This is a paper I wrote last month for my Health Care Administration Class. I would welcome any discussion.
Competition in Health Care
Mr. Elf
HCA 421: Health Care Planning and Evaluation
May 11, 2009
Competition is vital to the health care industry. Both in providers and payors. The main reason is that the alternative is a single payer system, which would destroy the system as we know it.
A single payer system exists where either the government or some other entity pays for all health care in a region, state, province or country. With the exception of the US, every other "advanced" country uses this system. The Canadian system is described as:
Canada's national health insurance program, often referred to as "Medicare", is designed to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to medically necessary hospital and physician services, on a prepaid basis. Instead of having a single national plan, we have a national program that is composed of 13 interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, all of which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage. Framed by the Canada Health Act, the principles governing our health care system are symbols of the underlying Canadian values of equity and solidarity.
Roles and responsibilities for Canada's health care system are shared between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. Under the Canada Health Act (CHA), our federal health insurance legislation, criteria and conditions are specified that must be satisfied by the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans in order for them to qualify for their full share of the federal cash contribution, available under the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the management, organization and delivery of health services for their residents (Health Canada, 2007).
Sultz and Young (2006) suggest "The alternative to reducing excessive costs is a single-payer system that eliminates the substantial amount of health care dollars that are wasted on the administration of multiple insurance plans and the huge burden of their required paper work." (p.466) However, there is resistance to a one payer system in the US. This resistance comes from many sources, including but not limited to consumers who are afraid health care will be rationed just as it is in Canada and Europe, and legislators and regulators who don't believe that one payer is the best system.
A study of educated, prosperous Americans living in Canada concluded "Americans living in Canada generally rated the US health care system as being better than the Canadian system. However, they acknowledged the inefficiency and inequity of the US system, and nearly half preferred the Canadian system despite its perceived problems." (Lewis et al 2007) This study shows that even among those who have lived under both systems, the US system is better, but there is little agreement as to which system they would prefer to be under. If the US system were improved, I believe that more that prefer the Canadian system would prefer an improved US system than a one payer system.
In the Canadian and European systems, health care is rationed. This is a major reason that the American public is resistant to Single Payer. Evidence of this in the Canadian system is the Canadian Supreme Court Ruling cited here:
One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.
On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision (CBC News, 2006).
Legislators and Regulators also are reluctant to go to a one payer system. On Saturday, January 19, 2008, John Oxendine, Insurance and Fire Safety Commissioner for the State of Georgia, was the keynote speaker at the American Diabetes Association's Diabetes University in Savannah, GA. During the question and answer session, Commissioner Oxendine stated that the Canadian and European systems did not work, primarily due to the time elapsed in access to care and that the Europeans were in fact headed away from that type of system.
He also mentioned a very interesting fact. In Georgia, tort reform legislation was enacted a few years ago. In the three years since this legislation came into effect, malpractice rates in Georgia leveled off last year, and this year will even decrease. This shows that tort reform can work, and can cut health care expenses.
The author's personal physician has told him that a doctor he knows in England described the standard of care for a person presenting in the Emergency Room with an Acute Inferior Wall Miocardial Infarct. They give them two aspirin and send them home. Is this what you want for your family?
If regulators and the Canadian Supreme Court are telling us that the one payer system doesn't work, why shouldn't the public be wary of this system, especially with the evidence of rationing of care in these systems? Add to that a shortage of family physicians (Breslin et al 2005) and the fact that Medicare/Medicaid discriminate against smaller facilities, and you have many reasons that both regulators, legislators, health care providers and the public are skeptical about a one payer system in the United States.
