Oppose The Government/Corporate Take Over Of Healthcare! Say No To Big Business/Government!

[TomCADem]

:sarcasm:

I just find it amazing the parallels between the Freedom Work/U.S. Chamber of Commerce talking points attacking health care reform and the talking points repeated on this board against health care reform. You just take out "government" and replace it with "corporate" and you can use the same exact talking point, but sound like a liberal!

The talking points are exactly the same. For example, a frequent right wing talking point repeated on this board is that you will go to jail due to health care reform, which is bullshit. The laws for not paying taxes are already on the books, thus any proposed tax increase or fee can be attacked on this ground. Yet, this talking point appears frequently in one line attacks against health care reform.

Is there a way that we can do a plagiarism search on such posts? It like cheating students cutting and pasting term papers with a minor tweak, but lazier.

[TomCADem]

1. Another Frequent False Right Wing Talking Point Packaged As A "Liberal" One - Medicare Will Be Cut!

This is from factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/

False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed

The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.

The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one’s perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.

The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won’t be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.:

Obama, Aug. 11: Another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not.

Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation’s largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says:

AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.

To be sure, Obama hasn’t always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting “a 22 percent cut in benefits.” The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it’s still false now when Obama’s critics are making the same accusation against him.

[laughingliberal]

2. With all due respect, there is a difference between government takeover of health care and

corporate takeover of health care. First, corporate takeover of health care has already happened and it drove the costs up wildly and the quality down. I do oppose expanding the current for-profit corporate model of health care without some pretty hefty safeguards in place.

[TomCADem]

3. That Is Just A Converted RW Talking Point - Look At The Swiss Model...

I know that many liberals oppose ANY private insurance involvement as a matter of principle, thus they reject all of the current bills. This opposition strikes me as rigidly idealogical. Do I think Canada's single payer is desirable? Yes. Is it the only model? No.

Look at the Swiss system, which many DUers would also reject due to the continue role of private insurance. This is why I think that current bills are worth pushing since they reduce the number of uninsured and reduce the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html

ZURICH — Like every other country in Europe, Switzerland guarantees health care for all its citizens. But the system here does not remotely resemble the model of bureaucratic, socialized medicine often cited by opponents of universal coverage in the United States.

Swiss private insurers are required to offer coverage to all citizens, regardless of age or medical history. And those people, in turn, are obligated to buy health insurance.

That is why many academics who have studied the Swiss health care system have pointed to this Alpine nation of about 7.5 million as a model that delivers much of what Washington is aiming to accomplish — without the contentious option of a government-run health insurance plan.

***

By many measures, the Swiss are healthier than Americans, and surveys indicate that Swiss people are generally happy with their system. Switzerland, moreover, provides high-quality care at costs well below what the United States spends per person. Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans.

[kenny blankenship]

4. And you left out the fact that the Swiss private insurance model bans profit

it BANS PROFIT on the basic health care insurance which all people are obligated to buy.

A small omission. It's nothing much really, IT's JUST THE KEY TO THEIR WHOLE SYSTEM.

Insurers can make money on supplemental insurance policies on top of that, BUT NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO BUY THAT.

The legal requirement forbidding profit on basic health insurance preceded the individual mandate to purchase, and because of the elimination of profit from basic health care -the vast majority of the health care market- the basic insurance was affordable. How affordable? By the mid 1990s when the individual mandate part of the Swiss system was passed, 94% of Swiss citizens were ALREADY COVERED. Compare this to Massachusetts which passed a individual mandate but did nothing to eliminate the profit-skimming middleman. Massachusetts has achieved only 95% coverage and has the highest medical care costs of any state in the union - of the country with the highest medical care costs anywhere in the world.

YES by all means, look at the Swiss system. ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT!

[TomCADem]

7. So, you admit that private companies provide insurance in the Swiss Model and it can work?

Doesn't that undermine the argument that you absolutely cannot have any private insurance involvement? If I understand your point, if we have certain profit restrictions, it can work.

Indeed, lets say we have a requirement that 90 percent of all premiums actually go to health care, aren't then approaching the swiss model? If I am not mistaken, hasn't such a requirement been discussed in connection with the current bills.

[Bjorn Against]

12. Do you admit that the bills going through Congress right now are not the same as the Swiss system?

Not too many people on this site have said there is no way to make a private system work, they have said there is no way to make a for profit system work. The bills going through Congress right now are not going to bring the Swiss system to this country, the bills that we are being handed not only leave the for profit system firmly in place but they make it a crime to refuse to make payments to a private for profit industry. You are using the Swiss system as a strawman to get us to look away from the problems with a bill that proposes something entirely different than the Swiss system.

