Senator Max Baucus
The New York Times had this to say about Max Baucus:
He conceded that it was a mistake to rule out a fully government-run health system, or a “single-payer plan,” not because he supports it but because doing so alienated a large, vocal constituency and left Mr. Obama’s proposal of a public health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.
Matt Yglesias doesn’t get it:
I thin that’s right. Framing effects are important in politics. The public-private competition is supposed to be a compromise between the pristine vision of single-payer and the desire of private insurers not to be put out of business. It creates a situation in which insurers are challenged to prove that single-payer advocates are wrong, rather than simply assert it. But with no single-payer plan in the mix, this gets lost, and the compromise becomes the leftmost anchor of the debate. A single-payer plan couldn’t possibly have passed, but I think having hearings on single-payer and having one committee draft a serious single-payer bill that gets a serious CBO score would have been a useful exercise. In particular, it would have focused the mind on the costs involved in rejecting this option.
Neither does Duncan Black:
I don’t know why the Dems never learn this lesson. If you start with the compromise position, you will and up compromising on that. They prefer a strategy of pulling together a coalition and getting them all to buy in on something they can agree with, but than that of course gets watered down into crap no one actually supports.
Nor does Paradox:
The entire premise of the Yglesias post is bullshit—give me a break, that Republican-wannabe Baucus didn’t somehow have the magical ability to give up on single payer from the git-go, hell, single payer was given up on in stupid weakness because of this moron Baucus—but the point still vividly stands that giving up on single payer before we ever started was a terrible, terrible mistake.
I do think the precise mechanics of this flaming fuckup would good to know for the liberal community, accountability is a good thing. The first I ever heard of it was last year in Texas at Netroots Nation from Ezra Klein, who actually had the youthfully obnoxious arrogance to state having single payer as a goal “was a naïve pursuit of perfection.” Well, Ezra, just where did you learn that? Who gave you that strategy to push that was and is so stupid? It’s not just me, your old companeros Atrios and Yglesias say it too. Well? I suppose graduation to the establishment big time means the badass Ezra can ignore the lowly blogger question, but we’ll see.
The obnoxious sneering from a hopelessly wrong fool isn’t the point, it’s that even a nobody from nowhere like me knows never to give up crucial goals in negotiation before you even start, so how come professional politicians like Democrats don’t know?
Bob Somerby gets it:
Are we all Professor Rosen now? Having asked, let us offer a fairly obvious speculation:
In all likelihood, Baucus took single-payer off the table for a very good reason—because he isn’t trying to create a progressive health reform package. His statement to the Times was pure BS. After all, Baucus is a corporate man (data below). He wants health reform near the “center.”
After the fact, he was covering his keister for those on the left. Our other professor bought it.
Yglesias penned a thoughtful piece about the meaning of Baucus’ move. He too failed to note an obvious possibility: When Baucus voiced his regrets to the Times, it was a big silly con! (emphasis added)
From Physicians for a National Health Program:
Here’s why Baucus is not doing the peoples business:
According to OpenSecrets.org over his career he has taken donations from:
The Insurance Industry: $1,170,313
Health Professionals $1,016,276
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry $734,605
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $541,891
Health Services/HMOs $439,700
That is a grand total of $3,902,785. Can we trust Baucus to put aside the profits of the industries that have kept him in the senate? Will he put the people’s necessities ahead of the profits of his contributors? Baucus has shown his bias and should be removed from leading the health care reform effort by the Democratic Party leadership.
In 2008 Baucus had virtually no challenger in Montana. A little-known Republican was on the ballot, Baucus won with 73% of the vote. But, Baucus sought big donations from big business anyway. He used his connections to corporations with business before his committee to raise an immense campaign fund of more than $11 million. In 2008, 91% of his donations come from individuals living outside of Montana, which is why he is more the “Senator for K Street” then the Senator for Montana. Corporate health profiteers who invested in Baucus will now benefit from his stewardship over health care reform. His 2008 donations from health care profiteers included:
Insurance $592,185
Health Professionals $537,141
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $524,813
Health Services/HMOs $364,500
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $332,826
That is $1,826,652 Baucus took from industries who he can now make wealthier by deforming health care reform.
Do you get it?
Not only are we not gonna get single-payer out of this motley crew, we’re not even gonna get a true “public option.” All we’re gonna get is a Rube Goldbergesque clusterfuck that guarantees the health care leeches will continue to grow fat on our blood.