References
Breslin, J.M., MacRae, S.K., Bell, J. & Singer, P.A (2005). Top 10 health care ethics challenges facing the public: views of Toronto bioethicists. BMC Medical Eithics2005, 6:5. Electronic version Available: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/6/5
Lewis, S., Southern, D., Maxwell, C., Dunn, J., Noseworthy, T., & Ghali, W. (2007 Jun 19). What Americans Living in Canada Think of the Canadian and American Health Care Systems. Open Medicine [Online] 1:2. Available: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/39/43
Sultz, H.A. & Young, K.M. (2006). Health Care USA: Understanding Its Organization and Delivery Sudsbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers
(2006 Aug 22). Indepth: Health Care. CBC News, Retrieved January 21, 2008, from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/
(2007 Jan 25) Canada's Health Care System (Medicare). Health Canada.Retrieved January 21, 2008 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/index_e.html
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
We won't get a single payor Health Care program in the US
I hope you're right about that, Richard.
Regardless of whether it presents as Single Payer, Public Option or some other system, SERIOUS REFORM is needed. Too many people are being forced to file bankruptcy due to their medical debt ... and these are people WITH INSURANCE - it is beyond ridiculous.
At least in England those two aspirin were covered - here in the United States our copay for them would be $100 for the visit and then we would still probably get charged $14 for each aspirin until we met the $5000 deductible required by our policy not to mention any other fees or whatever they would tack on. Nurse peeked into the room and didn't speak to me at all and spent the time to walk in and take a blanket from the cupboard for another customer fee of $250 dollars just because the nurse was in your room and other ridiculous crap they tack on.
AGAIN - serious reform is needed.
I FEEL like the type of things people go to the Emergency Room for should be limited too. I went in with severe food poisoning - in fact lost 12 pounds in one night from it - and someone in the waiting room was sitting there because they "thought they might be pregnant". WTF they are wasting the doctors time to administer a freaking pregnancy test?? YOU CAN GET THEM AT THE F'ing drug store. No they did not think anything was wrong with the baby and their response was "If we go to the drugstore we have to pay for it, if we go to the doctor we have to pay our copay upfront. We can just come here and they do it and medicaid covers everything" THAT IS CRAP!!!!! I think they should limit what is considered an emergency or at least have the right to refuse to treat stupid people.
You're right, Kimber. Reform is needed. We should look at what the highest costs are and start there. It's probably malpractice insurance, so we should limit what a person can get for a real mistake. Or make patients sign papers that make them aware of all of the problems that could happen and that they will not sue if any of them do.
What an example of the "everybody else should pay for my mistakes,poor judgement and lack of responsibility" mentality. Too many people abusing the system here. Reasonable and medically necessary services are not well understood concepts.
Marilyn - I don't think I agree with you on this one. I think if someone has a valid case against a doctor that they should be allowed to sue. MY mom got breast cancer - they found the lump in a mammogram but her LIFELONG DOCTOR told her it was just a caffeine lump as she drank a lot of pop, so it went another year and grew and spread. He was her longtime doctor so she had no reason to suspect he was wrong - or that she should get a second opinion. SHE NEVER SUED the doctor. She could have - but she didn't. Fast forward - Mom slipped at her job getting off the elevator and broke her wrist (and at the time had a newborn grandbaby that she became unable to hold because of the broken wrist and cast). SHE COULD HAVE SUED them- but again did not. BOTH cases would have been valid. THE LIMITS do not need to go on "what people can get" or whether or not they can sue their doctors but rather on the FRIVOLOUS lawsuits period - and not just limited to the medical arena. I think if you limit what someone can get out of a lawsuit then the doctors would become more careless - viewing it as "the worse that could happen" and not care as much. The fear of the unknown makes them more careful.
Helen - I agree with you completely. I like the hospital my mom works out because they at least seperate people out into different categories - EXPRESS where they dedicate one or two rooms to people comingin for casts, stitches, sprains, etc. and have staff assigned to move them through as quickly as possible and the other category are the moreinvolved things where the person may need an iv or a bed or testing etc. When there is downtimein the express the doctor can help out inthe main but both areas are staffed and triage seperates them accordingly. In this hospital triage would have told the girl with medicaid that her situation did not constitute and emergency and she may call her doctor in the morning to set an appointment and she would have been refused care - if she refused to leave and asked to be seen anyways they would put her at the bottom of the list placing every single other patient that came in AHEAD Of her until she got frustrated and left NOT WASTING the doctor's time or the medicaid resources.
