Rush Limbaugh Believes the Poor Don't Deserve Healthcare

[Magic Man]

Well, I wouln't say I'm ignoring them, I'm being flippant about it because I really don't want to get into the debate. I'll check back in in a few years and we will see if the Gubmint lying to us. Care to lay a wager?

Yeah, "because you don't want to get into the debate", in other words, I don't really want to see the other side. Gotcha.

And what do you think the government is lying to us about? You don't have to trust our government to see how well a universal, or partly universal, health care system works in many other countries.

I'd love to lay a wager on whether or not our country is better off when we finally do move into the 20th century and institute some kind of universal health care. It'll be a while before the wager is decided, but some day we'll all see how much better off we are with it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yeah, "because you don't want to get into the debate", in other words, I don't really want to see the other side. Gotcha.

Evil surmising.

And what do you think the government is lying to us about? You don't have to trust our government to see how well a universal, or partly universal, health care system works in many other countries.

I'd love to lay a wager on whether or not our country is better off when we finally do move into the 20th century and institute some kind of universal health care. It'll be a while before the wager is decided, but some day we'll all see how much better off we are with it.

What do I think the gubmint is lying about? Generally, everything, specifically, the deficit neutral angle. That's what I'll wager on. It's tangible.

 

[Magic Man]

Evil surmising.

Actually, it's more like deducing from the facts and info available.

What do I think the gubmint is lying about? Generally, everything...

That's OK. No need to say any more. This pretty much says it all.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually, it's more like deducing from the facts and info available.

Exactly, thats what surmising is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Exactly, thats what surmising is.

Odd that you reference a dictionary when someone can just ask Angellous.

 

[Magic Man]

Exactly, thats what surmising is.

Cool, then you weren't just trying to make it seem like it was only speculation, but implying that it was actually founded on facts and truth, right?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Cool, then you weren't just trying to make it seem like it was only speculation, but implying that it was actually founded on facts and truth, right?

Ask Angellous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd love to lay a wager on whether or not our country is better off when we finally do move into the 20th century and institute some kind of universal health care. It'll be a while before the wager is decided, but some day we'll all see how much better off we are with it.

Sadly, health care isn't the only issue that we haven't moved into the 21st century. We make less, work longer hours, have to work more hours before we get overtime, have no mandatory paid holidays, paid vacation, or paid sick days, and our school systems straight up suck, especially considering how "rich and developed" our nation is.

And what do you think the government is lying to us about? You don't have to trust our government to see how well a universal, or partly universal, health care system works in many other countries.

France, which supposedly has a horrible health care system because they have universal health care, actually ranked #1 overall. Even Canada ranked higher than America. So much for having the worlds greatest health care system that must be preserved. Can't be too great when we're having to cough up twice as much for health care than people of other nations do.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mr. Sprinkles,

In other words, the worry is that conservative advice will be followed and Britain will become more like the U.S., with its natural free-market consequences: government spending will be reduced so that taxes need not be raised, and people will have to pay from their own pocket the high cost of private treatment or suffer the health consequences. If the elderly and frail don't like paying the high prices from their own pocket, they should either work harder and earn more dough, or shop around and be smarter consumers. This is precisely the kind of system American conservatives support. This is an ironic victory for the forces of free market discipline and it's astonishing to see how conservative propaganda can flip this reality on its head. It really speaks to either the disingenuousness, or utter incoherence, of the conservative minority today. I haven't decided which.

So, you are arguing that in Great Britain's NHS decision to withhold the availability of drugs is evidence of the free market at work? Are you seriously making that argument?

Let me clue you in on a few things about the free market; in the free market the government wouldn't be making decisions about who gets healthcare and who doesn't.

And, there isn't a free market for healthcare in the U.S. So, any claims about the ‘free market’ approach to healthcare in the U.S. are a bogus claim.

The point I'm making is that in countries with government-run healthcare it is the government that decides who gets treated and who does not get treated. And when that is a case, the decision is out of the patient's hands.

By the way would you mind please answering my question about this? Which federal law prohibits this? Why is it that the first thing Aetna asks is for you to choose your state when purchasing health insurance on their website? Need Help Choosing?

