Bill Moyers Journal: Former Industry Exec: Profits or Patients

Naturally Wired wrote:

Canada's approx. spending on healthcare in 2008 was $172 billion, which is about 10.7% of the national GDP.
Averages out to approx.$5,200 per citizen.
The US has 10x our population. I cannot imagine the cost to the US govt/taxpayer if full universal care was ever implemented. Possible I guess, but there were have to be major cuts to defense or some other things or major taxes etc..

That is my yearly amount of premiums and copays until I break even.

I would rather give it to Uncle Sam than some fat cat at Blue Cross Blue Shield. Which by the way, has raised my premiums by 20% since December.

They also have the power to deny my coverage for procedures that a bean counter ultimately decides.
Also, I can't change insurance co.s because of pre exisisting conditions. The others won't take me.

It sounds like a money making monopoly on the backs of the American public.

I would take any Fed plan vs the crooked insurance indu$try.

Taxpayers revolt wrote:

<quoted text>Health care for all is wonderful as a concept until the socialists insist that working people should pay for their own health care and someone else's too.
That's the fundamental unfairness of it all. Then, the Democrats want to institute health care that is unaffordable, unfunded, and unfair.
Three strikes and they're out.

No free health care for deadbeats.
Free government housing and free cell phones should be eliminated too.
Bring back FDR's CCC Camps that separated unemployed males from females so they couldn't breed. Make all CCC residents work every day except Sunday to earn their government paid room and board.
Another feature of FDR's social programs was that only FAMILIES qualified for government assistance. Unwed mothers did not meet Elanor Roosevelt's definition of a family and she was the one who designed FDR's assistance program.
obama's recession is rapidly becoming obama's depression. Let's return to FDR's social remedies during these hard times.

stella007 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is my yearly amount of premiums and copays until I break even.
I would rather give it to Uncle Sam than some fat cat at Blue Cross Blue Shield. Which by the way, has raised my premiums by 20% since December.
They also have the power to deny my coverage for procedures that a bean counter ultimately decides.
Also, I can't change insurance co.s because of pre exisisting conditions. The others won't take me.
It sounds like a money making monopoly on the backs of the American public.
I would take any Fed plan vs the crooked insurance indu$try.

I fully agree. Was just letting y'all know how much the Cdn govt spends on healthcare. Our system isn't perfect etc..but we don't have anyone going bankrupt with a health issue.

I have a friend in the US who recently had breast cancer. Had to have a masectomy. Her insurance company has given her nothing but hell. Seems like many things they say is covered in her policy changes when the crisis arose. If I remember correctly, her and hubby have had to re-mortgage their home so she can have reconstructive surgery..suppose to be covered.

What a goofball. Bring back the poor house and debtor prisons while you're at it.

Bring back FDR's CCC Camps that separated unemployed males from females so they couldn't breed.

Wow.

stella007 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is my yearly amount of premiums and copays until I break even.
I would rather give it to Uncle Sam than some fat cat at Blue Cross Blue Shield. Which by the way, has raised my premiums by 20% since December.
They also have the power to deny my coverage for procedures that a bean counter ultimately decides.
Also, I can't change insurance co.s because of pre exisisting conditions. The others won't take me.
It sounds like a money making monopoly on the backs of the American public.
I would take any Fed plan vs the crooked insurance indu$try.

And one more thing...you said that is about the amount you pay in premiums...that scares me.

We have some Cdn's who want a publicly funded healthcare system gone and one implemented like the US. They simply think that our wait times etc..is because the govt runs health care. It isn't the prob, it's just some management probs at the moment...has nothing to do with who's paying.

These same Cdn's in my opinion are folks with lots of money. I pay rent, a car payment, etc..life is expensive as it is and getting worse. If I, and many many others, had to come up with $5,000 a yr for health insurances, I might as well rob a bank or start growing pot. I cannot afford that but richer Cdn's want to screw everyone else.