Meanwhile some of the allegedly brightest minds in Left Blogistan will be bleating about the Democrats’ “bad strategy.” The problem is that it isn’t a bad strategy – it is a very effective strategy. The Democratic leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Baucus et. al) are accomplishing their goal – to avoid real health care reform at all cost.
We know the Republicans aren’t on our side, but the Democrats pretend to be our friends while selling us down the river. They are the political equivalent of the Washington Generals. They get paid to put on a show and lose.
Nothing will change until the lefty blogosphere quits making excuses for them
UPDATE:
The point is that if you’re making big policy changes, the final form of the policy has to be good enough to do the job. You might think that half a loaf is always better than none — but it isn’t if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach.
Which brings us back to health care. It would be a crushing blow to progressive hopes if Mr. Obama doesn’t succeed in getting some form of universal care through Congress. But even so, reform isn’t worth having if you can only get it on terms so compromised that it’s doomed to fail.
Please Digg!!! Tweet!!! Share!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: Democratic Party, General, Health Care Reform | Tagged: Health Care Reform, Max Baucus
I’m not sure some of them have it in them to be intellectually honest or have the ability to choose principle when that principle comes with a cost(like being called names). They sold their souls this election cycle for a democratic victory. Nevermind the cost of that victory meant jettisoning every single thing they were supposedly working for. They still don’t seem to get what Bill Clinton meant when he said you have to choose principle over party loyalty.
I hope I’m wrong because otherwise I suspect it’s going to be another long 4 years of no change followed by 4 more years of veering right.
No, they sold their souls for an Obama victory.
I wouldn’t just tie it to Obama. Despite all the times they have been betrayed by the Democrats(fisa, iraq,) they don’t have it in them to choose the alternative. They will keep coming up with excuses and keep fooling themselves into believing their choice is so much more superior to those voting for the guy with the R behind his name(even though the people being represented b y both sides at this point are virtually the same).
Arthur Silber says the Democrats are 2% less evil
There’s a campaign slogan for ya
Mine would be
Democrats- our platform looks better than theirs in theory.
Too bad most of it isn’t actually practiced.
I would alter that to: 2% of Democrats are less evil.
The rest are equally evil.
They are choosing money over principle, not party loyalty. They have proven this many times.
When the Democratic powers that be decided during the Reagan years that to win back power they would have to cede principle to right wing ideology it was the end of the real Democratic Party. The thought was that they would run on centrist to rightwing positions then if elected govern more to the left. Stealth strategy. The only problem being that they really elected Dems that actually believed in Republican ideology.
That was the flaw in folks like BTD’s strategy IMO. He chose Obama because the media was giving Obama a pass. The thing is the media wouldn’t have given Obama a pass if they were even a little worried that he’d rock the status quo.
The other flaw was pledging to vote for “any Democrat”
I couldn’t vote for the Democrat. I believed then and believe now that McCain was a better choice, if only because he would have faced some pushback from Congress.
Yep as long as the Democraqt has their DEFAULT VOTE, there is no incentive for them to listen to left blogistan.
Until they say we are jettisoning party politics and are focusing on convincing each and every politician to fight for their vote by doing what they want on issues we will continue with political kabuki.
As a poster on TLC said, The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that the Republican will stab you in the front.
BTD still hasn’t learned his lesson either. Lots of Left Blogistan will have to learn that lesson before anything turns around.
Unfortunately, a lot of good intentioned liberals like BTD and even Rachel Maddow will criticize Obama but they will never actually admit that they were fooled by him. In BTD’s case, he wanted anyone with a (D) after their name without even considering anything else besides who was the “media darling”. Folks like Maddow and many others in the LGBT community who supported Obama over Clinton were truly bamboozled. Even if they realize it now they will never admit that Clinton probably would’ve been the better choice to fight for single payer health plan, women’s rights, and gay unions.
Really well said, cwaltz. I really should write that on my bathroom mirror in stayput lipstick, so I wont forget.
“If the Media is for x, x is bad for me and the country.”
My take on that was that if frat boys are for it, it’s bad for women. And they loved them some Barky back in aught-eight.
Hammer. Nail. Bang!
