Government healthcare cured Rudy's cancer

[Ryan F]

This was a great little article from Salon. Rudy's new ads are about how he would have died if he had gotten his prostate cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare. It turns out that his statistics were completely wrong (and are actually a function of screening rates), but even more interesting, it turns out that his healthcare when he had cancer was paid for by New York state taxpayers and looks a lot like Hillary Clinton's current proposal for universal healthcare:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/02/healthcare_lies/


As Klein surmised, Giuliani was serving as mayor and participating in a city of New York health plan when his doctor informed him that his prostate biopsy had come up positive. The coverage he enjoyed -- which resembles the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan -- permits all city employees, from trash haulers and subway clerks up to the mayor himself, to select from a variety of insurance providers, and it is not much different from the reform proposals adopted by his nemesis Hillary Clinton.

...He underwent surgery and radiation at Mount Sinai Hospital, a prestigious institution that participates in the GHI plan, which means that his costs were largely underwritten by city taxpayers.

So does that qualify as "socialized medicine"?

At GHI and HIP, the city government pays the premiums for its hundreds of thousands of enrolled members, of course. On the board of directors of GHI, a nonprofit corporation, sit half a dozen officials from the city's largest unions, including Harry Nespoli, president of the Sanitationmen's Association Local 831, and Roger Toussaint, president of the Transport Workers Union Local 100 (who led a tough, illegal strike against the subway system last year). Among the many state and federal regulations and programs that support the operations of these major insurers is a New York state "risk allocation pool" that cushions the financial impacts of certain kinds of mandated coverage.

If that isn't socialism, it hardly sounds like pure private enterprise, either. While that may startle a boob who accepted the premise of Giuliani's silly commercial, it is hardly surprising to anyone familiar with the pedigree of GHI and HIP, which were among the earliest examples of prepaid healthcare in the United States. Both were originally cooperative enterprises, founded by idealistic progressives whose hope was to make care more affordable for working-class families. (And their earliest supporters notably included Fiorello LaGuardia, a liberal Republican mayor of New York who happened to be of Italian descent.)

Naturally such hopeful initiatives outraged the reactionary ideologues and political mountebanks of that era. Back in 1937, the appearance of Washington's first group health plan for federal employees was denounced in Time magazine as a "blood-curdling new excursion into the practice of medicine" by the government, which surely meant the end of professionalism, declining standards, ruinous expenses and nothing less than the advent of "Soviet medicine."

Also, remember that Giuliani's health plan is to give everyone $15000 tax break so they can get off employer health insurance. That sounds like a giant step backwards to me, and apparently he doesn't practice what he preaches.

[RebootedCorpse]

No surprise. Most of the assholes who want to stop health care progress enjoy incredible benefits of their own.

[Doc Randy]

I'd also like to point out that the President, VP, the Supreme Court, the Congress, and all the people that work for them all get public health insurance through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.

If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of the nation.

My suggestion:

Allow individuals, families, and businesses the OPTION of BUYING into the FEHBP.

[RickLM]

Allow individuals, families, and businesses the OPTION of BUYING into the FEHBP.



Hell yes. I'd be first in line.

[Brian Defferding]

You guys got it all wrong. It's all the more reason why Democrats should stop supporting government subsidized health care. Rudy has the money to pay for himself.

[JoeE]

I don't see what the big deal is. He was a city employee and his employer paid for his healthcare. There's a difference between the government paying for employee healthcare like just about every major company in the country does and the government paying for everyone's healthcare.

[RickLM]

You guys got it all wrong. It's all the more reason why Democrats should stop supporting government subsidized health care. Rudy has the money to pay for himself.


Yeah, we're kind of concerned about the people who can't afford it....

[Ryan F]

I don't see what the big deal is. He was a city employee and his employer paid for his healthcare. There's a difference between the government paying for employee healthcare like just about every major company in the country does and the government paying for everyone's healthcare.