Hospitals need to post a list outside their emergency room of symptoms that constitute an emergency, and symptoms that can wait for their family doctor/urgent care center the next day. If the person who is obviously not having an emergency still chooses to go in and be seen they should be asked to leave or forced to wait while patients with genuine emergencies are taken in ahead of them. I also wish every hospital would institute the Emergency Room Express idea - to move people through faster who are there for simple fix things. I MISS my mom's hospital. The place I am at now is ridiculous. If I needed stitches I would bleed to death before they got to me. I almost died from food poisoning there - OTHER PATIENTS were begging them to take me back first - I was a fountain both ends for over 6 hours and literally lost 12 pounds in that same time frame and was severly dehydrated. IF they had the express the triage would have gotten express doctor to okay phenergan or some shot to stop the vomiting until I could be seen.
But if one sues with no limits to what one can get, the rest of us will end up paying for that in higher costs because of malpractice insurance.
Kimber I REALLY like your idea of
"post a list outside their emergency room of symptoms that constitute an emergency, and symptoms that can wait for their family doctor/urgent care center the next day"
Thank you Nora. Marilyn - considering all the money we are paying out for people to abuse Medicaid to have an emergency room visit for something a trip to the drugstore would have treated OR a visit to their regular doctor the costs would balance. ALSO - I said limit frivolous lawsuits which would also cut down on costs. IF it was an unavoidable mistake then the case would be dismissed - if it was carelessness on the doctor's part then he/she needs to be held accountable.
Despite the fact that you quote a source that states that the healthcare in Europe & canada is "rationed" there is no supporting eveidence of this being the case. I have seen in the4 EU, in canmada & in Asian nations that it is not rationed. It is simply expended as the cases merit by virtue of the "need of immediancy" rather than the want-factor of the patient.
Donald would you believe actual individuals, 1 from Panama, 1 from Scotland and 1 from Canada who all say "rationed" and "postponed".
Guess you won't believe until we are there. Are you from Missouri, the show me state?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977711122
Debunking Canadian health care myths
Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
---
I have severe reservations about your cited resources. They all set out to prove the point as being wrong and that's all they evaluated. My experience is 180 degrees from their viewpoint. There is NO competition in the U.S., but rather "whatever the market will bear."
Walker, when I lived in FL, there were many Canadians there who hated the Canadian system because they DID have to wait for services and because there weren't enough docs around. And they DID come to the US for services. At the border, they could buy a cheap extended policy that gave them care in the US, and they often took advantage of that. Perhaps it depends on which part of Canada you're in?
Marilyn, we must have had the same neighbors! I lived in Florida for a while also and had the same experience with the Canadian snow folks.
I am just using sources that are considered peer reviewed and acceptable at a Major University. If you have fact that refute this, I would like to see them. I do know that England just came out with the ruling that women with Breast Cancer can't get one of the top treatments, because it is "too expensive." That has been in the news the last week on Fox News.
If you are going to submit this for a grade, you should probably check what percent of health plans actually cover that treatment ... bet you will find it is seriously limited in US health plans as well.
Kimber,
The hospital I use, which is owned by the doctors who staff it, does such triage. The Triage room has a statement on the door. Patients are seen in order of need, not first come first serve. And they can refuse to accept your Medicaid or Medicare if it is not an emergency, and if Medicare/Medicaid deems it not an emergency, they won't pay the hospital for the ER visit.
If there's an emergency room, by federal law they HAVE to accept/treat anyone who walks in the door.