I loathed Brand Obama and his cultists for the way they thugged their way through the primaries, but I basically thought the owners of the Corporate Media wanted an Elephascist prez, as usual. I assumed the CM weasels were just fawning over Obama to get him nominated, rather than Clinton, who I thought would be the Dems’ strongest candidate. I figured that once BO was nominated, the CM would turn on him in favor of their old BBQ buddy, McCain.
Instead, they turned on McCain. It was then, I think, that I finally realized how deeply the fix was in. As CWaltz said, the CM wouldn’t have supported BO over McCain if the owners of the CM had any suspicion that BO wouldn’t toe their line.
Healthcare reform being handled by the Finance Subcommittee should tell you all you want to know. Not to mention, if anyone was really serious about reform, that person wouldn’t attempt to craft an overhaul based on just a couple of Subcommittee hearings. Where’s the study group? Where are the experts who have worked with countries that have UHC? Conspicuous by their absence.
Where are the experts who have worked with countries that have UHC?
Didn’t Baucus have them arrested?
I believe he did, come to think of it.
Let’s not put this all on Baucus. He has had plenty of cover from Reid and Pelosi. People in SF should have voted for Cindy Sheehan. She certainly couldn’t have done much worse. Yet, poor Cindy barely got 5% if I remember correctly and she was the only one willing to take on the party machinery.
Yup, and most were ‘DOCTORS’, you know those folks that they keep talking about, and say know everything. They also want to keep folks in the dark about doctors and nurses wanting a Single Payer Plan on the table of discussions.
I would think you would want to listen to the folks in the front line, and the ones that actually deliver the care, but what do they know, right…best to let the LIFE LONG HOUSE OF LEGISLATORS decide, because they have GOVERNMENT PROVIDED HEALTH CARE and aren’t at risk like most people of losing their plans or without a plan like the 47 Million Americans (plus all the ones that will lose coverage along with their jobs).
The plan has been all along to stay with the status quo so why waste time or tempt fate by actually gathering any facts? A real fact might accidently get out that would upset the trough, can’t have that.
Exactly. If anything is actually fixed or even improved ( health care , the wars , the economy ) how can you ram though new scams to ” fix” it down the road? The idea is to never fix, but put in the fix.
I have a rule I always adhere to.
When stuff like this happens, I immediately run over to my peeps at BAR because they are so much more eloquent than I am. As if to confirm my thoughts, here is what they have:
How come these guys and Bob Somerby are always right on the money? This is frustrating to the rest of us.
I don’t always agree with Somerby, but BAR is the ultimate in accountability reporting.
And they were during the primary and general, too. They knew, like GLBTs are learning now, that B0 was not their friend. Their analysis of his lack of access to traditional black media was scathing.
And here’s another bit from that same post:
Stunning.
Terrific round up post ….Bob Somerby has been hitting them outta the park even more than usual lately. He’s a gem on the web….but you knew that .
I’m real tired of people with gold plated health care up the wazoo telling me what shrunken , changeling, bill shocker HC I can expect….and I’m real tired of hearing health care called a “luxury”. That is one of their new buzz words. That along with the buzz phrase ” the public needs to take personal responsibility ” trotted out when they want out of any public service. Coming soon: when the garbage isn’t picked up and you call the local government, you’ll be told to take personal responsibility for it .
So maybe when the tipping point comes, we won’t be picking up the pitch forks to storm the castle , we’ll pick up the glad bags
So maybe when the tipping point comes, we won’t be picking up the pitch forks to storm the castle , we’ll pick up the glad bags
Lol, paper doll.
That reminds me of the WKRP episode where the sanitation workers had gone on strike, and Johnny Fever suggested that people encourage the city government to give the workers a raise to bring them back to work–by dumping their garbage on the steps of City Hall.
Maybe protestors could dump garbage on the steps of Congress?
Or release pigs in the halls? Granted, it might be mean to force the pigs to ensure such bad company…
*sigh* ENDURE, not ensure.
Why can’t this blog have an edit feature like Legion World and Wonderland have?
On second thought, skunks might be a better choice than pigs.
Oh and remember how Obama was going to consult with Elizabeth Edwards to “figure all this out” . You cannot keep track of the lies
I still say we aren’t going to get any decent and reasonable policies in this country until we demand real and dramatic campaign reform. As long as corporate can buy our congressional seats, the people don’t stand a chance.
Yep. But there isn’t much to motivate them to change it.
