states rules that have already proven to be failures in numerous states. Because these mandates would raise the cost of insurance, ObamaCare would then turn around and subsidize individuals to buy the insurance that the politicians made more expensive. Only in government could such irrationality be sold as "reform."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332293172846168.html

Yes, thanks, Patrick - I appreciate your efforts as well, for the whole site in general. There is something to be said for putting your neck out there, knowing the inevitable slings and arrows you'd invite. You stated your convictions without the comfort zone of anonymity and your Fuck You has a lot more gravity and sincerity because of it - at least more so than the tissue tigers who jump on here and hide behind an avatard to avoid any real authorship for their attacks.

If the goal is to get government to operate like a private service, what is the value added by having it provided by the government in the first place?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/obama-postoffice126.html

The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html

People here keep saying that Medicare and Medicaid (or MediCal, in California), are available to everyone. Not true.

In order to qualifty for Medicare, one must be disabled 24 months. During the time you're waiting for the disability to be awarded by Social Security, there is no coverage for assistance in most states. No medical care, nothing. Zip. Nada. Soooo, if a person has a failing liver, it will take two years from the point that the patient can't work before Medicare is available if the patient paid into the system during his working lifetime. If the patient needs a liver transplant, he won't be placed on the list until he has Medicare. From the point of Medicare approval, he will be slowly moving up on the list until it's his turn. Most patients die before they receive their disability, much less their transplant.

Medicaid is a program for people without insurance who are very low income and, in most cases, are disabled as determined by the Social Security system. If the patient receives SSI, he is eligible for Medicaid. In some states, the patient can pay to the Medicaid program to qualify for the care each month, often the patient's entire income. But in most states, the average person doesn't qualify. This is different for children and pregant mothers - they usually qualify as long as they meet the very low income requirements.

We don't have a system right now that covers people, Medicare & Medicaid aren't covering people and conditions are becoming serious due to lack of treatment. Fearmongerers are printing their interpretation of the proposed plan - Sarah Palin (who walked out on the job for which she was entrusted by the people of Alaska) called it evil because it would introduce euthanasia to her parents and retarded child. These people, and people who post the bill online with their own editorializing entitled "monstrosity" aren't doing anyone any good.

Read the bill. It discusses payment for discussions between doctors & patients, and that the MD's are required to discuss these issues with patients if they are agreeable. End-of-life decisions are difficult to make and shouldn't be an aside while speaking with the doctor about other things.

Healthcare is already rationed, to those people fortunate to have coverage as long as they don't cost the for-profit insurance company much. Chrisborden stated it took four months to get his parent off of private insurance and onto MediCal - I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it was a Medicare HMO (Advantage Plan) that refused to release her even though they sent the request in writing. A huge California congolmerate is well-known for this sleezy practice. They receive over a thousand dollars each month for every patient signed onto their service so they don't want to let the patients disenroll.

Under the new plan the patient would have been advised about hospice care, and wouldn't have had to suffer a painful and undigified death that occurred whether or not the conversation happened.

There's alot of misinformation, fearmongering, lies & inuendos about this plan. Fox news is doing its best to create havoc in order to make money. Big insurance companies are making money hand over fist, pharmaceutical companies are raking in the bucks, and huge hospital corporations don't want to lose their stranglehold on the market. Every for-profit company is against reform, and non-profits want to protect their market share by claiming they serve the community. But they all, profit & non, serve themselves. Our system is broken.

Patrick was responding to a particular person calling him out because he supports healthcare reform and is using his site, his own forum to use however he wishes, to encourage discussion. I dare say his "fuck you" comment was too kind - seems to me like sex is an awesome thing that person doesn't deserve. I'd have told her I hope she never had sex again.

President Obama just revealed at the New Hampshire "town hall" that he rejected Federal government supplied insurance for himself and his family when he was in the U.S. Senate, and instead of the government regulated stuff he took advantage of his wife's private insurance supplied via her $317,000 per year political fixer/politician's wife job with the University of Chicago Hospital.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/010444.asp

"Therefore Obama is right in a strange way: private enterprise has triumphed and government service is terrible. Everyone knows this."

These "town meetings" are really nothing but propaganda sessions run by members of Congress who are trying to burnish their fraudulent credentials as public servants, and trying to perpetrate a huge fraud of a health care bill that purports to be a progressive "reform" of the US health care system, but that actually further entrenches the control of that system by the insurance industry, and to a lesser extent, the hospital and drug industry.

http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-arent-progressives-disrupting.html

How Obama's Deal With Big Pharma Undermines Democracy

http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-obamas-deal-with-big-pharma.html

Lew Rockwell states: private enterprise has triumphed and government service is terrible. Everyone knows this.

Again, I wonder if State Senators share in this over generalization, including the insurance coverage they enjoy.

"Everyone" knows that government service is terrible, except for all of those VA and Medicare recipients who continually say that they like their service.

