A politician who has eyes on the governship overreaches in a case built on cirumstantial evidence with tainted witnesses and withheld documents. Really, who is the criminal here. Blind ambition and a yearning for higher office has corrupted this prosecution. What is wrong with NY!!!!! The entire political class on the east coast is morally bankrupt, inept, and power driven. This is interesting political theatre for people from the Midwess, South and near West.
The actions of Spitzer and now Cuomo are the worst examples of prosecutorial abuse ever leveled on the insurance industry. They went after the Greenbergs (father and two sons) – all have been exonorated.
Set AIG on the path of failure by having the BoD kick out Greenberg and put the incompetant Marty Sullivan in his place. Cost taxpayers and shareholder billions of dollars (“fines” and major collaspe of share prices).Yet they walk the streets free with no consequence (Spitzer sexcapades cost him, not his actions as AG). What does the government do – – passes (at least for now is trying) a financial reform that will further regulate and punish insurance companies.
E-AIG, you are spot on. The cost is incalculable and all done with a democartic philosophy of protecting the poor average joe, when in reality, it is all to advance a political demo political agenda of “us v them”, them being any business. Wake up America, big govermnet is far more to be feared than the business community. The Founders knew that goverment when entrusted with supreme power acts like a Supreme Being. To paraphrase a valid aphorism, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Right now the Dems have all the power, making this point, even more appripo.
Just wondering if people think what was done was ethical, even if it didn’t deserve jail?
Not sure I agree that government is more dangerous than corporations in this world of international corporations like BP, AIG, Citcorp, Sony, Toyota, Google, etc. Where is the check on international corporations if we don’t have government? I’ll still take my chances with a democratically-elected government, with all its flaws. Also Dems do not have all that much power. Repubs have blocked almost every move in the Senate. Also, we have checks and balanced– remember? None of this is to justify improper prosecutorial conduct but let’s keep it in perspective. This isn’t China despite the cries of those who disagree with some of Obama’s policies.
So now what? Do the 21 who pleaded guilty get to retract? Can’t tell us these 2 weren’t directing traffic on an illegal & highly unethical practice of many years doing.
I was one of the 6 Marsh employees who were forced to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges. Thankfully, Judge Yates dismissed the charges on January 20th. This should have never had happened, all of the attorney’s for the AG’s office should be disbarred for withholding evidence.
What an absolute waste of time and money. Spitzer created a smoke-screen for 6 years with nothing but lies. After all of this, not one conviction or guilty plea — finally, justice was served.
Quite a leap from a precautionary attitude toward granting government too broad of power to no government v. big corps. Using an absurd analogy to justify one’s trust and belief in government is a real stetch. Of course, goverment has its place and role. As far as the current Congress, please look at the Stimulus, Healthcare and other bills passed using the simple majority ruse of “reconciliation” and “deeming” to get them passed and then tell us with a straight face that Repub are currenlty a par to the checks and balance you seem to treasure. One couldn’t find a better example of power run amuck then what is being demonstrated in this session of Congress.
Power run amuck? How about the last administration and their fake WMD’s and rush to war? Bush should have been indicted on those actions alone. Bottom line is: what Marsh did was wrong; ethically and morally. And they got caught. Could we prove criminal behavior? Maybe not. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. They thought they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it because, like AIG, they were the biggest and the baddest. Well, they aren’t so big and bad anymore and I, for one, am happy about that.
T-Ma, you have a strange and scary way of looking at things such as crimes without proof. Your belief system and thought processing is out of kilter. Bush lied is one of those beliefs you seem to hold regardles of the facts. Don’t forget that Great Britain and Bill Clinton believed that and the dead Halabja villagers who Hussein gassed. To you government is a pure good-maybe you would be alright with the government ordering up the packing of boxcars with human beings, or even LBJs version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident etc.
Not sure how the Marsh dismissals got to a debate over government power. But the Bush-Cheney team were fierce advocates for a strong executive that could declare war, order torture, wiretap, abrogate treaties, hold secret policy meetings with special interests and pretty much do whatever it wanted, damn Congress or the courts. So if you care to criticize strong government, don’t forget to include them “conservative” Repubs in the hole, too. They are typically consistently conservative about restricting government in the face of corporate power; they are not for protecting individual rights for the most part, guns being a noisy exception.
Tom – You certainly twisted the words in my comment. At no time did I say I believed in punishing crimes with no evidence. I said that there may not have been evidence, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Can we punish them? No. I believe in due process and the democratic principles our country was founded on. As far as Bush lied. HE DID! Just because we all believed him doesn’t mean it wasn’t all a fabrication. You need to get your facts straight. I couldn’t agree more with Marty, who seems to be the voice of reason here.
I support T-MA and Marty. Those of us who were underwriters knew there was no opportunity on almost everything that Marsh sent in…we were just columns on their quote pages to show that they attempted due diligence for their nsureds…it was all already decided It was ethically and morally wrong. I do not know if they conspired with other carriers to slice up the excess market or not; if there is proof and this is against the law, punish them. If not, do not think that the morally and ethically poor behavior is now exonerated. As you say, a big diffference in what can be proven as criminal and what we all know is really wrong.