That's why so msany hospitals are closing their E R's
That is good that your hospital does that but NOT ALL of them do - but they should! In our town it is not like that. I want to move back to my mom's town!! LOL
For those of you who think a single payer system isn't possible....think again...
http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
The government is going to ram this down our throats claiming it's good medicine just like the TARP and all the bailouts/spending they have already dumped on us. The annointed one will send his blessings and his minions will comply. My advice....don't get sick....just drop dead and get it over with.
You're right. That's exactly what they will do. They'll come up with an insane plan, run it quickly through Congress with no time to read the bill, and we'll be stuck with garbage.
Unfortunately, you're both right. We are inundated with a populace looking for the "free" magic wand, whatever it is they feel "entilted" too.
The medical situation is a mess, there are no easy answers, definitely a pandora's box, but sadly, what is about to be legislated will only make things worse.
"Competition is vital to the health care industry."
Unfortunately, our nation has allowed insurance companies to create a monopoly, eliminating any competition and subsequently driving costs through the ceiling. A single payer system would immediately introduce much-needed competition for them, and would instantly and dramatically reduce costs for all. Since republiCONs are corporate fascists, they want nothing to do with a reduction in corporate profits for insurance companies, and therefore stand firmly opposed to the only sensible solution. Once again, as always, republiCONs are on the exact opposite side of the large majority of the country, and the only right solution.
"The main reason is that the alternative is a single payer system, which would destroy the system as we know it."
Gosh, that would be terrible, wouldn't it? We might actually be able to rise above #37 in WHO ratings for healthcare! This is another grand failure of republiCONs...they can't stomach the thought of America being the best at anything. They strive for failure, and, whenever they're in power, they achieve it gloriously.
Currently, nearly 64% of the public wants a single payer system. Sadly, since our government works for the corporate fascists, rather than we, the people, we won't get it immediately. What will WILL likely get for the time being, is some sort of public option, which will allow people to opt out of the current, miserably failed privatized system, if they so choose to do so. Within 5 years, this will undoubtedly morph into what we need, which is a single payer system. Clap your hands and cheer! The US might FINALLY join the rest of the civilized world in the coming months!
64% of what cultural matrix? Drug addicts?
Currently, nearly 64% of the public wants a single payer system. ???
What liberal think tank came up with that fake number?
I was going to ask the same thing. I think the only ones who really want this are those 46 million uninsured the politicians keep talking about...and that number, when it was tossed around during the election campaign, included illegal immigrants.
And still does include illegals immigrants! (who are responsible for the closing of the 6 Southern California Hospital Emergency Rooms.
"
"He also mentioned a very interesting fact. In Georgia, tort reform legislation was enacted a few years ago. In the three years since this legislation came into effect, malpractice rates in Georgia leveled off last year, and this year will even decrease. This shows that tort reform can work, and can cut health care expenses."
Of course tort reform will lower premiums for malpractice insurance. That doesn't make tort reform right. There is no reason to protect the interests of doctors that should not be practicing medicine. There are reasons to protect competent doctors and our justice system from frivolous lawsuits and some states have taken reasonable steps in that direction.
"The author's personal physician has told him that a doctor he knows in England described the standard of care for a person presenting in the Emergency Room with an Acute Inferior Wall Miocardial Infarct. They give them two aspirin and send them home. Is this what you want for your family?"
That's interesting. But I don't believe it. A friend of mine who was visiting France had a mild heart attack. He was taken to a hospital there and spent a couple of weeks before he was discharged. He never got any bills to pay. The hospitals never asked for an insurance card. Basically, his experience was just the opposite of the way you your friend's doctor described the way things are done in England. Is it possible that your friend's doctor doesn't like the idea of going to universal single payer health insurance?
I agree with you completely!
By Catherine Arnst
BusinessWeek http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/june/study_links_medical_.php
June 4, 2009
Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.
Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings. This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School, and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their home and three-fifths had gone to college.
But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families who started out with insurance but lost it during the course of their illness, medical bills averaged $22,658. "For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments, and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse," said lead author Himmelstein. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."
