Welcome..... Wissup??

WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP


Copyright (c) 2009 Ginny Maziarka. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Americans for Prosperity dishes on government-controlled health care

Americans for Prosperity launched the campaign against government-controlled health care.


15 comments:

John Jost, West Bend said...

Let's see what we can find:

Identity: "Americans for Prosperity — a nationwide front group founded and funded by the right-wing polluter Koch Industries."

Facts:
- More Than 70% Of Americans Polled Want An Increased Governmental Role In Health Care.
- Plurality of Americans Polled Think Health Care Is The Most Pressing Issue For Congress And The President.
- The Majority Of Americans Want An Obama-style Mix Of Public And Private.

Patients United Now is NOT made up of patients. So - your point was?

Anonymous said...

John- So American's for Prosperity is wrong, but your list is "fact". Ah, I don't think so.

It will start out as public and private insurance, but when employers dump their private insurance because it's too expensive then everyone will be on the government dole. Waiting to have a hip replacement or chemo treatments.

Our system now is no perfect, but at least I have a choice.

Big goverment is NOT the answer.

John Jost, West Bend said...

Anonymous: the facts I quoted are from the usual polls with a 3% error margin. When such a poll comes up with 70%, it's pretty much iron-clad.

You wrote "because it's too expensive", so you see government possibly coming up with a cheaper choice. You say that we will then have waiting lines.

You know, rock bands claim to be no.1 in South Korea, cosmetics claim to be the talk of the town in Finland, and we are told that public health care comes with waiting lines, all because we can't easily check, can we?

I have personal first-hand knowledge of people elsewhere getting immediate and brilliant health care from government-run health care systems.

The private insurance providers, whose sole goal is to make a buck, are the only ones who are afraid of a public option. Since it's their buck, I can't for the life of me see why you side with them.

Anonymous said...

John- Curious as to what poll numbers you are using?

My family lives in Germany, I have a dear friend currently in Wisconsin from Canada, so I know personally how this will affect us.

I also speak from someone whose family owns a small business. So I know how much insurance cost businesses. I also know what it is like to be self insured.

The problem is if we wait until we see if there are lines or not it will be too late. Sorry, but I don't want to take the chance that my parents could die before they receive care. I don't want the government telling me what kind of care I need.

Also, if the government runs health care they will be able to tell doctors what to charge. So the income of the doctors will go down. We will no longer have the best and the brightest as our doctors. Who would want to go through 8 plus years of med school, incure all the expenses and get paid less than a union worker or teacher? Not to mention all insurance you'd have to have to cover yourself.

Our system currently has it flaws, but it is still the best system out there.

The Obama-Care will destory health care.

Call Me Mom said...

"Lies, damned lies and statistics."
Polls can be and often are phrased in ways that allow no other answers than the answers that are desired by those conducting the polls. You can say the statistic came from an independent organization, but it doesn't matter who's asking if the question is skewed.

John Jost, West Bend said...

Call Me Mom, you don't know what you're talking about.

Damned lies? New York Times/CBS News poll, June 21, question: "Would you favor or oppose the government's offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?", result: 72% in favor. You call that skewed?

You would instantly call 72% opposed "a landslide."

Call Me Mom said...

John,
Most of the conservatives I know no longer read the NYT (if they ever did)or watch any of the "big three" networks except to reconfirm that they have become impossibly liberal and/or check up on what nasty peice of nonsense is going to be shoved down our throats next.
So, yes, I would call that skewed because the poll group, by virtue of being mostly those who accept the NYT and CBS news as reliable and/or unbiased would be the ones most likely to be responding to such a poll.

John Jost, West Bend said...

For Pete's ******* sake, the poll respondents were chosen at random, it was not an online poll.

And it's the whole country that has gone what you call impossibly liberal, a direct result of eight years of conservatives at the wheel darn near totalling the car.

Call Me Mom said...

John,
So you're saying this was one of those polls where they call you out of the blue with manipulatively phrased questions?

Oh wait there weren't any manipulatively phrased questions in this one, right? Suure.

Even if the questions weren't manipulatively phrased (which is really hard to do by the way) I simply don't trust the source. The MSM(of which CBS and the NYT are certainly a part)have abandoned their role as non-partisan reporters of the news. They admitted it themselves after the presidential elections were over and that in itself makes their poll results suspect.

Your statement "I have personal first-hand knowledge of people elsewhere getting immediate and brilliant health care from government-run health care systems." is in direct opposition to the statements I have heard from other people elsewhere who have had to come here for first class medical treatment. Gosh, which of us is more correct? That's a tough one, I guess I should just concede that your people are telling the truth and mine are not. *sarcasm* Or perhaps I should assume that because you phrased your statement so definitively that all the other stories I hear about those who come here because they would die if they waited to get the treatment available to them in their own countries, which is not necessarily the most effective treatment but more likely to be the most cost effective treatments, are lies.