Cdn public healthcare is law..it is a right. Sure let's start managing it better etc..but God forbid we end up hearing of people going bankrupt and insurances co's who screw everyone for the almighty dollar.

stella007 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is my yearly amount of premiums and copays until I break even.
I would rather give it to Uncle Sam than some fat cat at Blue Cross Blue Shield. Which by the way, has raised my premiums by 20% since December.
They also have the power to deny my coverage for procedures that a bean counter ultimately decides.
Also, I can't change insurance co.s because of pre exisisting conditions. The others won't take me.
It sounds like a money making monopoly on the backs of the American public.
I would take any Fed plan vs the crooked insurance indu$try.

thank you for the helpful comment. It os clear that the interests of the greedy, rich insurance and drug industries dominate the Republican party - like Grassley in Iowa, and they are trying to terrorize moderate democrats in "red" states, by misleading the public in those states with dishonest ads. Iowa is enough of a swing state that we get lots of lying ads from various industries, including greedy energy companies that want to build dirty coal plants.
The reason why government administrators don't do a good job is that they have been Republicans, who do not want government to do a good job. Look at that Arabian horse guy - Brownie - at FEMA. I like horses, and I hope he does not abuse them as badly as he does people. The
EMA trailers were disease-causing, child-abusing disasters, but bet their purchase made lots of money for some fat-cat Republican manufacturer of the trailors. The prescription drug benefit was shaped to benefit the drug companies, as much or more than patients. The donut hole is the price people pay for the greedy refusal of drug corporations to negotiate wholesale prices for large govrnment purchases, which resulted in the proviso in the bill, which requires the government to pay the companies full prices, and not negotiate. One major player in that deal was Congressman Billy Tauzin of La (right-wing Dem turned Republican), who got the bill through that benefited the drug companies at the same time that he was negotiating - for himself, a big high-paying job with the drug industry.

And thanks to naturally wired in Canada for telling us what we need to know. I bet many Canadians who are rich are miffed that they do not get special treatment from public health care, when they could buy a more deferential attitude in the US, where money always talks.

interesting - the computer screen notice said they could not connect when I tried to post comment the first time - and I had that message in the past few days more often than usual - do you think, is there any evidence, that the cyber hackers from n. Korea or whereever are playing with topix too, or messing up ordinary communications even just by trying to sabotage the special sites? just curious.

Norskejente wrote:

Well, if all the money we pay insurance companies went to the government instead that would help with the health care system. Obviously it is broke when so many are without.

right, the government is so efficient when spending our money. if you are unhappy with the current system remember that it was the governments intervention that created it in an effort to bailout the already failing medicare program. HMO act - 1973

I keep wondering if there is something we haven't been told. Suppose the insurance companies have been taking the premiums that we pay (I pay for supplemental insurance with Medicare), and investing them badly, in the market, or whatevr, and have been losing money - so to be able to pay off the claims they need more premiums to come in, and are terrified that they cannot compete wtih the public plan. Suppose that they plan to continue to cherry-pick whom they cover, and to deny benefits for all sorts of procedures, and recoup their losses on the market, at the expense of patients. Suppose they are afraid of bankruptcy, or just loss of profits, if we are lucky. Who do you think would be asked to help them recover if they had been mismanaged? They get the profits in time of greed and profit, and don't want to absorb losses. That is called socialism for the rich. Too big to fail, is the cover-up word for it.But truth is - some of those guys - even Lehman Brotehers - were too big and too interconnected to fail, becasue letting tLehman Brothers fail helped trigger a big market loss and panic. but Paulson, who was a Godman Sachs man, let Lehman Brothers - his prior competitors - fail, and bailed out Goldman Sachs. and no one ever questioned that!

so while the insurance co cEO's are being overpaid, and patients are being told that they can't have a certain procedure paid for, maybe there is some numbers cruncher deep in the insurance co, telling them how much money they have to save - by being essentially a non-medical coverage non-insurance company.

Key health care senators have industry ties
06/12/2009 / http://tinyurl.com/krb3j2
WASHINGTON -- Influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. The wife of Sen. Chris Dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the Senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.
Members of both parties have industry connections, including Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin, in addition to Dodd, and Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, John Kyl and Orrin Hatch, financial reports showed Friday..
Jackie Clegg Dodd, wife of the Connecticut Democrat, is on the boards of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cardiome Pharma Corp., Brookdale Senior Living and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals.
Dodd is filling in for ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill. http://www.connpost.com/ci_12579507...