[TomCADem]

20. So, you would not mind the swiss system?

If you oppose the Swiss system, too, then I am wasting time.

The swiss system is not a strawman, but a realistic option that we can begin to move forward through the adoption of the current bills.

Also, you are incorrect about the Swiss system being a zero profit system:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

###

Under Swiss law, insurers may not make a profit on the basic plan, which is quite comprehensive. Individuals, however, can adjust their premium up or down by choosing a larger or smaller annual deductible, or by joining an HMO-type plan that requires them to choose a doctor in a network.

###

Now, if you look at the bills being considered, it is definitely moving in the direction of a swiss system. The bills mandate a minimum a level of coverage with preventive care. However, the bills do not prevent much more comprehensive or extensive coverage like the swiss system.

So, I think the Swiss system is actually a much better model to look at, then Canada, because the current bills are a step in the right direction.

However, if you oppose the Swiss system, then it really does not matter.

[Bjorn Against]

23. My views on the Swiss system are irrelevant because we are not adopting the Swiss system

If you want my opinion on the Swiss system, it is better than the current system and better than the mandatory for-profit system being proposed in Congress, but it is not as good as single payer. My views on the Swiss system are irrelevant because we do not live in Switzerland and your OP was about the bills before Congress right now, those bills are not an adoption of the Swiss system. The fact is that the Swiss health insurers can not profit off the basic plans, they can only profit off supplemental plans. A previous post already noted that, but then you had to jump on the person who posted that fact and said they were promoting a myth by saying the Swiss system was non-profit even though they had already pointed out that there was profit in the supplemental plans that no one is required to buy.

Further down the thread you accused another poster of taking the same position as Freedom Works, I hate to break it to you but Freedom Works is even more strongly opposed to single payer than they are to the Obama plan. Your position is actually closer to the Freedom Works position than that of single payer advocates, but I would never accuse you of being too close to Freedom Works because it would be every bit as dishonest for me to say that as it is for you to claim single payer advocates are on the same side as Freedom Works.

When you say the leftist position is the same as the right-wing position it shows that you are not looking for an honest discussion so I am done kicking your thread.

[TomCADem]

24. Swiss System, Mandates, Subsidies, Basic Set Of Benefits, Private Insurance

This is why a discussion of the Swiss system is helpful. Are we adopting it whole cloth? No. However, are there significant elements being adopted? Yes.

As for the Freedom Works reference, I was responding to a post that just made a big ad hominem attack about me drinking the Kool Aid, so I am not sure how you would expect me to respond to such a low blow attack.

[Bjorn Against]

26. You accused mmonk of being on the side of Freedom Works

mmonk never said anything about Kool Aid and did not personally attack you in any way, yet you still claimed he or she was on the same side as Freedom Works, if you want to talk about a low blow attack you are the one who is guilty of that low blow. I know I said I wouldn't kick your thread anymore, but I couldn't allow you to continue your slander without a response.

[TomCADem]

27. Oh, sorry about that, you are right...

In looking at the string, I read the Kool Aid title, and thought mmonk was piling on. He is actually in a new sub-thread. So, my bad.

[kenny blankenship]

16. Few people in America would call BANNING PROFIT a mark of private enterprise

You want to propose that for healthcare -that's great. That's what CIVILIZED COUNTRIES DO. Welcome to the fight. Off the top of my head, though, I can think of two major political parties in America that would scream "Socialism!", and "Fascism!", and "Communism!" at you - and all at the same time.

"Certain restrictions!" Yes, if the middleman is under the certain restriction that he can skim no profit off disease, death, and injury, his presence is tolerable to me. I strongly suspect though that such terms would not be tolerable to him - nor to his hirelings in the White House and the Congress.

Until the Democrats are on the verge of passing a bill calling for all basic essential care (which is 70% to 80% of the overall health market) for all citizens to be provided at ZERO profit to a MIDDLEMAN, I don't want to hear any more lying bullshitters talking about Switzerland.

Especially lying bullshitters who don't even mention the NON-PROFIT aspect of the Swiss system.