The study underscores President Barack Obama's arguments in calling for health-care reform legislation this year. In a letter to Democratic Senate leaders this week, the President said: "Health-care reform is not a luxury. It's a necessity we cannot defer. Soaring health-care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need."
Highest Costs for Diabetes, Neurological Illness
The study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published online June 4 by the American Journal of Medicine. It will appear in the Journal's August print edition. The researchers examined the court records of a random sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filings across the nation during early 2007, and also contacted those filers for written explanations. The researchers then followed up with extensive phone interviews of 1,032 of those filers.
They found that a number of medical factors contributed to a family's financial disaster. More than 90% of medically related bankruptcies were caused by high medical bills directly or medical costs that were so high the family was forced to mortgage their home. The remaining 8% went bankrupt because a medical problem caused them to lose income. The authors were not able to track credit-card defaults caused by medical bills, but a 2007 study found that, of low- and middle-income households with credit-card debt, 29% used their plastic to pay off medical expenses.
Individuals with diabetes, one of the most common chronic diseases in the U.S., and those with neurological illnesses such as multiple sclerosis had the highest costs, an average of $26,971 and $34,167, respectively. Hospital bills were the largest single expense for half of all medically bankrupt families.
Dr. Woolhandler, an advocate of a single-payer health-care system, said lawmakers in Washington should reconsider health-care reform in light of the study. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough," she said. "Reform also needs to help families who already have insurance by upgrading their coverage and assuring that they never lose it."
Yep I agree with this 100% as well - you said what I was trying to say above and supported it with much better documentation/arguments - thank yoU!
You're welcome, Kimber. I was happy to see you stand up to the misinformation that is being spread by right wing media, the insurance companies and pharma companies.
It's way past time for universal single payer health care insurance in the United States. It is not socialism when a government of by and for the people works for the benefit of those people in a way that private industry either can not or will not. The time has come for Americans of good will to face the fact that we must take care of ourselves first. We can not rely on private insurance companies. They have failed. We can not rely on private pharmaceutical companies to provide medications at fair prices unless. The only way we can turn them around is to have universal health care that can negotiate prices with the pharma companies from a position of strength. Private insurance companies and big pharma have been taking advantage of the American spirit of private enterprise for far too long. It would be great if these private companies lived by the admonition that the customer is always right. But they don't. They seem to believe that the customer is always just willing to pay more, and more and more. It's time to take private insurance out of the equation and whip the big pharma into line for the sake of all Americans.
I suspect that the sooner we go to0a universal healthcare system here in the USA the better off we will be! Insurance drives our system now and that is just not right...except for the insurance companies.....! The FDA needs to be revamped as well...!
Nora....I have heard folks from nations such as Sweden, denmark, Italy, Spain, France & England all say 'rationed' but when challenged to prove it they cannot do so! I have lived in pre-EU Germany & I never saw it done there and I have lived in the EU in Hamburg & Brussels and have not seen it there either. I have also worked in Canada.....own property there in ontreal and have never seen it done there either!
Myths about universal health care are many. Here the group Physicians for a National Health plan shed light on the truth about health care rationing.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
If there is this much rationing, why don’t we hear about it? And if other countries ration less, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not. For example, in Canada, when waits for care emerged in the 1990s, Parliament hotly debated the causes and solutions. Most provinces have also established formal reporting systems on waiting lists, with wait times for each hospital posted on the Internet. This public attention has led to recent falls in waits there.
In U.S. health care, no one is ultimately accountable for how the system works. No one takes full responsibility. Rationing in our system is carried out covertly through financial pressure, forcing millions of individuals to forego care or to be shunted away by caregivers from services they can’t pay for.
The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are at 31% of U.S. health spending, far higher than in other countries’ systems. These inflated costs are due to our failure to have a publicly financed, universal health care system. We spend about twice as much per person as Canada or most European nations, and still deny health care to many in need. A national health program could save enough on administration to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing.