Well, for one thing, the philosophy of his plan is to get people off of employer-provided healthcare, so touting his own experience as a beneficiary of the current system seems a tad hypocritical. And there's also the whole lying about the statistics thing.

[Andrew]

There's a difference between the government paying for employee healthcare like just about every major company in the country does and the government paying for everyone's healthcare.

If it can work in several other first-world countries (Canada, England, and so on), why can't it work in what is supposed to be the world's wealthiest nation?

Poor people can't afford health insurance. That's the biggest problem and one of the primary reasons why universal health care is a good idea.

[Doc Randy]

I don't see what the big deal is. He was a city employee and his employer paid for his healthcare. There's a difference between the government paying for employee healthcare like just about every major company in the country does and the government paying for everyone's healthcare.

To say that people want the government to pay for everyone's health care is a bit disingenuous. The government wouldn't be paying for health care. We the public would be. The government's revenue is derived from we the people.

And if it could be shown that people paying into public insurance is cheaper and more effective than paying for private insurance, why shouldn't we?

Regardless, there are two separate option I am talking about:

1) A single-payer system - which I would love but don't think will ever happen in our society.

or...

2) Open up the FEHBP to the public and allow the public the OPTION of BUYING into the FEHBP. This option is proven to be effective at providing health insurance, it operates at a lower administrative overhead, has a HUGE collective bargaining pool, and is good enough for our national leaders.

Why not allow this and make private insurance directly compete with the lean efficiency of the FEHBP and their monopsonistic bargaining power?

It may not achieve the goal of universal coverage, but it would help keep prices in check and would help businesses in our nation stay competitive against nations that do have UHC systems.

[Ryan F]

To say that people want the government to pay for everyone's health care is a bit disingenuous. The government wouldn't be paying for health care. We the public would be. The government's revenue is derived from we the people.

And if it could be shown that people paying into public insurance is cheaper and more effective than paying for private insurance, why shouldn't we?

Regardless, there are two separate option I am talking about:

1) A single-payer system - which I would love but don't think will ever happen in our society.

or...

2) Open up the FEHBP to the public and allow the public the OPTION of BUYING into the FEHBP. This option is proven to be effective at providing health insurance, it operates at a lower administrative overhead, has a HUGE collective bargaining pool, and is good enough for our national leaders.

Why not allow this and make private insurance directly compete with the lean efficiency of the FEHBP and their monopsonistic bargaining power?

It may not achieve the goal of universal coverage, but it would help keep prices in check and would help businesses in our nation stay competitive against nations that do have UHC systems.

Number 2 is, by the way, Clinton's healthcare plan as I understand it (although she also has mandated coverage to make it universal).

[Brian Defferding]

To say that people want the government to pay for everyone's health care is a bit disingenuous. The government wouldn't be paying for health care. We the public would be. The government's revenue is derived from we the people.

...and then the politicians divide it out. It's derived from us, and they are then in charge of it. That's why people like me prefer that "government" term over "public" terminology; much like how liberals call privatized operations as "corporate." The middle man takes away a lot of that choice that we want, and should have.

There is no guarantee that this money will be used on health care in the first place, or if it will be used efficiently. It's hard to undo government once it starts, even when if fails (actually, especially when it fails).

Even though the FEHBP would be an opt-in operation, I doubt any fees paid to participate in it will entirely fund the operation; I think it will take taxes to maintain it (and not to mention our tax-paid elected officials to manage it).

In order to improve health care in this country, it is not necessary for any of us to sacrifice more financial freedoms (or potentially thrown in more of our money). We can preserve our money and our freedom to choose what to do with it, while improving health care, without government.

I again find it so wierd how liberals are against corporate conglomerates due to their massive control over some markets, but then turn around and advocate essentially the same thing. Just as much as liberals despise big business due to their power, they should also despise government operations for the same reasons.

[badpoet]

Using a market system in health care doesn't work. Period. If we went to more of a market system for health care, we'd be fucking ourselves even more than we are currently.