[TomCADem]

22. Once Again - That's A Myth - The Swiss System Is NOT Non-Profit

I think many single payer advocates would look at the Swiss system (see below) and freak out about "supplemental coverage." The bills being considered are essentially a move towards the Swiss system. This is why I wonder why we spend so much time talking about single payer, and not comparing the bills to the Swiss system.

With the swiss sytem, you have an individual mandate, subsidies to lower income households, a basic minimum coverage requirement, and the ability to purchase much more generous coverage (Cadillac plans). Sound familiar?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

Considerable Price Tag

Still, the coverage takes quite a bite out of the family budget. Rappaz keeps the bills in a three-ring binder. She pays 400 Swiss francs per month for her basic coverage; her employer contributes 60 francs toward that.

Under Swiss law, insurers may not make a profit on the basic plan, which is quite comprehensive. Individuals, however, can adjust their premium up or down by choosing a larger or smaller annual deductible, or by joining an HMO-type plan that requires them to choose a doctor in a network.

Since her husband, Bernard, rarely goes to the doctor, they have chosen a network plan for him; his monthly premium is only 298 francs. Children also cost less, so Anais and her brother Lucien's premiums for basic coverage are 89 francs each.

Where Swiss health insurers can and do make profits, however, is on supplemental coverage. This is for things like dentistry, alternative medicine (which is popular in Switzerland), and semiprivate or private hospital rooms. For 30 francs per month, Cecile and her husband have a supplementary policy that covers, "for example, all kinds of prevention, not-on-the-list medication, help at home, glasses, transport, alternative medicine. That's a good one," she says.

For another 105 francs each, they have another supplemental policy that guarantees them a semiprivate hospital room — and the possibility of a private, rather than a public hospital.

[laughingliberal]

5. Big difference between what is before our Senate and House right now and the Swiss system

1st (and very important difference) <snip> Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans. <snip>


2nd big difference: <snip> it does keep down overall spending by regulating drug prices and fees for lab tests and medical devices. <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html

It is not the fact that our system is 'private' that is the real problem. It is that it is for profit. See how the Swiss system is not? See how they regulate drug prices? Notice how our current bills keep the profit motive firmly entrenched? I worked in healthcare before, during, and after the takeover of our system by for profit corporations. I witnessed the decline in the quality of patient care. I saw decisions made based on profits which lowered the quality of care. We all saw the skyrocketing costs. Comparing the giveaway to the for profit insurance cartels in the House and Senate bills to the Swiss model is a stretch.

[TomCADem]

8. Sure there is. But the Swiss Model Does Have Private Insurance Involvement. Deal Killer...

The debate should be how we can improve the bills, perhaps even incorporate the swiss model into the current bills. BUT, many of the posts simply take a single payer or nothing approach.

I am not suggesting that the current bills adopt the Swiss system, which has been pushed by Rahm Emanuel's brother, but the bills are step in that direction.

[laughingliberal]

10. That is not my approach. I would like single payer but know it is not the only answer

However, the bills before the House and the Senate are not remotely a step in the direction of the Swiss model. The Swiss model probably is closer to single payer than it is to what we have before us now. Not for profit, private insurance probably has overhead much closer to our government run plans than to our private insurance plans. I'm all for it. Outlaw for profit health insurance and they can keep it in the hands of the private companies forever. I can not emphasize enough how it is the profit motive that destroyed health care here. That is not an insignificant difference between our model and the Swiss model.

[TomCADem]

21. No, No, No...The Swiss System Is Not Single Payer, Here Is NPR's Discussion

I think many single payer advocates would look at the Swiss system (see below) and freak out about "supplemental coverage." The bills being considered are essentially a move towards the Swiss system. This is why I wonder why we spend so much time talking about single payer, and not comparing the bills to the Swiss system.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

Considerable Price Tag

Still, the coverage takes quite a bite out of the family budget. Rappaz keeps the bills in a three-ring binder. She pays 400 Swiss francs per month for her basic coverage; her employer contributes 60 francs toward that.

Under Swiss law, insurers may not make a profit on the basic plan, which is quite comprehensive. Individuals, however, can adjust their premium up or down by choosing a larger or smaller annual deductible, or by joining an HMO-type plan that requires them to choose a doctor in a network.

Since her husband, Bernard, rarely goes to the doctor, they have chosen a network plan for him; his monthly premium is only 298 francs. Children also cost less, so Anais and her brother Lucien's premiums for basic coverage are 89 francs each.