Donald,
Could you please respond to the FACT that the BRITISH have just banned a Breast Cancer Treatment that will save lives, because it costs too much? This is not just conjecture, it is not anything made up. It is fact, as reported in the media in the last 2 weeks.
Currently, with our miserably failed and deadly privatized system, corporate beancounters sitting in a cube somewhere in Des Moines make the determination as to whether or not your ailment should be covered, what doctor you should see if any, and and what treatment they should provide, if any. Is this REALLY what we want in this country? I think not.
Single payer is the only system that makes sense. We already know that it works, and we already know that our system does NOT work. Case closed. Let's get on with it. I'm tired of seeing a national health care "system" that consists of large jars with sad stories and faces, resting on store register counters. I'm tired of seeing people I know go without treatment because they cannot afford it, or go into financial ruin because of their treatment. This is America. We deserve better than the corporatocracy has provided.
"Could you please respond to the FACT that the BRITISH have just banned a Breast Cancer Treatment that will save lives, because it costs too much?"
Don't suppose you could provide something to document that, could you? I've found nothing on it, except that they had, for a period, prevented patients from paying for treatment that was experimental and thus outside the realm of their coverage. For a brief period, if a patient chose to receive such treatment, they were dropped from the British single payer coverage altogether. That's since been reversed, as I've read.
Meanwhile, what say you about the countless cases in which American insurance companies refuse to pay for a given treatment, drop coverage for someone who develops a refuse to cover somebody develops a costly illness, or flat out refuses to cover them altogether due to some pre-existing condition? What about knowing that 18,000 people in this country die each and every year as a direct result of having no coverage? Is that "success," in your mind? Is that REALLY what we want for this country? I think not.
"Currently, nearly 64% of the public wants a single payer system. ???
What liberal think tank came up with that fake number?"
My mistake...the most recent poll indicates 59% in favor of single payer healthcare. This was a Jan. New York times/CBS poll.
It's clear, and always has been so, that the majority of this country wants single payer. In poll after poll throughout the years, whenever the question is asked, a firm majority responds affirmatively. It's time.
New York Time/CBS poll... oh, that explains it. Both those organizations are so liberal that they will include illegal immigrants in their numbers in order to skew the polls. I don't trust them either.
And who is going to pay for all this. Every "estimate" of cost keeps moving upward. And we are going to pay for illegal alien care, which is going to cause more people to cross the border with Mexico who are sick, most likely.
"New York Time/CBS poll... oh, that explains it."
Prove that the polling is skewed. Let's see your documentation to back up your claim that this polling, which mirrors every other previous poll on the same question, is somehow unworthy of consideration, due to a partisan bias.
Btw, is the NYT the same "liberal" newspaper that helped your lying pretendident lie us into an illegal and permenant military occupation of a nation that posed no threat to us whatsoever, by allowing the likes of Judith Miller to publish outright lies without retraction, and further, illegally out the name of a covert CIA operative, as payback for a concerned citizen disputing the absurd lies of the white house?
Is it the same "liberal" newspaper that withheld critical information prior to the 2004 election that would've undoubtedly resulted in your failed pretendident NOT winning re-election? Hmmm? THAT "liberal paper?"
And, is this the same "liberal" CBS that fired Dan Rather for reporting the TRUTH about your pussified little liar-in-chief, prior to the 2004 election, by releasing documents, which he still stands behind, that proved that your little boy got into the TANG by special favors from his daddy, and that he went AWOL rather than complete his term of committment? THAT "liberal CBS?" Hmmmmm?
" Both those organizations are so liberal that they will include illegal immigrants in their numbers in order to skew the polls."
Prove this statement as well, while you're at it. Put up or shut up time for little elfie. Somebody is FINALLY going to call you on your partisan bullshit.
"And who is going to pay for all this"
We're already paying for it, genius, though we're leaving 47 million uninsured. We pay more per capita than any other nation in the world, yet rank a pathetic #37 by the WHO. We can and we MUST do better. America DESERVES better. You probably don't, but America does.