[Doc Randy]

...and then the politicians divide it out. It's derived from us, and they are then in charge of it. That's why people like me prefer that "government" term over "public" terminology; much like how liberals call privatized operations as "corporate." The middle man takes away a lot of that choice that we want, and should have.

There is no guarantee that this money will be used on health care in the first place, or if it will be used efficiently. It's hard to undo government once it starts, even when if fails (actually, especially when it fails).

Then make guarantees. Other nations do this.




Even though the FEHBP would be an opt-in operation, I doubt any fees paid to participate in it will entirely fund the operation; I think it will take taxes to maintain it (and not to mention our tax-paid elected officials to manage it).

Then make the opt-in costs the value to make it tax neutral. I guarantee it would still be cheaper than almost all private insurance.



In order to improve health care in this country, it is not necessary for any of us to sacrifice more financial freedoms (or potentially thrown in more of our money). We can preserve our money and our freedom to choose what to do with it, while improving health care, without government.

I again find it so wierd how liberals are against corporate conglomerates due to their massive control over some markets, but then turn around and advocate essentially the same thing. Just as much as liberals despise big business due to their power, they should also despise government operations for the same reasons.

The difference is that corporations are designed for the exclusive purpose of benefiting shareholders and shareholders alone. Within the boundaries of the law, they are also only accountable to shareholders.

Democratic and Representative governments are accountable to the entire population. Though the public often fails at their end of the bargain, governments and public programs are ideally designed to benefit all of society, not just shareholders.

The other major issue is the amount of input allowed by the public. The general public has little to no direct influence on corporate policy. At best, they can only hope for indirect influence through market forces.
As lumbering a system as government is, the people can and do have a direct input.


I am a huge democracy advocate. And the fundamental concept behind democracy is that all people should have equal say in shaping their lives and their nation. And that includes applying the principles of democracy to economics. I want more transparency. More accountability. And more direct public participation. All of these things are there for those who want it.

Is government perfect? Hell no. But it has the potential to be much much better.


Corporate philosophy and the "ownership society" mindset doesn't value people as having equal say. It values individual units of wealth and capital as equal, but not people. It is a system that says, "he with the most dollars has the most say." It is the essence of aristocracy, oligarchy, and plutocracy. And it is anti-democratic.




Now I am not saying we need to eliminate corporations. I think we need both the public and the private. It saddens me that so many smart people want to minimize the public side of the equation. You need both.

It is even scarier if you go back and look at the history of corporate America and a century long campaign to undermine democracy, regulation, transparency, and oversight in our nation.

[GoddessOKay]

I'd also like to point out that the President, VP, the Supreme Court, the Congress, and all the people that work for them all get public health insurance through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.

If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of the nation.

My suggestion:

Allow individuals, families, and businesses the OPTION of BUYING into the FEHBP.

I'm a federal employee and he FEHBP isn't all it's cracked up to be.
1, you have to make a certain amount of pay at a certain GS or WG level to even qualify most of the time.

and there is different levels of it, it's not like: BAM! you have health insurrance the moment you qualify either.

2 dependent upon the area of the country you live in you are offered the option to pay for a choice of health plans offered in your area through pay check deductions pretax, just like a private company might.

the 1st two years i was eliglible i couldn't even afford any of them and that sucked as i had a preexisiting medical condidtion.

3 i have to pay even more extra on my own if i want things like eyes and teeth covered. and i don't get that much money out of my pay every year, only about $35,000



what is true is some medical companies offer a slightly lower rate for federal employees, but your rates are still subject to change every year if the general public's is as well.

so the FEHBP is similar in nature to any private company sponsered or offered health plan.
why it seems like so many of these politicians could afford private plans on their own without the PRE-TAX benefit on their own!

the WHOLE health care system needs to be reformed because FEHBP isn't gonna solve even half the public's problems.

in the place i work right now half of us can't even afford to buy into it cause they can't afford the money immediately every week....

