Alan Grayson Tells it Like It Is: Stop Republican Lies on Healthcare in America

[FayeforCure]

On December 5, Santorum was talking to a group of about 100 students at Dordt College, a small Christian college in Iowa. A student referred to a 2009 Harvard study showing that more than 44,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health coverage. The student then asked Santorum what that meant for the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor. Specifically, the student questioned whether "God appreciates the fact" that all those Americans die each year for lack of healthcare.

Santorum's response? Rick Santorum "rejects" the idea "that people die in America because of lack of health insurance."

Wake up, Rick.

The student was referring to the same study that I publicized on the Floor of the House two weeks after it was published in the American Journal of Public Health. Here it is. It documents that 44,789 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance. In fact, if you take two Americans who are physically identical -- same age, same gender, same race, same weight, same smoking history -- and one of them has health insurance and one does not, then the one without health insurance is 40 percent more likely to die each year.


Here is a link to my speech on this, entitled "I Apologize to the Dead and Their Families."

I remember the same response from right-wingers then as we hear from Santorum today -- anyone can go to an emergency room. I ask them to show me an emergency room that will provide chemotherapy to a cancer victim. There isn't one.

But to answer that challenge, I started a website called www.NamesOfTheDead.com. I invited surviving family and friends to tell me about people whom they had loved and lost, because they had no health coverage. And they did -- thousands of them. I read some of their stories on the House Floor.

Then I gave a speech identifying how many people died each year for lack of health care in each district represented by a Republican healthcare opponent. The Republicans interrupted that speech for two hours, until the House Parliamentarian told them that they had to let me continue.

A reporter who has covered Capitol Hill for more than 25 years told me that that kind of interruption had never happened before.

But Rick Santorum apparently never got the memo. He thinks that no one in America ever dies because he has no health care.

Why does Santorum think that? Because he has to. He has to engage in flat denial of the reality that 50 million Americans -- one out of every six of us -- face each day. Because to face that reality would mean that Santorum would have to face the brutality, the swinishness, the cruelty and the savagery of the policies that he so enthusiastically espouses.

For God's sake -- every single other industrialized country in the entire world has universal health care. Why can't we? How many more people have to die? How many more sacrifices on the altar of Almighty Greed?

Any health care system that denies necessary care on the basis of wealth is evil. It doesn't matter how you micromanage it, or tinker with it. It's evil.

When Justice Harry Blackmun began voting against death in every death penalty case, he gave this simple and eloquent explanation: "From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."

We need to reach the same kind of realization in health care. Forget about the tinkering. This is America, not Myanmar. People who are sick need to be able to see a doctor. Because we are human beings, not cattle. End of story.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rick-Santorum-Is-Wrong-by-Alan-Grayson-120105-303.html

[jerry cornwell]

Flat Denial works all the time, particularly in todays republican primary where everyone wants to believe against the president. Just say something the most outrageous thing against your opponent and it sticks.
This will be the president's biggest obstacle and I'm not optimistic
he will overcome it.
I was unable to get your link to your speech.

[FayeforCure]

Flat Denial works all the time, particularly in todays republican primary where everyone wants to believe against the president. Just say something the most outrageous thing against your opponent and it sticks.
This will be the president's biggest obstacle and I'm not optimistic
he will overcome it.
I was unable to get your link to your speech.

Here is the speech:

http://www.youtube.com/v/xCAPX0RKwDU?

[jerry cornwell]

 A great statement from Grayson, a great congressman. I doubt he will win back his seat, particularly after the partisan re drawing of districts you posted earlier, Faye.
I would love to eat my words!

[Timkin]

IMO  We also will never have Universal healthcare in this Country.


I would love to eat my words , as well.

[FayeforCure]

IMO  We also will never have Universal healthcare in this Country.


I would love to eat my words , as well.

That is because real liberals don't exist.........in the Democratic Party of America. All we have in corporate run American government is uber conservatives, conservatives and Republican lite (the current Democratic Party).


Is There a Democratic Party Ideology?