I agree. Until we reform the election process in this country, and go to publicly funded elections, we will continue to have a presidency and legislature that is bought and paid for by Big Money. Whether they are dems or repubs will not matter in the slightest.
I agree that’s where we are right now. How anyone could vote for him after he said he would challenge McCain if McCain didn’t agree to public financing (Gee, wasn’t it called the McCain-Feingold Act?), and then right after McCain committed, B0 backed out. He is a slippery liar.
If we don’t change the election process, I agree, we will never get to elect our president again.
A good place to start is with our own wallets….STOP donating to the party and to the candidates. Make them win on their merit and reduce the money they can spend creating false advertising.
I don’t anymore, and I send them a reply via email or in the SASE telling them why. I know it’s a long shot that my letters gets read, but I still do it.
How do we get there though when people on our side will reject ever actually adhering to public finance out of fear of losing to the Republicans(who in reality are not that much better or worse than the Democrats)
Stop smoking, exercise, lose weight (we’re gonna tax the crap outta those folks to help you do it) don’t go to the doctor unless you’re really, really sick, and give us access to your medical records so we can sell ‘em easier, and so you can treat yourself online for the little stuff. That’s been the “healthcare reform” plan all along, and that’s the plan we’re gonna get. Everything else is just a cover to insulate the insurance and other “health related” companies involved.
The local herb person will come into prominence again…I mean why not consult a shaman? I’m not being completely snarky here .
What you are describing is death sentences for vast amounts of people , because if you seek help only when you are really really sick, for many diseases, it’s too late to save you. The whole concept of preventive care is out the window . It’s a nightmere. They KNOW such a system will kill people off quicker .
” soylent green is people”
You’re supposed to monitor your health online, Paper Doll, once they get all the systems up and running that is. By then, you’ll have a hand/eye scanner thingy you can send info to and get a diagnosis and prescription back from, and/or a follow up appointment with your doc or a specialist. Sounds like a joke, but, when I was researching a post about this stuff a couple of months ago, I found that this is really the kind of stuff they’re talking about.
People will die because of that. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science (for GOOD doctors, that is.) There is no algorithm or checklist that can substitute for laying eyes, ears, and hands on a patient. There is no substitute for a skilled professional with years of experience who, despite what the machine or the “treatment protocol” is telling him/her, knows in his/her gut that “something is just not right” with this patient’s presentation, and pursues it.
If a computer program could diagnose and treat patients, why not just eliminate doctors and nurses altogether, and have everyone log onto it, feed their info in, and have it spit out appropriate treatments and meds? Because people would DIE, that’s why.
What would happen if we did that with, say, the legal profession as well? Create a computer program, have the client enter the pertinent facts of their case, and the computer spits out the appropriate legal defense to read to the jury and judge. Yeah, that would work, and save SO much money! Not.
http://www.codebluenow.org/vital-signs/microsoft-brings-medical-technology-into-the-21st-century
Cinie, done correctly, i could get behind that. Ah, but there’s the rub – correctly.
Right on, WMCB.
As a doc, I can tell you that many times I have made the right diagnosis based on intuition or “gut feelings.” And sometimes that means just sitting in the room with the patient feeling it out, giving the time necessary to sort out all of what I am perceiving from the parent, the patient, the history and physical, and “the vibe.” I’m not kidding, sometimes it’s something very subtle that leads to the true diagnosis.
I am not too willing to concede that process over to computerized program. The computer shoots out a huge list of possible diagnoses. As limited as my brain is, it still works more efficiently at that process, in combination with my intuition, which is really a distillation of experience, knowledge, and empathy.
Spot on.
omg, not a good idea. When will we learn that technology is not always the answer? There is no substitute for a healthcare provider meeting face-to-face with a patient. We need more facetime, not less!!
Hell, that’s it, isn’t it?
Our lords and masters want us to die before we can collect Social Security or use Medicare, so they’ll have even more money to skim off for themselves.
It’ll stay that way until we get rid of the great dual myth that wealth is primarily the result of virtue and poverty of laziness. That dual myth holds the whole filthy system together.
Of course, as meee2 noted, true campaign finance reform is essential also.
Myiq could have put it even more bluntly: “People dying younger is a feature, not a bug.”