The truth is that neither one of us has presented any reliable statistics*cough*lies*cough* to show which it is. Perhaps the treatment options vary depending on who you are, what your trouble is and how expensive it will be to treat whatever you have. Of course that tends to support the argument that our current system gives people options that are not available in countries with socialized healthcare.

In answer to your statement:"The private insurance providers, whose sole goal is to make a buck, are the only ones who are afraid of a public option. Since it's their buck, I can't for the life of me see why you side with them." Insurance providers are constrained from running their businesses like businesses because the government mandates who they must cover. That is what drives up their costs, and like it or not, businesses are in business to make a profit. If their costs go up, then the costs of their products will go up. It's not rocket science.


And just by the way, I don't consider the RINOs who were in the majority during the last decade to be conservatives. In my observations, I thought they were they were spending just as much as any democratically controlled legislature would have and I was unsatisfied with their performance in the support of individual freedoms. How sad for us all that I now find I was in error as the current democratic majority has put them to shame in the spending as well and the curtailment of individual freedoms depts.

Call Me Mom said...

I notice you haven't addressed any of anonymous' points, preferring instead to tackle my insistence that statistics can be manipulated to show whatever anyone wants them to. So, let's look at your poll question. you said"Damned lies? New York Times/CBS News poll, June 21, question: "Would you favor or oppose the government's offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?", result: 72% in favor. You call that skewed?
"
Yes I do and here's why. How many respondents would have said they favored it if the individual cost of such a program were included in the question? If the question had said " Would you favor or oppose paying $1000.00/person more in taxes/year(a ridiculously low amount considering what this will actually cost) to provide a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare..." then the responses might be closer to the truth of what people believe. To leave the individual cost off that question is that same as asking "Would you favor or oppose a government administered plan to purchase single family homes for all American families?" or Would you favor or oppose changing the color of the sky to pink?" It's theoretical, it's daydreaming about a perfect world if you could make it that way. It's also manipulative because it's presented as a theoretical question. Theoretically, health insurance for everyone sounds very nice, but if the question were asked as a concrete, I -will-pay-this-much-toward-this-program, I think there would be a different answer. The question is manipulative because it is presented as a do you like this idea? question, not an are you willing to pay for this? question and the results are being used to say that people would be willing to pay for this. It's not accurate and it is skewed and manipulative.

John Jost, West Bend said...

Enough already. Sign your name and we'll talk more. You know mine, but so far you've been a coward like many bloggers, hiding behind an alias to be able to talk without accountability.

What are you afraid of? Nobody has taken me to task for what I say. Name yourself or I'll assume you're... a paid troll?

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Jost,
I think I'm complimented. A paid troll? lol-I wish I could get paid for discussing stuff like this on blogs. But, alas, I would view such employment as unethical-which is too bad since I could use the income.
I post under a pseudonym and always have not because I am a coward but because I have a minor child still at home and the pseudonym provides a small(very small and mostly in my own head I suppose, technology being what it is.) layer of security. There is also the issue of respect for my husband's parents and family whose last name I share. Many of them have views that differ from my own. You may contact me through the e-mail listed on my profile if you want to have a private exchange. If I think you are a reasonable person I may share my name with you, although it's not like I'm anyone special, just a mom who likes to read.

Call Me Mom said...

For that matter, My profile is public. Having just checked yours, may I return the question: What are you afraid of?

John Jost said...

This is getting blogger-long, we have to end this thread at some point or we'll be kicked out...

Done deal, my profile is public now. I doubt that you need such a layer of security, the people who disagree with you are not typically those who insist on walking around with guns in their belts...

A story I still wanted to share: my friend Alain who, like me, is from Belgium, lived in Atlanta a few years ago. He developed cirrhosis of the liver (not from drinking) and needed a transplant.

His doctor told him that he should go back and have his operation in Belgium at a fraction of the US price. Things happened so. He finally got the call that there was a donor organ and that he should get his butt in there pronto. The transplant was a success.

He still lives there, thanking his lucky star for the (government-run) health care system that saved his life at a believable price. He misses the US in many ways, but he won't be back permanently.

Call Me Mom said...

Praise the Lord that your friend was able to get the medical care he needed and my condolences to the family of the liver donor, whoever they are.

Again, simply because that system worked for your friend in this instance doesn't mean that it would provide the same state of the art treatments available here in a timely manner. Organ donation is a chancy thing anywhere as the organ must be matched to the recipient. Waiting time is usually dependent upon finding a match no matter where you live or what health care system you have.
I also notice that the recommendation was made by his doctor here. A doctor that he did not have to wait months to see and who diagnosed him without a fatally long wait?

I have been on and seen threads far longer than this one. I doubt blogger would care. Ginny might if we get off topic though.

That's a pretty sparse profile. It gives me no clue as to whether or not you are a reasonable person. I doubt I need that layer of security too, but better safe than sorry.