By: masaccio Sunday January 29, 2012 10:40 am

Everyone says that Republicans and Democrats are ideologically polarized. President Obama said so in his State of the Union address:

We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.

Ryan Lizza makes the same claim in his New Yorker article, The Obama Memos.

… when Obama took office there was no ideological overlap between the two parties. In the House, the most conservative Democrat, Bobby Bright, of Alabama, was farther to the left than the most liberal Republican, Joseph Cao, of Louisiana. The same was true in the Senate, where the most conservative Democrat, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, was farther to the left than the most liberal Republican, Olympia Snowe, of Maine. According to Poole and Rosenthal’s data, both the House and the Senate are more polarized today than at any time since the eighteen-nineties.

Lizza cites the work of political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal for the proposition that the divides are ideological. Their work leads them to the conclusion that most votes turn on a liberal/conservative divide based on tolerance for government regulation of the economy, and the rest turn on a cluster of cultural values.

One problem with this work is the use of votes on actual bills to define ideologies. In the three years of the President’s term, it isn’t easy to find a single bill that would qualify as liberal which has advanced to a vote.

That problem is illustrated by the health care bill.

There were plenty of liberal ideas for revamping the health care system in a way that would benefit average citizens. These range from some form of single-payer to highly regulated insurance companies as in Germany and Switzerland, to outright nationalization of the system as in England.

In the middle, the public option was a moderate position, which some of us stupidly thought was the position of President Obama.

Then there was the conservative position, RomneyCare, and further right, the position of Paul Ryan and Ron Paul, moderate and severe versions of you’re on your own.

Among Democrats, there was no one espousing the liberal position, and only a few who actively supported the moderate position, which did not include the President.

One arguably liberal bill, cramdown in Chapter 13, passed the House and got a vote in the Senate, presumably after it became clear it wouldn’t win. There were 45 ayes, all Democrats, and 51 nays, including all Republicans and 11 Democrats.*

Cramdown was, and remains, an excellent solution to the housing crisis on its own merits. I classify it as liberal because it corrects an unfairness in the system that lets rich people cram down mortgages on their vacation homes in Chapter 11, but denies working people the right to do the same thing for their homes in Chapter 13. It would have made a significant difference in the housing disaster, because it gave homeowners power in dealing with thug banksters and their fraudulent servicing operations.

The explanations offered by those opposing the bill were stupid. They argued that it would increase mortgage interest rates going forward without bothering to explain how that would happen or why. The real reason was that it would force banks and investors to face their losses on real estate mortgage-backed securities almost immediately. Investors would have immediately seen the extent of their losses and could sue the liars and cheats who sold them worthless securities.

Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers and bank ass-kissers at the Treasury were actively opposed, according to Pro Publica. The Treasury created the absurd HAMP program to pretend to help homeowners, and it failed miserably, both because banks refused to participate, and Treasury refused to penalize banks for their failures.

Republicans have something like an ideology. They say that wealth trickles down, and they do all in their power to give more money to Oligarchs and their corporations, through tax cuts, reduced regulation and social control of the rabble. Democrats are on board with giving tax cuts to Oligarchs and their corporations, reducing regulations or simply refusing to enforce them, and they are fully on board with social control of the rabble, especially when the rabble has the temerity to ask for accountability.

It’s time to quit talking about ideology. It’s time to recognize that the only divide is between the bullies and the weaklings who refuse to stand up to them. Here is a precise example from the State of the Union Address:

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything -â€" even routine business â€"- passed through the Senate. (Applause.) Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. (Applause.) For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days. (Applause.)

The bullies reject majority rule because they are in the minority. The weaklings refuse to fight back. The President joins with the weaklings: “Neither party has been blameless in these tactics.”

That summarizes the Democratic ideology. Stay in power. Don’t aggrieve anyone with money. Don’t annoy the bullies. Screw liberals.


http://firedoglake.com/2012/01/29/is-there-a-democratic-party-ideology/

[fsquid]

IMO  We also will never have Universal healthcare in this Country.