Why is it an issue that Obama chose the superior coverage offered by his wife's employer (given that it was a medical organization, it's no surprise that it was good coverage) to that of his employer? I certainly hope there isn't anyone stupid enough to think that a "public option" automatically means "the best insurance possible, and cheaper than anything else". As long as it's INSURANCE, it is highly unlikely to be "better" than the top-tier private plans (which are obscenely expensive for the employer, and in most years more expensive than the actual cost of medical care!).

This really misses the point. Obama isn't really pushing for single payer at this time (though he has voiced support for it). Instead his primary objectives are:

#1 Lowering overall costs, particularly for entitlements like medicare
#2 Covering everyone.

Nowhere in there is there a goal of creating a public insurer that is superior to the best private insurance. Nowhere.

Will it be better than most crappy insurance? Absolutely! Will many employer-provided plans be better? Of course.

If the plan was truly better than the employer plans, it would become a defacto single payer system and everyone would join it.

I don't think it's constructive to call someone a racist because they disagree with you. That can go both ways, like when people called Obama a racist for calling the Cambridge Police stupid, and he was called a racist. By the way, I was involved in a very similar episode with the Cambridge Police about 10-15 years ago. I was at the Hong Kong Chinese Restaurant(across from Harvard Square) after a night of drinking with some friends. We were at the restaurant, had just ordered, and gotten our food and were about to eat when the waiter told us that they were closing and that we had to take our stuff to go. We were quite, not causing any trouble at the time. A friend of mine, who is Asian, went up to the cashier and told him that it's unfair for them to kick us out like that, and asked if we can just eat for 20-30 minutes. The cashier said no, we have to clear out. My friend said to the cashier, "Why didn't you tell us that we'd have to take our stuff out before we ordered? We were seated at the table? I'm a Harvard Business student and we come here every weekend, we never cause trouble, and it's unfair that you kick us out like that." Next to the cashier was a group of Cambridge cops. One, who happened to be African American, stood up and told my friend, "Why don't you take your Harvard Ass out of here!" And my friend responded, "Am I doing something wrong? I'm not shouting. I'm not bothering anyone. If I'm doing anything wrong, why don't you arrest me?" The cop then grabbed my friends hands, spun him around, and put hand cuffs on him and arrested him. I didn't read the police report, but my friend said that the report was a complete lie. He had to hire a lawyer, which cost him a couple of thousand dollars, to get the case thrown out.

So my take on the Cowley Gates incident is that police lie, that the Cambridge cops have something against Harvard students and professors(in fact, there is a very antagonistic relationship between Harvard and Cambridge), that the Harvard community looks down on the locals(they derisively call them "Townies"), but I highly doubt that Cowley is racist. He's just a liar like many cops. I'm not saying all cops are liars, but they're human just like you and me.

Kevin,

I mostly agree with your points above. Some insurance is better than no insurance. Medicare and the VA insurance is better than even crappier insurance. There are some policies that cover everything and cost nothing(except for your employer who likely is paying you less because he/she's paying $20K a year to pay for that policy).

As for the high rates of satisfaction for patients on Medicare and VA, read my take on the VA from yesterday. Seniors(most) and veterans tend to be VERY appreciative of the care they get. I worked at a VA and if not for the VERY VERY low pay for doctors compare to a private group and the VERY VERY poor ancillary services, I would love working at a VA. In terms of following evidence medicine, they are probably the best. But... If you took a group of Stanford Professors, dot.com professionals, etc. and made them get their care at a VA, I guarantee that satisfaction rates would drop to zero. In fact, this is an interaction I had with one of these individuals. A patient of mine had dropped by unexpectedly because she was just diagnosed with terminal liver cancer. I consoled her and spent some time with her as we both cried. This made me about 10 minutes late in seeing my next patient, a VP at a major dot.com. As soon as I got in the exam room and apologized for being late, the VP picked up her cell phone and started to make a call and told me, you wasted a half an hour of my time, now I'm going to waste yours. So I waited as she talked to her friend on her cell phone. She was on the phone for about 5 minutes but I waited patiently, but seeing that she was not going to get off the cell phone(by the way, there is a sign in the exam room and the waiting room asking patients to turn off their cell phones)I had to check on another patient in another exam room undergoing a procedure. I was not in the other room for more then a couple of minutes when I hear shouting from the VP with F bombs at my medical assistant demanding to know where I was and that I was making her late. So I hurry out of the other room, apologize to the VP, calm her down and treat her. I wonder how she'll be happy going to a VA type system.

My favorite patients are migrant workers, seniors, veterans, blue collar workers, etc. No funny business, no demands to treat them "holistically"(not that I have anything against "holistic medicine" but if you want to be treated holistically, go to a alternative care physician), no bringing in endless internet articles, etc. They just want to get treated so that they can go back to living their lives.

i just wanted the 200th post

>>>2ndClassCitizen,

I understand your point about the government's role in inflating healthcare costs. Clearly we agree that many government interventions have created a wildly uneven and inequitable system. But the analogy to the housing bubble isn't a perfect one.