The best minds at the time all thought that Iraq had Chemical Weapons and was close to a Nuclear Weapon, no matter what your partisan friends now say. Hillary Clinton, your goddess in chief, even agreed with that. So don't give me YOUR partisan BS, and say I am partisan. I look at the way organizations act, and don't have to prove anything to you, because you wouldn't believe that a dog bites, even if he bit you in the ass. Typical Liberal, attack the messenger, not the facts. and when you attack the facts, do it with utter BS.
Every statement in the paper was documented where it came from, but not one of your claims is, Clark. I don't need your biased arguements with no backing.
"The best minds at the time all thought that Iraq had Chemical Weapons and was close to a Nuclear Weapon, no matter what your partisan friends now say."
That's rightwing BS that's LONG been refuted by now. Wake up and smell the toast. The only morons still carrying that nonsense around are the rightwing propagandists and criminal former VP. The entire world's intelligence sources said NO such thing at the time of your illegal, immoral invasion, which, of course, is why Powell had to lie in front of the UN security council (unsuccessfully), and why the UN sent inspectors in again. Looks like the liars fooled you, though. You must not have been paying attention at the time, because I was scavaging for truth to dispute every ridiculous lie that your miserably failed white house spewed at the time, and had no trouble whatsoever finding everything I needed to know that what they were saying was untrue.
":Hillary Clinton, your goddess in chief, even agreed with that"
MY goddess? Hardly. Her and Billie should be locked away for treason. And, if she actually believed the lies being spewed by your precious little AWOL coward and his horde of liars and murderers, she wasn't paying very close attention either. If someone like myself, with no ties to government at any level, could source and find the truth to dispute the lies told by you and your filthy corrupt GOP at the time, surely a US senator could do the same.
"So don't give me YOUR partisan BS, and say I am partisan"
You are a partisan. Sorry. You're also very ignorant, and will remain so, probably forever, because you choose to label anything that you disagree with as "liberal bias." You're a fool, and proud to remain one. So bet it. You're still dead wrong, whether you can admit it or not.
"I look at the way organizations act, and don't have to prove anything to you, because you wouldn't believe that a dog bites, even if he bit you in the ass."
You WON'T prove anything to me, because you CANNOT. NOT because you don't want to. The simple fact is, I'm right and you're wrong. The difference is that I KNOW I'm right, and can back up what I say, whereas you just THINK you're right, and you can back NOTHING. You're a typical partisan fool that will never, ever allow yourself to accept reality that doesn't fit into the little box that your rightwing propagandists have instructed you to stay put in. Pathetic.
"Typical Liberal, attack the messenger, not the facts"
Typical wingnut. Attack the messenger and offer NO FACTS WHATSOEVER. Loonie toon freak.
"Every statement in the paper was documented where it came from, but not one of your claims is, Clark."
Ok, kook. You go right on believing that then. Btw, I was incorrect previously...the newest poll says that 72% of the population favors a public healthcare plan, not 64%. Your group of fellow kooks that oppose it is now down to 20%. There you are once again, freak. Out on the freak fringe of extremism. Enjoy! LOL!
Ok, kook. You go right on believing that then. Btw, I was incorrect previously...the newest poll says that 72% of the population favors a public healthcare plan, not 64%. Your group of fellow kooks that oppose it is now down to 20%. There you are once again, freak. Out on the freak fringe of extremism. Enjoy! LOL!
Get your facts straight, Clark. 72% would like some kind of Change in Health Care, but when asked if they want a One Payer System, like you, Obama and ABC are trying to shove down our throats, the numbers change dramatically, dropping to below 30%.
All: 79 percent favor/18 percent oppose
Democrats: 89 percent favor/8 percent oppose
Republicans: 61 percent favor/33 percent oppose
Independents: 80 percent favor/16 percent oppose
http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/8/26/131840/361
and it is what we the majority voted for last November