I would love to eat my words , as well.

depends on your definition of "Universal Healthcare".  If you are talking single-payer, I hope you are right.  If it is a hybrid plan like in Brazil and France, I hope we do.

[Timkin]

What I mean is in this country , anyone who needs healthcare should have it available regardless of ability to pay. 

[bill]

What I mean is in this country , anyone who needs healthcare should have it available regardless of ability to pay.

Whose rights are you going to take away to provide that? And how much of those rights?

[avonjax]

What I mean is in this country , anyone who needs healthcare should have it available regardless of ability to pay.

Whose rights are you going to take away to provide that? And how much of those rights?

I want to say something eloquent, but I just can't. We don't care about people. We care about ourselves. Why do you think someone will lose their rights? And what rights could they possibly lose because they have an ounce of compassion for all human beings? Healthcare should NEVER be an issue for any human being, but especially in a country with a political party that courts people who call themselves Christians who insist that they live in a Christian nation?

[Timkin]

What I mean is in this country , anyone who needs healthcare should have it available regardless of ability to pay.

Whose rights are you going to take away to provide that? And how much of those rights?

I want to say something eloquent, but I just can't. We don't care about people. We care about ourselves. Why do you think someone will lose their rights? And what rights could they possibly lose because they have an ounce of compassion for all human beings? Healthcare should NEVER be an issue for any human being, but especially in a country with a political party that courts people who call themselves Christians who insist that they live in a Christian nation?

^^ +1  Who's rights are being taken away by having Healthcare for every American?  Is it the end of the world for every citizen to have health care?

If this is a debate of who is the smartest, I ll be glad to bow out .

[fsquid]

What I mean is in this country , anyone who needs healthcare should have it available regardless of ability to pay.

The worst thing we've done is tie healthcare to employment.  Another thing to think about, if demand for healthcare goes up, where will the increase in the supply needed come from? 

[finehoe]

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

There is a simple reason health care in the United States costs more than it does anywhere else: The prices are higher.

That may sound obvious. But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

There are many possible explanations for why Americans pay so much more. It could be that we’re sicker. Or that we go to the doctor more frequently. But health researchers have largely discarded these theories. As Gerard Anderson, Uwe Reinhardt, Peter Hussey and Varduhi Petrosyan put it in the title of their influential 2003 study on international health-care costs, “it’s the prices, stupid.”

As it’s difficult to get good data on prices, that paper blamed prices largely by eliminating the other possible culprits. They authors considered, for instance, the idea that Americans were simply using more health-care services, but on close inspection, found that Americans don’t see the doctor more often or stay longer in the hospital than residents of other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. We spend less time in the hospital than Germans and see the doctor less often than the Canadians.

“The United States spends more on health care than any of the other OECD countries spend, without providing more services than the other countries do,” they concluded. “This suggests that the difference in spending is mostly attributable to higher prices of goods and services.”

On Friday, the International Federation of Health Plans â€" a global insurance trade association that includes more than 100 insurers in 25 countries â€" released more direct evidence. It surveyed its members on the prices paid for 23 medical services and products in different countries, asking after everything from a routine doctor’s visit to a dose of Lipitor to coronary bypass surgery. And in 22 of 23 cases, Americans are paying higher prices than residents of other developed countries. Usually, we’re paying quite a bit more. The exception is cataract surgery, which appears to be costlier in Switzerland, though cheaper everywhere else.

Prices don’t explain all of the difference between America and other countries. But they do explain a big chunk of it. The question, of course, is why Americans pay such high prices â€" and why we haven’t done anything about it.

“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.

In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.

Health care is an unusual product in that it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, for the customer to say “no.” In certain cases, the customer is passed out, or otherwise incapable of making decisions about her care, and the decisions are made by providers whose mandate is, correctly, to save lives rather than money.

In other cases, there is more time for loved ones to consider costs, but little emotional space to do so â€" no one wants to think there was something more they could have done to save their parent or child. It is not like buying a television, where you can easily comparison shop and walk out of the store, and even forgo the purchase if it’s too expensive. And imagine what you would pay for a television if the salesmen at Best Buy knew that you couldn’t leave without making a purchase.