Why does the Blue Cross Blue Shield website have a listing for nearly every state under their "Plan Finder"? Plan Finder

Looks like both Aetna and Blue Cross offer plans to people living in many states. So how are they not competing across state lines?

This article:

Triage: Purchasing insurance across state lines: a good idea?

From the Chicago Tribune seems to believe that there is a law preventing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines. And Judith Graham speaks to an insurance lobbyist and guess what Mr. Sprinkles; the insurance lobbyist thinks it is a good idea that we cannot buy health insurance across state lines. Yes, companies like having monopolies and in terms of health insurance the insurance companies have monopolies in each state. In Obama's first State of the Union address he talked about Alabama (if I am not mistaken) having one insurance company controlling 85% of the market and surprise surprise an insurance lobbyist thinks the ban on buying health insurance across state lines is a great idea.

As for insurance companies listing all the states, that's because each state has their own regulations on health insurance so the plans slightly vary from state to state. But, we, as consumers can only purchase health insurance from an insurance company in our own states.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Unfortunately, millions of people care what he thinks. That's the problem. No, Limbaugh himself doesn't have much power over me, but he influences a large group of Americans who believe and agree with everything he says. So, when he says things like this, it basically means that millions of Americans are going to believe things like this, which only makes it harder to do what needs to be done, as has been evidenced by the long, drawn-out battle over health care.

That darn freedom.

As for the rest of this, what you're forgetting is that we understand that not every system is perfect. We know that whatever system we use is going to have problems, and that we need to minimize them. For every example you gave here of problems with other countries' systems, I can give you 3 from America. For instance, you mention Canadians and others coming to America for treatment. You need to realize that a bunch of Americans are going to other countries like Mexico for medical coverage. Basically, you need to do a little more research.

That's the problem. You hear about a few cases of problems with a different system, and assume that system is crap and useless. It's no different than your whole Oher, social care ideas. You need to realize that, whatever problems you can find with the Canadian system of the British system or wherever, the U.S. has even worse problems, like not having 10% of its population covered at all.

Here is where you put your ideological blinders on. In countries like Canada and Great Britain everybody is 'covered' by the government but does everybody have access to healthcare. No, in many ways it is much worse than it is here. In the UK pregnant women can't even find adequate resources to give birth. Simple painkilling drugs are denied by the government because they are too expensive. And you want to replicate that system here. Why would you want to do that?

The problems are liberals (or progressives or whatever name you guys call yourselves these days) couldn't care less about the disastrous results of government-run healthcare in Canada and Great Britain. They are not intellectually curious about how their system works. All they see is private insurance companies and they want to take them down. Even if it makes the system worse, it simple doesn't matter.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mr. Sprinkles,

First, source, please. Second, 1969-1996 covers liberal and conservative policies (correct?) so even a gain during that period doesn't prove that the praises to the hero Reagan are justified. Third, does the per person income include the stay-at-home parents and teens who were earning 0 income? Maybe it doesn't, but if it does, then one big contribution to the increase in per-person income could simply be more people working -- kids, parents, etc. But the household income shows stagnation....great, so now mom, dad, and the oldest kids are working just to keep the household income the same.

What happened to the conservative idea of the stay-at-home parent? Not such a bad idea, i.m.o.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Changes in Median Household Income: 1969-1996," Current Population Reports, P23-196, p. 1

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

If you accept the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal" and have an "inalienable right to life" (in particular), the argument for equal protection from disaster, ill health and crime for all citizens follows quite naturally.

So the right to health insurance is in the U.S. Constitution? You are good, we just need to get you on the hunt for bin Laden because you can find things anywhere.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Alceste,

That is absolutely retarded. You won't find any country in the Western world where a majority of people (or even a significant minority) would rather have your system of health care than their own. You're not envied, Rick. From where I'm sitting you're pitied. Yes, even you with your big house and fat paycheck. I pity you because every time you see a doctor it costs you an outrageous pile of cash you could be using (I'm sure) to more personally satisfying ends. If you lived in Canada, we (meaning me and all my compatriots who have less junk and smaller bank accounts than you do) would happily pay for your treatment. Why? Because good old-fashioned Christian charity permeates our culture.