==========

Report: Health Industry Employing Hundreds of Ex-Gov. Officials
July 06, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/nyx3t6
Here in the United States, the Washington Post is reporting the nation’s heath care industry has hired more than 350 former government officials and members of Congress to sway health care reform efforts on Capital Hill. According to lobbying records, three out of every four major health care companies have at least one former government insider on the payroll. Nearly half held positions under key committees and lawmakers including Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley. Bacaus is chair of the Senate Finance Committee which is largely steering health care reform efforts. Baucus’s aides recently held a meeting with a group of lobbyists that included two of his former chiefs of staff. The Washington Post says the health care industry is now spending $1.4 million dollars a day on lobbying, totaling $126 million dollars in the first fiscal quarter.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/6/headline...

...just more fascist proganda from a has-been. Why does Topix insist on running comments from this idiot?

A government is not the same thing when controlled by Democrats, as when controlled by Republicans, or by a mixed-party control. Different types of laws get passed passed under each type of majority. and with democrats, it usually takes a 60 vote majority in the Senate, a good Hosue majority, and a Democratic president, plus a big effort to overcome the lies of the self-interested corporate lobbyists, and their tV ads. Remember Government is under the influence of the private interests through the campaign contributions they make also - to get Republicans elected, and to try to scare off orbuy off marginal Democrats - with moderate views and "red" state or swing district constituencies.They are trying to do that with Baucus, who is both a moderate and from a "red" state. it will be very difficult to get 60 votes to break a gOP filibuster in the Seante - Smith and Collins can't be counted on every time, on every issue, and Byrd and Kennedy are ill, and at least three mdoerate Democratic Senators are iffy on the public option. The good news is that Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a red stae where she is up for re-eection in 2010, is beginning to be convinced that the public option in both a money-saver and a good idea for patients. If Landrieu, Nelsen of Neb., Baucus and Conrad will also figure that out, and have some courage, then that would make 60 votes possible with ony Democrats, if Byrd and Kennedy are well enough to vote. If they are not - then I a willing to think the unthinkable - if they are not well enough to cast the most important vote of this two-year Congress, then maybe they should resign and be replaced. It was different with Johnston of SD who was recovering slowly, but stil recovering, and when his vote ws not the one necessary vote. Someone should find a very honorific transitional role for both Byrd and Kennedy, if they are too ill to ever serve effectively in the Senate again. And neither of them should be President pro tem of the Senate - that seniority rule is ridiculous! I assume that as former Seantors, they would still have their medical coverage, and would not suffer the same way ordinary americans often do when they lose their jobs! This is no disrespect to either of them, and the good things they did in the past, nor is it a comment in any way about their personal mistakes in their pasts. It would apply to any Senator in the same position. They both could devote their remaining time to special projects - one being doing an oral history of their years in the Senate and in politics. One being a statement of principles that they believe in, as a legacy - about the Constitution, about the responsibility of government to help people in need, whatever they care about most. If Kennedy said he would resign, and recommend that Deval Patrick became Senator, itght bring to the Senatea fine new Seantor, and give Massachusets another chance to bring other good political leaders one step higher on the political ladder.

sorry about typos - I am still not expert on hwo thekeyboard works in cetain situations - in this case, when I tried to eit, inserting the correct letter took up additional space somehow - as in itight for it might. I don't know why that happens. I am used to a selectric typewriter keyboard - the best ever! and find a computer keyboard to be a sort of runaway at times, and a disobedient obstructionist at others. I'll try to get someone to explain to me why I can edit without problems sometimes, and not others. I must have hit some key that takes away the feedom I have to edit (when I want to) correctly.

If "BULL SHIT" were Music....Moyers would be a "BRASS BAND!".........when is enough ,enough??