“In my view, health is a business in the United States in quite a different way than it is elsewhere,” says Tom Sackville, who served in Margaret Thatcher’s government and now directs the IFHP. “It’s very much something people make money out of. There isn’t too much embarrassment about that compared to Europe and elsewhere.”

The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them quite high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States â€" the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry â€" sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability.

The players sitting across the table from them â€" the health insurers â€" are not so profitable. In 2009, their profit margins were a mere 2.2 percent. That’s a signal that the sellers have the upper hand over the buyers.

This is a good deal for residents of other countries, as our high spending makes medical innovations more profitable. “We end up with the benefits of your investment,” Sackville says. “You’re subsidizing the rest of the world by doing the front-end research.”

But many researchers are skeptical that this is an effective way to fund medical innovation. “We pay twice as much for brand-name drugs as most other industrialized countries,” Anderson says. “But the drug companies spend only 12 percent of their revenues on innovation. So yes, some of that money goes to innovation, but only 12 percent of it.”

And others point out that you also need to account for the innovations and investments that our spending on health care is squeezing out. “There are opportunity costs,” says Reinhardt, an economist at Princeton. “The money we spend on health care is money we don’t spend educating our children, or investing in infrastructure, scientific research and defense spending. So if what this means is we ultimately have overmedicalized, poorly educated Americans competing with China, that’s not a very good investment.”

But as simple an explanation as “the prices are higher” is, it is a devilishly difficult problem to fix. Those prices, for one thing, mean profits for a large number of powerful â€" and popular â€" industries. For another, centralized bargaining cuts across the grain of America’s skepticism of government solutions. In the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, for instance, Congress expressly barred Medicare from negotiating the prices of drugs that it was paying for.

The 2010 health-reform law does little to directly address prices. It includes provisions forcing hospitals to publish their prices, which would bring more transparency to this issue, and it gives lawmakers more tools and more information they could use to address prices at some future date. The hope is that by gathering more data to find out which treatments truly work, the federal government will eventually be able to set prices based on the value of treatments, which would be easier than simply setting lower prices across-the-board. But this is, for the most part, a fight the bill ducked, which is part of the reason that even its most committed defenders don’t think we’ll be paying anything like what they’re paying in other countries anytime soon.

“There is so much inefficiency in our system, that there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit we can deal with before we get into regulating people’s prices.” says Len Nichols, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University. “Maybe, after we’ve cut waste for 10 years, we’ll be ready to have a discussion over prices.”

And some economists warn that though high prices help explain why America spends so much more on health care than other countries, cutting prices is no cure-all if it doesn’t also cut the rate of growth. After all, if you drop prices by 20 percent, but health-care spending still grows by seven percent a year, you’ve wiped out the savings in three years.

Even so, Anderson says, “if I could change one thing in the United States to bring down total health expenditures, it would definitely be the prices.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html

[bill]

What I mean is in this country , anyone who needs healthcare should have it available regardless of ability to pay.

Whose rights are you going to take away to provide that? And how much of those rights?

I want to say something eloquent, but I just can't. We don't care about people. We care about ourselves. Why do you think someone will lose their rights? And what rights could they possibly lose because they have an ounce of compassion for all human beings? Healthcare should NEVER be an issue for any human being, but especially in a country with a political party that courts people who call themselves Christians who insist that they live in a Christian nation?

^^ +1  Who's rights are being taken away by having Healthcare for every American?  Is it the end of the world for every citizen to have health care?

If this is a debate of who is the smartest, I ll be glad to bow out .

Yes bow out. There is not a debate, Rights are taken away. I simply asked how much?

When you take goods, labor commodities and money from one group and give them to another group they then own part of someone and their rights. This is known as welfare rights and they come at a cost. This is not charity, which is up to the giver to decide.   

[Timkin]

yeah.. god forbid we help one another