That's weird because your government pays for its citizens to come to places like Detroit to get the healthcare that the benevolent Canadian government denies to its citizens.

And since when is it Christian charity if you don't give (tax evasion) the government comes after you with guns?

 

[Magic Man]

Hi mball,
That darn freedom.

What does that have to do with anything?

Here is where you put your ideological blinders on. In countries like Canada and Great Britain everybody is 'covered' by the government but does everybody have access to healthcare. No, in many ways it is much worse than it is here. In the UK pregnant women can't even find adequate resources to give birth. Simple painkilling drugs are denied by the government because they are too expensive. And you want to replicate that system here. Why would you want to do that?

Ah, of course, the old "There are too many people for the system and people are denied care". Maybe you should do a little more research there. Maybe you could show me an example of a pregnant woman not being able to find adequate resources to give birth and painkilling drugs being denied by the government. I know you've heard about such things, but can you actually show any examples? Then we could look at the detail to see what really happened.

I want to go to that system because even if anything like that happens, it's ridiculously rare and happens much, much less than in the U.S. You seem to ignore all of the problems our system has and focus on the rare problems the other system has.

The problems are liberals (or progressives or whatever name you guys call yourselves these days) couldn't care less about the disastrous results of government-run healthcare in Canada and Great Britain. They are not intellectually curious about how their system works. All they see is private insurance companies and they want to take them down. Even if it makes the system worse, it simple doesn't matter.

Um...the real problem is that people like you exaggerate the problems of the systems in Canada and Great Britain to make them sound worse than our current system. The results are far from disastrous, unlike the results of our system.

The problem is that what you claim here should actually be directed at yourself. Have the intellectual curiosity to actually research the claims you throw out, and see how you're exaggerating the claims about the other systems.

 

[Magic Man]

Hi Alceste,
That's weird because your government pays for its citizens to come to places like Detroit to get the healthcare that the benevolent Canadian government denies to its citizens.

It's even weirder that our government doesn't pay for our citizens to get care so they go to other countries like Canada and even Mexico. That's right, we're actually worse off than Mexico in some ways.

And since when is it Christian charity if you don't give (tax evasion) the government comes after you with guns?

What?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's weird because your government pays for its citizens to come to places like Detroit to get the healthcare that the benevolent Canadian government denies to its citizens.

What is more weird, they may send people to us, but our government does nothing. I need carpel tunnel surgery, have insurance, but still can't afford my deductible, and I can barely afford my co-pay. I really can't even afford my insurance, but I need it. There are also other medical treatments I need, but again I need the money for them. If someone would pay me to go to another nation for treatment, I would take them up on the offer.
And yes, we are pitied. Even a couple of Canadians that I used to work with preferred what they for health care back home compared to the total lack of that they have here.

 

[Magic Man]

And yes, we are pitied. Even a couple of Canadians that I used to work with preferred what they for health care back home compared to the total lack of that they have here.

All the Canadians I've talked to much preferred their health care back home. Also an English guy at work has flown home since coming over here to get a procedure done (I forget what it was exactly, but it wasn't anything major). He said he decided to do it that way because even with the plane fare and travel expenses for the week, it was still cheaper than getting it done here. Needless to say, he still loves the UK's system more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He said he decided to do it that way because even with the plane fare and travel expenses for the week, it was still cheaper than getting it done here.

I don't doubt it. Not only do we have lack a government insurance, our health care is also much more expensive than other nations.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

--Ronald Reagan

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Mr. Sprinkles,
So, you are arguing that in Great Britain's NHS decision to withhold the availability of drugs is evidence of the free market at work? Are you seriously making that argument?

It was not a decision to withhold the availability of drugs. Read your own article -- at least get to the subtitle. It was a decision to make consumers pay for their own drugs instead of having the government paying for it.

Let me clue you in on a few things about the free market; in the free market the government wouldn't be making decisions about who gets healthcare and who doesn't.

That's right, in the free market big corporations will be making the decisions and lots of people will not get healthcare. Like the "tens of thousands" who will have to pay high costs or suffer "excruciating pain" unless the British government steps in and pays for the drugs.

And, there isn't a free market for healthcare in the U.S. So, any claims about the ‘free market’ approach to healthcare in the U.S. are a bogus claim.