(whining) I’m trying to rent a car in Indianapolis next week. It’s way more expensive than my dad wants to spend and I’m getting frustrated.
http://www.correntewire.com/ive_looked_o_both_sides_now
Thanks for the link, disenfranchised voter. The coinage I’m happiest with today is unterbussen (a la untermenschen, the useless eaters who need to be shoved off on the ice floes, clutching their pathetic cans of catfood). Feel free to propagate…
Loved this commenter on Krugman:
I don’t know why these government-averse purist Republican legislators don’t rise up en masse & burn their own government health insurance cards on the steps of the Capitol Building. It seems so WRONG for these poor Congressmen to have to abide having the government stand between them and their doctors when the rest of us are free to choose fabulous private carriers.
That IS a great comment!
However, it misses the point that the Dems are just as guilty. They all enjoy government sponsored healthcare that our tax dollars pay for.
Meanwhile, the only loyalty they seem to have is to those who feather the re-election fund rather than those who pay the salary and benefit package.
I say a letter writing campaign to our congressional folks is in order. Enough letters hitting their offices telling them we see their greed and they just might be shamed into changing their stand on this.
Most of the comments on Krugman are angry, but there are still the few, the misguided, the morons, the mainliners of extra-strength koolaid who still are clinging to the “11th dimensional chess featuring a SURPRISE ending!” theory.
Poor, poor, deluded fools. “But..but…Obama has a secret plan! He is being genius sneaky, and will burst from the shadows at the last minute, ripping off his shirt to reveal the Superman logo! He..um…has a Sword of Truth! That glows! Given to him by Gandalf! And he has…um….dragons! Who will swoop in and fry the orcs…I mean, Republicans! When all seems lost, the hero will emerge, because….he just WILL, because dat’s the way it happens, see….”
Or, is there a subtler dynamic to the President’s policy speeches and directives that indicates a wholly different sort of plan taking shape in the President’s head?
Namely, it could be that the President is playing to the powerful lobbies in finance and health care, seeming to ‘appreciate’ the needs of the proverbial status quo, while in reality he is providing them with that one more inch of rope with which they can eventually hang themselves. Could it be that he is biding his time, spending his first year in office allowing the flawed and paranoid logic of the lobbyists, their powerful clients and the Republican opposition to fully surface as the self-serving nonsense that it is, after which he will assert his authority and move in for the kill, personally driving the change that is truly necessary?
Oh, that’s just sad.
I guess this guy doesn’t grasp the concept of “the first hundred days” of a new President’s administration when he has the most political capital to spend (honeymoon period) and you get the flavor and general direction of the next four years.
I’m so glad that FDR and LBJ didn’t bide their time, spending their first year in office allowing their opponents to fully surface.
yup, and we’re being screwed by the enhanced status quo … just wait until the republicans make gains in the mid terms
kiss any hope of progress goodbye because he will have to worry about appeasing them then.
What I don’t, and have never, understood, is why sane people thought Obama would fight for anything.
I can remember saying ad nauseum “Show me ANYTHING in his public career that he had ever actually fought for, ever gone to the mat for.” What I got back was, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter!”
Um, no, they don’t. Not alone. It is bittersweet to hear his supporters expressing dismay now over the gap between words and action, after 2 years of insisting that the words were all that mattered.
Let them eat words. It’s what they valued, after all.
well, they have words ad nauseam on tv now over and over and over again… just one big Obama ad
I love you so much today.
Could it be….?
NO F’ING WAY, MORON.
(sorry for yelling but their stupidity is intolerable)
There is no substitute for a skilled professional with years of experience who, despite what the machine or the “treatment protocol” is telling him/her, knows in his/her gut that “something is just not right” with this patient’s presentation, and pursues it.
**********
There is a lot of “bad medicine” being practiced by Doctors who treat patients based on their “experience”.
I’m not saying treat based solely on that. I’m saying that it is part of the picture that cannot be discounted. You need both.
Indeed. You need people!! Here’s a small example of the mess they will make. When my Mom was in the hospital, they would drop off her lunch tray and record she had lunch….well she couldn’t open the dang containers ( those little milk ones are god awful) and if I wasn’t there to do so , she would NOT have lunch…etc. But the system said she did….meanwhile she’s staving . She was there for weeks, and I begged nurses to open her containers for the meals I wasn’t there for.
You need people.