Where Swiss health insurers can and do make profits, however, is on supplemental coverage. This is for things like dentistry, alternative medicine (which is popular in Switzerland), and semiprivate or private hospital rooms. For 30 francs per month, Cecile and her husband have a supplementary policy that covers, "for example, all kinds of prevention, not-on-the-list medication, help at home, glasses, transport, alternative medicine. That's a good one," she says.

For another 105 francs each, they have another supplemental policy that guarantees them a semiprivate hospital room — and the possibility of a private, rather than a public hospital.

Edit to add: Canada and Switzerland have very different health care systems, and the bills being considered appear to borrow significant elements from the Swiss system.

[mmonk]

6. People who believe them are confused, not us. This is a bill

designed for the benefit of the for profit health insurance industry. Government is the facilitator for funds to the corporation. It's not big government, it's crony capitalism.

[TomCADem]

9. Thanks for that string of slogans...

Do the bills reduce the number of uninsured? At least by 31 million people.

Do the bills reduce the deficit? Yes.

Do the bills prohibit dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions? Yes.

I think health care needs to be improved, and if the current bills do that, great.

[bertman]

14. TomCADem, I think somebody slipped some Kool-aid in your coffee this morning.

You sound like a lobbyist for the health insurance industry.

When do the "reductions" go into effect? 2013. Do you think that they will be unscathed by then? Do you think 2013 is a reasonable time frame to implement this?

Do the bills reduce the deficit? On paper, yes. In reality we will see the same thing happen that has happened to every piece of government legislation in the last 50 years. IT WILL COST MORE THAN THEY ARE SAYING. A LOT MORE.

What difference does it make if they drop pre-existing conditions if the premiums are so high you cannot afford a decent plan? What difference does it make if they can STILL deny claims for any number of other reasons that their very creative insurance industry claims deniers can come up with.

The difference in this healthcare "reform" and REAL reform is the difference in a diamond ring and a cut glass ring. They look kinda alike, but they are not even close to the same.

[leftstreet]

17. ^What you said^

:thumbsup:

[TomCADem]

18. Are You Purposely Lying? AHIP and US Chamber of Commerce OPPOSE The Bills

The AFL-CIO and AARP support the bills.

You do understand that AHIP is the health insurance lobbying group don't you? Do you also understand that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also strongly opposes the bill.

Please explain this to me. I read these claims that this is some giant give away, yet AHIP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are trying to kill reform, Freedom Works is getting corporate money to kill reform, and the Republicans are trying to kill reform.

Please explain why you believe that these groups are suddenly on the side of angels and protecting the consumer with Democrats on the side of big insurance?

Since when has AHIP fought the wishes of big insurance?

[mmonk]

15. And AARP helps sell private health insurance.

Sorry, I had to add another "slogan". ;-)
I'm not sure what this mish mash bill designed to keep for profit health insurers in the picture and going (and written partly by their lobbyists) will ultimately do.

[TomCADem]

19. AHIP IS Big Insurance. What's your explaination for AHIP and the U.S. Chamber Opposing Reform?

I never get a straight answer to this regardless of how many times as ask this question. All we get is this paranoid ad hominem attack that the Democrats have sold out.

- 31 million more people coverged.

- The deficit is reduced.

- No denials based on preexisting conditions.

- No life time caps.

- Subsidies for lower income families.

Why do you oppose this? Why are you supporting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AHIP, the GOP, Freedom Works in trying to kill reform? Why are you going against the AARP, AFL-CIO and Health Care for America Now?

Look at who is agreeing with you in efforts to kill reform.

[mmonk]

28. I'm not against reform. I'm for reform that has as its focus the welfare

of the people of this country at the top of the list, not how to sustain the stock prices of Wall Street insurance companies. I do not think in the area of the delivery and accessibility of health care, the funds must always go through a corporation whose purpose is to make a profit for its stockholders, not to insure the insured gets cared for. Everything we do in life does not have to in order to have a free enterprise system. Any comparison to my position and the republican position is disingenuous since the "moderates" in our party are the closest thing outside of the Republican party to the Republican outlook and ideology.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Health Care Corporations already own healthcare.

Since they own it, they should be required to service more people with it. The Status Quo has to go.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Instead of paying taxes to the government, we will be paying taxes directly

to private corporations.

Yeah!

[ipaint]

25. Insurance companies need to replace upwards of 100 million

medicare bound baby boomers in the next 15 years. We just handed them our kids.

And until freedom work and the chamber of commerce start advocating for a medicare for all system your "parallels" are in your own mind.