As far as the “big government” issue goes, when dealing with AIG, ENron, BOA, Goldman Sachs, et al and etc., the only force big enough and powerful enough to counter them is the “big government.” And, I will also note, that the only force sometimes to make us do what is right is big government…such as trying to attempt to guarantee that all have available health insurance. What you all may consider an abrogation of your rights (and PUL-eeze do NOT talk about consitituitonality in the incorrect contexts) I consider a righting of an injustice in that peopple are not cancelled retroactively for some presumed pre existing condition, people can secure insurance with pre existing conditions, and that there will be more oversight. Is it a perfect bill? NO…but it is a start.
Even if you don’t think the above is an injustice, you must admit that a corporation, which has as its reason for being to make a profit for its shareholders, is not the proper vehicle to right the situation. Society needs to make that decision…and we did on using the log rolled health bill as a start.
A society is known by the compassion it shows the least of its members. I am appalled by the meanspiritedness I hear in most of these dialogues. Had we that think providing surcease from financial ruin due to unforeseen illness been left out of being called socialists and communists and told we are violating everyone’s consititutional rights, we could have passed a bill that just dealt with that issue instead of the eight headed hydra that we ended up with. OH, but then we would have been accused of being tax and spenders. Can’t ever win one for the good guys, can we.
First, let me state that government does have a roll to play in balancing out the private sector but it should be as limited as possible. Big Gov and Big Bus are twin evils that both needed to be watched closely. As respects healthcare, the approach that was taken was like using an A bomb to attack a cornfield. The pre-ex, and availability without destroying the system to rebuild it. Don’t you wonder what the other 2,600 pages have in store? People should not have to face finanacial ruin but that could be taken care of through catastrophic loss coverage. By the way, just because people didn’t have insurance didn’t mean that they were no treated. The current system of state run safety net coverage, charity hospitals and requirement to treat filled the insurance void. Please don’t think you have cornered the market on compassion, you haven’t, there are just different ways to help people. Your view seems to want to elevate healthcare to a state provided “right”. What next, a right to food, clothing, shelter, a job, a set income, and a full panoply of human needs, all provided by the gov.
Power run amuck? Really? It looks to me that there is not much power being exercised because of how watered down legislation is these days. I am not sure what it is you see or know that I don’t but I am impatient with both parties because in their efforts to increase their own influence, nothing worthwhile is being done. It bothers me that people forgot how to be democratic, and not the party…
I am always amazed at political commentary that demands more and more state control. I just don’t get it. Can someone explain the fascination with ubiquitous gov involvement in every aspect of human activity and why people demand even more. Progressives demand that we become more European in our thinking while ignoring the fact that this counrty was founded by people seeking to shed themselves of the European models of governing. Maybe we should drop the Independence part of the Declaration of …… to the Declaration of State Given Rights.
Smartypants, I totally agree with your comment; instead of serving “the people” the Congress now serves “the party” or the special interests rsulting in the watering down.
To Tom, am not saying to have big govt for big govt sake, but that there are certain things that big govt can do that no one else can. Those things are: protect us from over reaching by big business (and big unions); provide for the well being of (all) of its citizens; defend us.
With respect to the healthcare thing, what I meant was that yes, I believe that every citizen in this country has a right to decent healthcare. You are correct; there are other vehicles for charity care, but this are scattershot and not always available. For heaven’s sake, we pay for medical care for illegals in this country via our taxers and our humanitarioan laws and through our emergency roms, why can’t we at least give our own citizens the ability to secure decent healthcare either via insurance or social programs? Like the insurance commercial…it is the “right” thing to do. That every Tom, Dick and Harry special interst group or needy congressman banged onto the healthcare bill is a symtom of what smartypants was talking about. I guess I am willing to take the good with the bad because I think the good really is the right thing to do. But I do not like the political games played with this bill or the baggage attached to it anymore than you do…or the unecessary intrusion attached to those extraneous clauses. I will live with the tax consequences and other costs that may be involved because another 10% of the 15% of our uninsured countrymen now have a better chance at “freedom from want.” I think that is a worthier goal for my tax dollars than many other things they are spent on.
Cassandra (Alexandra), I concur with the sentiment that believe Gov should have a limited role and balances out Big Biz, when needed; however, I don’t see healthcare as a “right” that must be foisted on every citizen. And, I certainly can’t see why covering 7% of the 15$ who are “uninsured” should require that we wreck the current system which works for the 85% majority. And, I can’t see doing so with a “whatever it costs” mentality. There has been little attention paid to the consequences of this system based solely on an end justifies the means premise. No one, not even gov, can waive a magic wand or speed up the printing press to pay for descent healthcare, descent food, descent clothing, descent homes, and demand that every employer pay a “living wage”. These are early 20th Century utopian concepts that fail when their inspiration requires perspiration. I know these concepts are an anathema to many but it is reality and blind ambition and enthusiasm for a lofty goal should not lead to acceptance of a bad idea.