Did you see the story where the light rail train that started up ran over a maintenance worker? The train has no human driver and the computor told it , it was time to go. oops, sorry mr. maintenance worker.
You need people
Senator Arlen Specter says he supports the public option:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/specter-schumer-has-it-right-on-the-public-option.php
Can someone here answer this naive question: What the h$ll do these politicians do with all the money they are given? Does it go into campaigns, their pockets, DSCC, special projects, what?
I mean, they are paid for their work, they have salaries, and good ones, too. So where’s it all go?
I just have a hard time figuring out what Baucus did with nearly 2 million dollars, aside from accept some whopping “now you scratch my back” IOUs.
It goes to their friends’ projects/businesses where their friends skim the profits and leave the tidbits to the projects
That seems like the right track. Add up all the members of Congress, it’s a huge amount. It’s hard to imagine it all goes for ads/re-election.
I’m so grateful to the lobbyists and corporations that fund our hard working public servants so generously, allowing them to focus on fixing the country, rather than worrying about financing their campaigns and paying back their supporters. Otherwise, they might need TARP-the politicians version:
Troubled A$$hats Reaming the Public.
They spend it getting elected and re-elected. You cannot even get elected in this country without major corporate backing. It costs too much.
Until we change the way elections are financed in this country, ALL of our politicians, R and D, will be a wholly owned subsidiary of powers much bigger than The People.
Snark aside, WMCB, I agree. Was talking to my partner about how the only political action that seems worth taking anymore is getting involved in election reform.
I agree. I think it’s the key to everything else.
I was under the impression that the lion’s share of campaign funds went to TV advertising.
Kind of funny, that. Congress could, with the stroke of a pen, decide that was part of the networks’ public service requirement for getting to use the public airwaves.
They could limit ads to six weeks before the election, and a total of however-many minutes a day during that period, and everybody would be hugely relieved. I guarantee. Except the TV executives.
Baucus has shown his bias and should be removed from leading the health care reform effort by the Democratic Party leadership.
The same Dem leadership that was so adamant to keep Senator Hillary Clinton out of health care, she resigned her seat and became SOS for you-know-who?
I don’t think so.
(Note, not myiq who said that. Physicians for National Responsibility did. That’s a good group, and they do great work, but everyone on this side of the pond needs to be more like the British media. When the evidence stares you in the face, call it by its right name. Everybody, from Krugnman on down, should stop pretending people mean well when they don’t!)
Someone here once said the lucky thing for Obama is that when he lies, his supporters believe him, and when he tells the truth, they don’t.
I don’t remember who said it, but it keeps being proved true. And the media is just as guilty of not seeing what is in front of them as the most rabid Obot.
I should have guessed. Use it all the time, hope you don’t mind…!
Chris Bowers:
That’s a safe bet.
Then why focus solely on Democrats? Does he think they are the only power hungry and immoral group?
If you read the whole thing you’ll see that Chris is starting to wake up and smell the arugula
myiq2xu, we are all upset (to say the least).
After watching this charade, I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between liberals and progressives.
Liberals do care about this country. They are socially tolerant (to a realistic point), strong on defense, and pro average person.
Progressives are but a cult of mostly affluent white coastal dwellers who have the resources to partake in activities to make themselves feel good about themselves (i.e Hollywood).
Conservatives only care about their wallets, want war with everyone, and hate minorities.
Obie talks about healthcare (courtesy of Nobamablog:
http://tinyurl.com/kqoq5h
He added: “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
F-ing chilling. You can bet HE would have the surgery.
soylent green is people
And make sure you take a large dose of that pain killer too. You know, like we’ll go ahead and end this shit now, why wait.
And of course paper doll, what happens if you **don’t** have that surgery? Do you incur larger health care bills because you aren’t up and around somewhat, needing home health and attendants? How does that reduce the health care costs?
You will be given a glad bag and a hospital gown and pushed out of a moving van . imo .
The point is after all, to reduce health care costs….and their plan does not call for providing people with better care in order to do so , I assure you
Obie’s full of it (as usual). 1) Hasn’t done his research or he’d know that terminal-illness care does not consume a disproportionate share of $$$. 2) if a surgery is futile, it’s hard to find a surgeon who’ll agree to do it (they don’t like dead patients). 3) Great. More patients zonked out on pain-killers. 4) Does he know how expensive Oxycontin is? 5) Where did he get his medical degree?