News special deal between Obama, ABC suspicious

Perhaps ABC could broadcast John Stossel’s “Sick in America” episode right after so Americans can compare Obama’s lies about socialized medicine with the benefits of free markets in health care.

Looks like you forgot all about the Republican propaganda network Fox News.

fair & balanced – obviously you have issues with Fox news and you are missing the point.

FOX news is a cable station that you pay to view, just like MSNBC, CNN, ESPN, and MTV. Giving the White house primetime coverage on your national FREE channel just sounds suspicious.

However, we will not know until the show is aired. Just remember if you do not like what you are watching there are plenty of other channels.

The vast majority of Americans favor a public healthcare option. I’m not even talking about single payer, i’m talking about govt. getting in the game and competing with the private sector. This creates TRUE competition that will help drive down costs, which clearly isn’t happening in the current structure.

The problem is that Congress is not getting behind this idea to the point necessary to pass legislation. Thats what this “town hall” is all about. Its trying to show Congress that the people really do want this option..its not about educating the people or spreading the message to the people.

Sure it would be competition if there were maybe 4 or 5 health care companies but there are over 100 companies (that is one HUNDRED, I did tone it down from a thousand because I wasn’t sure) so the government would be a drop in the bucket as far as the amount of competitions are concerned. Also these companies provide real private sector good jobs, not government jobs.
We already have welfare handouts, why not just do McCain’s health care plan; you get $5k and get your own plan. We wont break the bank, and we won’t destroy the private sector.

The Republicans have a lot to say about health care too, like….

…….

…………………….

Oh, nothing.

It’s like the kid in first grade who doesn’t even like apples, but he cries and kicks his feet when his brother—who loves apples—gets one.

The problem is that none of those 100’s of other companies is contributing to lowering costs & premiums. And what is wrong with government jobs? I got news for ya, government isn’t the same as in the 70s when the regan revolution proclaimed that government is the problem. This decade, its been BIG business that’s been the problem. Thats not All business, but I think Big Business is more problematic that government these days…by FAR.

But I digress…the problem with McCain’s suggestion (other than it was rejected in Nov.) is that it does nothing to help reform our system, meaning it does nothing to address the uncontrollable rise in Costs/premiums.

Exactly where do you folks think insurance companies will pare back with this new competition from the government? Executive salaries? Bonuses? Or will it be doctor and hospital payments?

I find it hilarious that people will pay a hundred dollars for a sports or concert ticket but bitch and complain about a $100 doctor visit. The expectation for a doctor to be perfect is hilarious too.

If you honestly think the government is “looking out for the general population” then you have a problem. The government is looking to control people to stay in power, which is contrasted by companies wanting to make money; which is the lesser of two evils? I would go with the companies
Ok as for change…. what change exactly? A blank check telling people to go in whenever they cough? We need to instill responsibilty through healthy living and ambition not continuing to tax the rich to insure the poor and that is exactly what public health care will do.

The “government” isn’t some evil entity out to get us. Our govt. consists of officials elected to act on our behalf, and with health care that’s exactly what’s going on. You’re paranoid and delusional if you think the government (again government of the People, thats you and I) has some ulterior motive.

Big business on the other hand consists of VERY evil entities out to line their pockets at anyone’s expense.

A big part of the change is insuring everybody so that we no longer have uninsured (45M +) vising the ER and having those costs passed on to every one of us via increased costs across the board.

The company that I intern for has a program where they offer a gym membership for free and sponsors athletic events. They don’t force us to excersise they want to lower health preiumums and increase money (maybe to hire me someday). And making money is not evil, it employs people; so they too have money to buy health insurance, it makes the world go round.
Oh and I might be paranoid but you are the delusional one, if you believe that a politician will follow through on every promise; “read my lips I will not raise taxes” a la Bush or “I am going to pull the troops out of Iraq” Obama.

Jake- You are right about the reaction of insurance companies. They will look to cut services well before they cut their own salaries. Your urging to pay doctors more is laugable. They make way more money here than in other countries. It’s one of the reasons doctors from England and India regularly come to practice here. I’m not sure what you advocate we do when a doctor does make a mistake.

Thats fantastic that your company offers a gym membership. I never said making money is evil, i think that too much of Big Business is evil because those at the top look to maximize profits no matter the cost (if it weren’t for govt. involvement we wouldn’t have minimum wage, child labor laws, health & safety standards, etc.).

I never said i think or expect a politician to follow through on every promise, but I do think that the priority to TRY and reform the health care system is motivated by the desire to help the general population, if at the very least bringing down costs to those of us (businesses, employees & other) that are alrady insured, and at best to provide everybody with health care.

Tom:

I believe that your good intentions can be clearly seen. And it’s true, you’re likely in the majority camp. If you and your compatriots are all equally “willing to pay more in taxes”, I applaud you. I suggest then you speak to your congressman about starting a voluntary tax to aid those without insurance. That benefits those who want to pay more, those who don’t have insurance, and those who do would rather pay fewer taxes.

But, if I’ve guessed correctly, your compassion only lasts as far as you can to burden everyone with your charity.

The ABC arrangement is clearly an inappropriate entanglement of a news organization that likes to call itself independent and non-partisan, with government. I have written and told them so. It is intended to get out one side of the issue. I’m sure the fact that former ABC ‘journalist’ Linda Douglas is on the White House health care communication staff had nothing whatever to do with this arrangement. ;-)
The sycophancy being demonstrated by most of the Fourth Estate for the past five months is breathtaking.