To Populist - Thanks! That is very useful information to have, but should not lead to any false conclusions as to how someone will vote. In particular, I am not worried about Tom Harkin, even if he or his wife have industry connections, & even if insurance companies are big in Iowa. Grassley, though he has contributions from & ties to the insurance industry, has an ideology that is consistent with the anti-government view, & pro-corporate view, that does not make him bought off - just wrong-headed! Harkin is a populist, & regrets it every time he casts a vote that is not in accord with what he wishes he could do. Very repentent for not voting with Wellstone on the Iraq war resolution, for example. He is realistic on the agriculture committee, but even there makes steady progress toward more enlightened policy, whenever he can get something good in - like programs for fresh fruits & vegetables for school kids. As to Dodd & Baucus, I worry more about them - both being very re-election oriented & jittery about big money coming after them if they see a vulnerability in their popular support - & Dodd is up in 2010 and very vulnerable. Maybe that will strengthen his backbone to fight for a public option. He & Baicus have never been among my favorites. Baucus also likes being bi-paritisan, & that accommodates Grassley & results in far weaker legislation. Grassley always wants more concessions to his conservative pro-corporate ideology. He is not even a bad or corrupt person - but he is not an open-minded thinker, that's for sure! The very best Democrat on the fence is Kent Conrad, who is a balance the budget man, in his long-time commitments, & he has to be made to see that the pubic option is less costly, in the long run. I have no doubt of his integrity. Byron Dorgan is more of a populist - & is someone you should be interested in, along with Sherrod Brown, Marcy Kaptur, Kucinich, & Brad Sherman, as more populist type Democrats. I will never wholly agree or disagree with you, but I certainly respect the information you present & the rather "purist" views you bring to topix. Somebody has to do it! Even if reality often takes us way far away from the purist approach in order to get something useful done, it is very important to be watchful lest reality takes so far away that something counter-productve is done, just to get something accomplished. I did support moveon when they jumped all over Rahm for hinting that a public option could be negotiated away or watered down. & they & others made him retreat! a very important lesson for him. He isn't Mr. Fix it!

Oah - and Populist being a good reseracher - do you have any reaon to think that my suspicions about the insurance industry being in big trouble financially, and not wantingto admit it, could be the reason (not mere greed, but also a bit of panic!) that they are fighting so hard on this ulic option thing? Obviously I would prefer single-payer, and consider it to be unrealitic, and have settled for the notion of a very good public option, so that the public could make choices, individualby indiidual, and let the insurance industry decline in popularity gradually, rather than have its health insurance profts wiped out all at once. Could they be in financial distress, and sort of over-speninding on ads t denounce the public option, because it would ruin them - that and the provison that they can't turn down folks with pre-existing condidions? Do you know anyting about their financial solvency, or where they invest their income from premiums? Could they have taken a big hit on the market, and be in financial trouble - are they a sort of ponzi scheme, themselves, even.?

Owasso Mommy wrote:

It is really sad that we have become a nation of beggers and freeloaders. Im reall sick of bustin my butt everyday to help support leeches and illegals. I think sadly people automatically think, oh, something for free, it must be the way to go, without thinking about the consequences of doing this. Hard working taxpayers will be seeing a huge increase in our taxes to sustain this, and I dont know about anybody else but my back hurts from carrying these lazy clowns.

The republicans (like you), and particularly; REAGAN, are shameless in using 'welfare' recipients as a scapegoat for all THEIR failures...the 'poor' per se; are helpless targets........
So tell me...How do you feel about having to spend 16 trillion dollars to bail out the big corporate Banksters on Wall Street? Talk about welfare for beggars and freeloaders! It was the corporations who ran to Washington with their hands out begging for the government to save their sorry butts from the mess they made of everything! And you darn right I want their heads! I, and millions of other Americans, have worked hard to save for retirement on our own because your beloved corporate America no longer deems us worthy of any kind of a pension and then, due to their greed, ignorance, arrogance and bad business decisions, proceeded to wipe out almost half of our retirement savings! You think I should thank them for that? I want those responsible stripped of every freakin' material item they have! Let them be the beneficiaries of their actions for once and go into THEIR retirement with next to nothing!