The whole system sucks.

[Brian Defferding]

Using a market system in health care doesn't work. Period. If we went to more of a market system for health care, we'd be fucking ourselves even more than we are currently.

Before government intervened heavily in the late 60's/early 70's, doctors made house calls and treated the patient directly; payment was made directly to the doctor's office without any middle man on a cash/credit basis; health care was affordable and for the small amount of people who couldn't afford it, there were local private charities/community action helped those who needed to pay for them. More time was spent treating the actual patient instead of working through payment and papers.

If you ask me, the market system worked rather well before government stepped in.

[Doc Randy]

If you ask me, the market system worked rather well before government stepped in.

There are plenty of nations that never adopted the HMO insurance structure (a system that didn't originate from the Government, but from corporations who lobbied for it.) I find it odd that you want to turn over things to the market, when it was the market's beneficiaries who helped game the system in their favor. If the corporate insurance people fucked us over once already, why give them MORE power?

Plenty of nations have government-free health care. And they all suck.
Plenty of nations have UHC. Almost all of them work pretty well.

[Brian Defferding]

There are plenty of nations that never adopted the HMO insurance structure (a system that didn't originate from the Government, but from corporations who lobbied for it.) I find it odd that you want to turn over things to the market, when it was the market's beneficiaries who helped game the system in their favor. If the corporate insurance people fucked us over once already, why give them MORE power?

Plenty of nations have government-free health care. And they all suck.
Plenty of nations have UHC. Almost all of them work pretty well.

This nation had a market system that worked better than UHC, at that time America was admired for its quality health care. Now we're not because we have government, corporatism, and its lobbying.

You say there are plenty of nations with government free health care, but they suck. Ours worked really well before government stepped in.

[badpoet]

Before government intervened heavily in the late 60's/early 70's, doctors made house calls and treated the patient directly; payment was made directly to the doctor's office without any middle man on a cash/credit basis; health care was affordable and for the small amount of people who couldn't afford it, there were local private charities/community action helped those who needed to pay for them. More time was spent treating the actual patient instead of working through payment and papers.

If you ask me, the market system worked rather well before government stepped in.

Surprisingly enough, the world changed. This isn't the 1950's. We actually have treatments for cancer and other ailments that were simply not treatable at that time. Essentially, the doctor came to you, if you had cancer they gave you a timeline of how long they expected you to live, and went on their merry way.

We pay 1.5x as much as any other industrialized nation for health care simply because we're too stupid and stubborn to admit that health care is an essential service and that leaving it to the market only encourages $20 million/per year CEO bonuses and having 3 CAT scan machines in areas where you really only need one (and eventually, you get down to zero because everyone determines its simply not cost effective to keep their machine in place).

People who support market based health care are at best delusional.

[Doc Randy]

You say there are plenty of nations with government free health care, but they suck. Ours worked really well before government stepped in.

Here is a fun challenge for you:

Prove it. :)

Prove it worked better. Was life expectancy higher? Were infant mortality rates lower? :-?

[Ben]

Before government intervened heavily in the late 60's/early 70's, doctors made house calls and treated the patient directly; payment was made directly to the doctor's office without any middle man on a cash/credit basis; health care was affordable and for the small amount of people who couldn't afford it, there were local private charities/community action helped those who needed to pay for them. More time was spent treating the actual patient instead of working through payment and papers.

If you ask me, the market system worked rather well before government stepped in.Really? So the doctor brought his MRI machine with him?

[Brian Defferding]

Here is a fun challenge for you:

Prove it. :)

Prove it worked better. Was life expectancy higher? Were infant mortality rates lower? :-?

Pffffft. Now you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. :blah:

Life expectancy doesn't tell the full picture on health care and you know it. Hardly anyone knew about smoking's detrimental effects back then, technology wasn't evolved to point it is now. Surgeries, MRI's, pacemakers, computers which monitor our bodies, back then that was all primitive, if at all even existing. And these marvels of medicine were not because of government involvement, it was because of basic science evolving and its technology overall to deliver information to the patients.