Chris:

So, what if in enroll my kids in private school, should I not have to pay taxes that contribute to the public schools? What if I work from home and never use the interstate? should i not have to pay taxes for that? What if i hire a private security company, should i not have to pay taxes for the local police?

We’re already indirectly paying for the uninsured, my hope is that by reforming the system, getting everybody covered, and having everybody help pay with taxes, on balance it will end up costing less

Tom W,
I find your statements about government involvement creating more competition because they aren’t in it for ‘profit’ laughable. The biggest problem with government is that they are not in it for ‘profit’, so they have no incentive to be efficient. Government programs notoriously overspend and underperform. Government involvement in Business IS most of the problem. They create more paperwork and more bureaucracy, which creates more cost. So, if we have government insurance they will not create lower costs, they will create higher costs, and will ultmately determine what kind of care we will get.

How many things has government not screwed up? Very few. Look at the TSA. Very little accomplished, so little changed from 9/11, and yet so much spent.

Obama is just black Bush. Yay Patriot Act, yay Iraq without protestors. The left/right illusion has won.

hvt- Shouldn’t you at least wait to see the report before declaring it to be partisan? They aren’t letting republican party ads run, but we don’t know what opposing views will be aired. Are they letting the democrat party run ads? Last time I checked, Obama was the the President of the US, not just of the democrats. It’s hilarious that not long ago republicans were pointing to the fairness doctrine as a socialist control of the press, suddenly they are all for fairness.

Tom:

To your first three points, a steadfast no, you shouldn’t. Beyond the fact that you’re obviously segueing topics, and have a difficulty understanding the definition of a public good (by definition health care is decidedly not).

To the point I originally made, why would you be unwilling to gather a group of individuals and volunteer tax money to cover the uninsured? This, of course, is the definition of a charity.

Yet your charity only seems to depend on forcing the charity of others.

Forcing all of us into one de facto single payer system to make care more affordable makes no more sense than forcing all of us into public housing to solve the homeless problem.

Private sector efficiency? Don’t make me laugh. How has all of our private outsourcing worked in our efforts in Iraq? paying private soldiers 6 figure salaries, remodeling the same cafeteria twice, straight up Losing hundreds of millions of dollars…the private sector has a role to play, but when it fails (banking, health care) the public sector needs to get involved.

If the government can provide a health plan that is cheaper (medicare premiums have grown at about half the rate private insurance has), it will force private companies to change their practices to retain customers. What is wrong with that?

Chris: Perhaps we had different definitions of what we consider the public good, and how to go about promoting that.

I don’t see you making any point about charity except that, yes charity raise money for specific causes…whats your point?

I never once mentioned a single payer system, and i think its extremely unlikely that it would pass. Thats why i was merely focusing on having the government as one of MANY options in the Marketplace (you conservatives like that word dont you?) as a potential catalyst for fundamental change within the health care system.

Fact: we can’t afford to continue the status quo in health care.

So whats the solution?

Tom:

The hilarity of the argument against private sector efficiency is astounding. You used all examples of private companies using government money with no bid contracts. You’re surprised they fell apart, there were cost overruns? With the costs coming out of someone else’s pocket, who is accountable? How many billions has the Federal Reserve lost?

Check your reasoning.

Tom:

“We can’t afford to continue the status quo in health care” is an exact line from a presidential speech. Isn’t that what you liberals like to do?

The point on charity is that, there are people who are very vocal about not wanting to pay for a public option. And yet, because you are so charitable, are willing to use their money to do it. Why can’t those, like yourself, who want to volunteer extra tax money, do so and give whatever it takes to fund the public option?

You don’t mention a single player system, because you clearly don’t see the link.

Chris-
Again you fail to suggest any reform of your own and fail to dispute the fact that the present system is unsustainable despite repeated requests to do so from Tom.
Your use of the postal system is odd given the fact that Fed Ex and UPS effecitviely compete against the USPS.

Jason:

They cannot legally compete with USPS in letter delivery. I’m sure if UPS and FedEx could, they would do better, but as of now, the USPS is raising prices, mitigating a $3 billion loss, all while still paying the postmaster general exorbitant amounts. That’s the point I was making.

And I recognize the our current system is flawed, but would say that the solution to health insurance is found in reducing the incidence of loss by the insurance company from frivolous law suits.

Chris-
Seriously? Your solution is end frivolous lawsuits? Any proposals for doing that? I have an idea, how about we require attorneys to file a Notice of Intent 180 days before they can file a lawsuit. That way the parties can investigate and maybe settle pre-suit. Let’s also require lawyers to have an Affidavit of Merit signed by a board certified physician in the appropriate specialty swearing that the suit isn’t frivolous.

Tim,
Republican plan: http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/06-17-09_House__GOP_Solutions__Group__Outline.pdf
The only reason you were ignorant of its existence is because of the sycophant MSM’s failure to describe it.
What do I expect Obama to do ? I expect him to use the normal mechanisms that have always been available to them. Debate it rather than co-opt the media with an infomercial.

As I’m sure you’re aware, being intimately involved in the medical community, that those regulatory changes are moot, as they are often as you stated settled pre-suit. The reason being that if you take up all the costs of litigating using those various avenues, the settlement ends up being large, but short of what it would cost in court.

Chris-
I can assure you that those are far from moot in regards to their impact on litigation. They are relatively moot in reducing medical malpractice rates and health care costs. If you look at the amount of money spent on health care in our country compared to what litigation costs, it’s a very insignificant number. Even if you eliminated virtually all the litigation it wouldn’t save much more than 10-15%.