That is true, it is not a free market since the health insurance industry is heavily subsidized, thanks to the patriotic efforts of heroic industry lobbyists and their millions of supporters -- little, green, rectangular supporters. But it seems to be pure myth that insurance companies do not compete across state lines.

The point I'm making is that in countries with government-run healthcare it is the government that decides who gets treated and who does not get treated. And when that is a case, the decision is out of the patient's hands.

No, not true, not even according to the very article you cited. A decision was being made that certain drugs would no longer be covered on the UK public insurance plan. People living in the UK would be forced to buy expensive private insurance which covers the drugs, or pay out of pocket -- which is exactly what Americans are forced to do today. Sure, public insurance won't cover everything -- just like private insurance.

This article:

Triage: Purchasing insurance across state lines: a good idea?

From the Chicago Tribune seems to believe that there is a law preventing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines. And Judith Graham speaks to an insurance lobbyist and guess what Mr. Sprinkles; the insurance lobbyist thinks it is a good idea that we cannot buy health insurance across state lines.

This is a blog. The author speaks to an elected official, not a lobbyist. And here is a list of the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans you cannot buy in what looks like all 50 states, plus an American possession: http://www.bcbs.com/coverage/find/plan/

Here is where Aetna offers its illegal health plans to students in what appears to be every state: Aetna Student Health

This is the website where you can click on any state to find the nonexistent and illegal United health insurance plan that is right for you: Medical Insurance and Individual Health Insurance | GoldenRule.com

Humana only offers its nonexistent multi-state insurance plans in 21 states: http://www.humana-one.com/?kc=1005019688&cm_mmc_o=ZAFzEzCjC1bELlCjCZAFzEzCjCZBFw5zTw

Seriously, explain to me how they aren't competing when they clearly all offer insurance plans in most if not all states and territories. I don't get it.

These were precisely the first few insurers that I checked, I could probably go on....

Yes, companies like having monopolies and in terms of health insurance the insurance companies have monopolies in each state.

Perhaps you are right that a practical monopoly exists in most states -- I haven't rigorously checked this myself, and you appear to be totally wrong about the idea that insurers can't compete across states. But let's assume you are right. (1) Cartels and monopolies, as you know, inevitably arise in a free market system and it takes some regulation and oversight to break up big companies and avoid this natural progression; (2) Big companies and near-monopolies are at an especially big advantage in the insurance industry (for reasons explained in a moment); (3) We don't want small insurance companies, anyway. Insurance works by collecting a pool of shared risk. A single adult hemophiliac costs $250,000 per year to treat, as a base cost. No small-time insurance company can afford to cover a family of people with this genetic disease. Medical catastrophes are supportable only if you have a big pool of shared risk.

As best I can tell, what the conservative talking-point "let's let insurance companies compete across state lines" comes down to is this: let's have massive federal intervention which trumps the inhomogeneous insurance regulations at the state level. This will not allow insurers to compete, but it might allow them to compete more profitably. So much for states' rights and keeping big government out of markets. And if the private system tends to evolve into a few insurers mopolizing the industry at the state level, why wouldn't the same thing happen at the national level? How does increasing the scale of the problem fix the problem? It's possible that the inhomogeneity of state regulations does tend to favor insurance near-monopolies in individual states while also staving off an insurance near-monopoly of the entire nation.

As for insurance companies listing all the states, that's because each state has their own regulations on health insurance so the plans slightly vary from state to state. But, we, as consumers can only purchase health insurance from an insurance company in our own states.

I don't see how this is different from any other business competing across state lines. Company X sells cars. You can buy cars from Company X in any state where Company X chooses to sell cars. But, like any product, if you live in Ohio Company X can only sell you cars that conform to Ohio law (e.g. safety and emissions standards). Just like any other inter-state business.

Again, I think the real issue here is not "let them compete across state lines" but "let's have massive federal regulation of this industry which trumps state regulation", since this contradicts supposed conservative principles I suspect "conservatives" are simply being duped into backing corporate interests (again).

I would think hypothetical free-market conservatives would call for ending government subsidies for the health insurance industry before introducing more federal intervention.