While the government did play a role in inflating U.S. healthcare costs, it did so most glaringly by refusing to intervene rather than by any sort of intervention. I've mentioned that the Canadian Medicare system pays approximately 60% of what we pay per person. U.S. Medicare costs have similarly gone up at 1/3 less rapidly than private healthcare costs in the U.S. since the plan's inception in the 1960s. In other words, if, hypothetically, we had all been able to buy into the medicare plan, our premiums would be 2/3 what they are today. Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, Medicare is simply far more efficient than private insurance, with only about 3% of expenses going to administration (as opposed to over 15% for private insurers).

In the housing bubble, it could be argued the the Fed also erred by failing to intervene, most specifically, as Dean Baker has pointed out many times, by denying the bubble rather than using the Fed's bully pulpit to warn of the bubble's existence, and, hopefully, by so doing, ending the frenzy.

However, unlike with the housing market, I don't believe that the healthcare landscape would be appreciably better if the government had never intervened at all. In fact, it has been the privatization and corporatization of healthcare that, more than anything, has driven up costs in my lifetime. When I was born, most hospitals were run by charitable organizations, either religious groups or philanthropic groups. Profit wasn't the primary driver, helping people was. The same held for the major insurers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield used to be non-profits. Yet since 1990, in many areas, they converted to for-profit corporations that were then bought up by larger healthcare conglomerates. Here in CA, Anthem, the parent company of Blue Cross of CA, pulled 10 billion dollars in cash out of the local company in 2008. That's money that would have gone to reducing premiums in the past.

The reason standard market rules don't apply in healthcare is that people approach meidcal care far differently than they do buying a car or a house. They place complete trust in their doctors - in fact, they trust them with their lives. It is all but impossible to shop for prices for heart surgery or many similar treatments. The system is not set up for it, and people are simply not psychologically able to approach healthcare with the same attitude as they would shopping for a computer. And really, can you blame them? Paul Krugman made an excellent analogy when he said you wouldn't want to comparison shop for firemen. People approach healthcare in much the same way as they do other public services. Sure, when forced to, they will comparison shop in India, but this is mainly out of desperation. It is not optimal.

I'm all for introducing innovations into the marketplace that work and that drive down costs. But we must also be realistic and realize that healthcare is different than other markets. It is for this very reason that all the fear mongering works so well - people are terrified of being left to suffer on their own. And it's on these fears that the right and "centrist" politicians are currently playing.

Can you imagine a world where the government does not interfere with the doctor patient relationship at all? It would be great, doctors wouldn't have to fill out endless piles of paperwork and instead could spend more time talking and working with patients. Medications would be less expensive because Medicare would not be driving up the costs. The insurance industry would either not exist or be a minor player because government did not give them subsidies in the form of tax exemptions to businesses.

It would not be perfect, because no human endeavor is.

For that matter why do we have health insurance in the present form anyway? I can't buy comprehensive car insurance that will pay for a new starter when mine wears out or a new set of tires.

That is because these are routine and predictable expenses associated with owning a car. Why does insurance have to get involved in routine maintenance such as physical exams, blood pressure medication, etc.. Shouldn't insurance be for catastrophic illnesses like cancer, and motor vehicle accidents?

Insurance (no matter if it is private or public) drives up costs, piles on red tape and limits choice. And make no mistake about it: during the Nixon years government backed the insurance industry and has been doing it ever since. Bush gave us the biggest expansion of government in history with Medicare Part D (a public private partnership where government foots the bill and industry reaps the rewards). Government blew this bubble and the powers that be want to keep blowing.

srla,

I agree that too much $ that goes into private insurance companies go to line the pockets of sharholders and the CEOs who make $10M a year.

But I don't think that arguments against reform are just "fear mongering". Already, those with Medicare in some counties have trouble finding a primary care physician. Since the rates that Medicare pays is below what is required to run a medical practice in the Bay Area, (in some parts of the country, it is enough, or some organizations with large private donations like the Mayo Clinic can thrive on Medicare rates) many providers won't accept Medicare anymore. In some of the current plans, there are plans to cut 10-30% from Medicare to offset some of the costs of covering more individuals. If this happens, there will be even less providers accepting Medicare, unless we go to a single payer system and all physicians are forced to accept these rates(which will bankrupt most large groups immediately). Sure there are plans to make providers improve quality to lower cost, etc. but no one seems to discuss any specifics.

Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Some Guy,

The government is SUBSIDIZING health insurance companies by giving tax exemptions to companies who purchase health insurance for their employees. Citizens can’t get this subsidy only businesses. Government is blowing this health care bubble by its tax policies and fee for service plans like Medicare.

You didn’t address my point at all. You simply repeated what you said before. I already refuted that.

I didn't know you had a point, but if you can't understand what I am saying I can't help you. My posts are pretty clear. The government (which is part and parcel with corporate America who funds the campaigns of the most influential leaders in government) blew the health care bubble by offering tax exemptions to employers that are not available to individuals, and by creating and expanding fee for service programs like medicare.