Where is the discussion?

[hfojvt]

Last night/this morning for a time, I guess there was no GD.

But for the past two months there has also been no discussion of a particular topic.

Somerby blames the media for refusing to talk about it, but there is nothing to prevent "we the people" from bringing up this topic.

The topic being, the outrageous cost of health care in this country.

"The process is already under way! Starting on June 2, Rosenthal has published three lengthy front-page reports in her future award-winning series, PAYING TILL IT HURTS. But how odd! In the process of winning the Pulitzer Prize, Rosenthal’s series of front-page reports has produced exactly no public discussion.

Last week, Rosenthal guested on Fresh Air. Aside from that, we find no sign that she has been mentioned by the national press corps at all.

Her series deals with the massive looting which characterizes American health care—and her series has been appearing on the front page of America’s most famous incompetent paper. And not only that! This massive looting helps explain a wide set of societal ills—stagnant wages; the lack of international competitiveness by some important American industries; the failure to achieve full health care coverage; the problems of federal deficits."

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/08/eyes-wide-shut-nothing-to-look-at.html

For example

The $2.7 trillion medical bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?ref=elisabethrosenthal&_r=0

American way of birth - costliest in the world
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html?ref=elisabethrosenthal

In need of a new hip, but priced out of the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?ref=elisabethrosenthal

Although, I don't know if a guy who says "that was 1/3 of my savings at the time" about $65,000 (or $78,000? or $13,000?) is really the posterboy for Americans in need.

Now I see though, that I can only read ten Times articles for free each month. So maybe THAT is why people do not link to the Times and discuss their articles.

[djean111]

1. There has been discussion here. The hip story was posted here earlier, too.

But the government is not going in the direction of addressing costs, just addressing the purchase of insurance.
Nothing will change unless we can get the money out of Washington. And I do not see that happening. Ever, really.

[hfojvt]

2. I did find two threads

each with one rec and a handful of replies http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023429184

Maybe we need to get the money out of the media first as it is the TV thingy that makes elections so expensive and also seems to be able to drive the narrative.

[djean111]

3. I think the TV thingy is so expensive because it is just a way for politicians to transfer

huge amounts of money to media cronies.
Maybe some day we will get a president who actually gets rid of lobbyists, too.
The whole system is so rotten, I guess it is silly to expect much!

[hfojvt]

4. a President?

or a Congress?

One thing about lobbyists is curious though, because so many Congresspeople live in seemingly "safe" districts that they certainly should neither be afraid of lobbyists nor feel the need to be purchased by lobbyists.

But I guess if $1,000,000 went to a challenger then the district might not seem quite so safe.

[Andy823]

6. The president of congress?

That is a good question. To many people seem to think that a president can do anything they want, yet in reality it's congress that has to pass bills and make the laws. If congress won't work on getting the money out of politics, it won't happen. If congress want's to kill any bill that might help lower health care costs, as Boehner and his band of clowns have been doing the last 40 times they have tried to eliminate "Obama care", then nothing will get done.

The problem is congress, and as long as the House can block everything that the president and the democrats in the Senate want, well it's just going to be the same old gridlock day after day after day! We need to get rid of those who don't want to work for the people, but who only care about the will of the corporations that are putting millions into their election funds! We can start doing that next year come election time.

[hfojvt]

12. I get tired of all the "Elizabeth Warren for President"

or "Flavor Flav of the day for President" as if "all we need to do is get a good President and all our problems are solved.

Uhm, no, we need better Senators than Cory Booker. We need better Representatives than Paul Ryan or Rand Paul or Lynn Jenkins or the Blue Dogs.

[djean111]

7. I only said "a president" because Obama did say he would do away with lobbyists,

or something to that effect, and so I thought a president could actually do that. He signed an executive order about this, but that has waivers and loopholes and is to all intents and purposes useless.
I think even the ones in safe districts want the big contributions, the favors, and the lucrative jobs after they leave office.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. The President cannot legislate by Executive Order

particularly regarding what CONGRESS can and cannot do... and by far the largest number of lobbyists pumping money into the system for their interests are to Congress members (the Legislative Branch) because THEIR actions have direct impact on the interests, NOt the Executive Branch. And that's because of need for money for elections - notably for the House with elections every 2 years. His EOs only apply to the Executive Branch employees.

And the problem regarding "eliminating lobbyists" is that this is a very broad action and "lobbyist" is a very broad term term. And "eliminating" would eliminate union and worker rights advocacy, advocates for the poor, advocates for environmental reforms, advocates for civil rights, and advocates for other agendas that liberals feel need to be put forth. So broad-brush drive-bys are counter-productive when one does not choose, for whatever reason, to think it through.

Election reform will partially help tamp down the problem in any case.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Public election financing.

Money is the problem. The two party system is corrupt. We have right and bat-shit-crazy right to choose from.

Capitalism is the problem.

[hfojvt]

8. even with public financing

we will not do anything about health care costs

if we don't ever talk about health care costs.

"capitalism is the problem" Do you think those other countries with far lower health care costs are not living in capitalist economies?

[PowerToThePeople]

9. You know.

Re-reading this, I may have meant for my response to go to another OP =/ I usually have many tabs of OPs going at the same time, so.. clicky the wrong one for reply.

Yes, health care costs are outrageous. Privately owned for-profit health care providers and for-profit insurance industry have driven our pricing through the roof.

[dkf]

10. This is why the ACA is a farce. The whole structure is a mess.