It was, however, more affordable and more accessible back then. And isn't that the tagline liberal's argument for UHC - 45 million uninsured? 45 million not getting the health care they need?

I bet you there would be no 45 million uninsured if we had the same policy on health care back in the 50's. I bet you they would be getting treated by a doctor with little fanfare over the bill.

Here's a fun challenge to you: Prove those 45 million still wouldn't. :)

[WillieLee]

Tee hee. Socialized medicine is evil! Evil I tells ya!

[Taxman]

My suggestion:

Allow individuals, families, and businesses the OPTION of BUYING into the FEHBP.Commie!

[Colby]

Pffffft. Now you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. :blah:

Life expectancy doesn't tell the full picture on health care and you know it. Hardly anyone knew about smoking's detrimental effects back then, technology wasn't evolved to point it is now. Surgeries, MRI's, pacemakers, computers which monitor our bodies, back then that was all primitive, if at all even existing. And these marvels of medicine were not because of government involvement, it was because of basic science evolving and its technology overall to deliver information to the patients.

Well, actually, Paul Lauterbur, one of the principle developers of MRI technology, did his research that lead to the MRI at State University of New York at Stony Brook, a public university.

The development of the pacemaker needed public hospitals and universities from around the world (Including, but not limited to, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, the University of Sydney, and the University of Minnesota).

And I trust I don't need to go into the government's large role in developing modern computing technology, but sufficed to say that the army and Al Gore both had a lot to do with it.

[Doc Randy]

Well, actually, Paul Lauterbur, one of the principle developers of MRI technology, did his research that lead to the MRI at State University of New York at Stony Brook, a public university.

The development of the pacemaker needed public hospitals and universities from around the world (Including, but not limited to, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, the University of Sydney, and the University of Minnesota).

And I trust I don't need to go into the government's large role in developing modern computing technology, but sufficed to say that the army and Al Gore both had a lot to do with it.

Similarly, a huge contributing factor in available health care post-WW2 was the hundreds of thousands of individuals that were medically trained to be doctors and nurses by the US government during WW2.

[Amos Moses]

Hot damn! A rhetoric off between Oni and Deff! I'm guessing the board explodes in round 5.

[Doc Randy]

Hot damn! A rhetoric off between Oni and Deff! I'm guessing the board explodes in round 5.

Deff is my evil twin. :twisted:

I don't always agree with him, but I am very thankful he is here.

I don't know if anybody ever watched SPORTS NIGHT, but there was a great line in it... "If you are dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you are smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

[WillieLee]

Deff is my evil twin. :twisted:

I don't always agree with him, but I am very thankful he is here.

I don't know if anybody ever watched SPORTS NIGHT, but there was a great line in it... "If you are dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you are smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."

Didn't the writer of Sports Night get busted for crack cocaine possession?

[Colby]

Pffffft. Now you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. :blah:

BTW, I don't think it's "arguing for the sake of arguing" to ask that you proffer some proof of your claim. If the somewhat-free-market approach to health care in the 1950s really was superior to a UHC system, there ought to be some objective measure of it. Statistics, comparative studies, hell, even a solid line of reasoning. There's got to be something out there.

If there's not, that's fine, but it doesn't mean someone who wants evidence is just being a contrarian.


I bet you there would be no 45 million uninsured if we had the same policy on health care back in the 50's. I bet you they would be getting treated by a doctor with little fanfare over the bill.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What are you basing this belief on? Your gut feeling is nice, but I'm sure it won't shock you to learn that MY gut feels a little differently. ;)


Didn't the writer of Sports Night get busted for crack cocaine possession?

And yet, the quote is still a good one.

[WillieLee]

And yet, the quote is still a good one.

I ain't listening to no crackhead!