Tom…the only reason the current system has the potential to be “wrecked” for the 85% is due to the political game trading and the hope to avoid the political hype (still heaped anyway) from those who decry providing healthcare universally as communism, or some other epithet. Had this bill been able to keep to its primary goal which was to provide a vehicle to provide healthcare to those that could not secure it and to protect those who were losing it after illness struck we would not have this mish mash.
And, only those who think they will be healthy forever think that healthcare is “foisted” on them; they will jump into the lifeboat ahead of the women and children when faced with an expensive illness.
But I guess where you and I primarily diverge is that in this the richest country of the world I DO believe that healthcare is a right of all our citizens and frankly, nothing anyone can say will change my opinion. No one in this country should face financial ruin because of medical bills and the attendant suffering of their families. No one should be denied cures for that which is curable because they cannot afford to pay. Would you like to be faced with the dilemma of food or medecine? This occurs daily in this country….a country, I might add that finds $100,000,000 to pay a BASKETBALL PLAYER, for heaven’s sake! (Forget I just said that…that is a debate for another day).
I agree that some changes are in order, but a wholesale change is a recipe for disater for everyone. Cat insurance and safety net coverage can be crafted to reach this shared goal. Affordability needs to enter the fray. Germany just announced their program need and increase that will bring their healthcare cost to 16% of income. Let’s take what most of us think is a reasonable approach to fill in around the current system. One other concern is that the political design behind this is a march to a single payer system, something that would give impetus to rationling of medical care based on QUALY years of life. I don’t think you want that. So let’s end this by agreeing that change is needed to help those who need it.
Yes, see how nice we all can play when no one is hurling names at each other.
Frankly, I wold be for a single payor system. but I would settle for your solution with out all the rest of the junk attached…I would have expanded Medicare but with stringent provisions for fraud discovery and punishment; with stringent proof of need; with stringent proof of citizenship; with govt negotiation on pricing of pharmaceuticals; with additional support for medical students entering general practice or family practice; with true dcost assessments and best practices formulated by the medical profession (NOT company claims examiners). I would also look at specious medical procedures (some chiropractic and “sleep clinics”, for instance.
I think that ultimately some form of rationing is inevitable as the population of this country and the planet swells (it is to double by 2050 I think is the latest statistic). We want ethical and moral humans making these decisions, not bonus hunting insurance company CEOS…I think that profit is antithetical to those decisions. i also think that govt bean counting is also. time to start dusting off the ethics books and really think about these issues…because they will rear up in the foreseeable future regardless.
I find much of your ideas interesting and helpful in advancing the debate. I do see major problems with replacing the private sector involvement, one of which is that the ability to go to our judicial system for redress of a wrong decision or action would be severely limited. That means the the gov worker (bureaucrat) has enhanced power to control health decisions. And, I fear “boards” like those in GB which help decide how much should be spent on a person who is terminally ill, or near life’s end e.g. a decision where an older person with Mac Deg in both eyes can have the doc save one eye and not two since one eye is sufficient for the few years the older person has left. By the way, the US population, absent immigration, like Europe will not swell. In fact, the current birth rates for both are below the population replacement rate. This has consequences not only for healthcare but for social security. Which leads me to one last point, the cost of this program. Spending over 1 TRILLION dollars to insure an additional 7% of the population makes this program unsustainable. Thus, I don’t think that throwing the current baby out with the bathwater makes any sense whatsoever. Thank you for the civil discussion of a difficult topic.
Yes, Tom, thank you for civil discourse on subject that we both appear to care depply about. I do not think that we will agree on how we would like to fix the situation, and I do not think your stats are correct, but that is irrelevant as you are so very correct in pointing out the issues and problems and future costs.
I also know that eventually there will have to be some kind of rationing…as I believe the private insurors are engaged in now under various guises. I personally have had five grandparents and parents that should have had peaceful last days but instead were subjected to harsh procedures with no different outcome. regardless of the expense involved, the real issue for me was pain and suffering from these procedures instead of a calm surcease for all of their last days. Sometimes, people are tired and just want to gently go.
I thank you for our dialog. I think we could eventually find a strong common ground between us. Too bad those of our Congress in DC cannot work to find one and dispose of all the political hype and shut the doors to all the special interests who always have their hands out.
A politician who has eyes on the governship overreaches in a case built on cirumstantial evidence with tainted witnesses and withheld documents. Really, who is the criminal here. Blind ambition and a yearning for higher office has corrupted this prosecution. What is wrong with NY!!!!! The entire political class on the east coast is morally bankrupt, inept, and power driven. This is interesting political theatre for people from the Midwess, South and near West.
The actions of Spitzer and now Cuomo are the worst examples of prosecutorial abuse ever leveled on the insurance industry. They went after the Greenbergs (father and two sons) – all have been exonorated.
Set AIG on the path of failure by having the BoD kick out Greenberg and put the incompetant Marty Sullivan in his place. Cost taxpayers and shareholder billions of dollars (“fines” and major collaspe of share prices).Yet they walk the streets free with no consequence (Spitzer sexcapades cost him, not his actions as AG). What does the government do – – passes (at least for now is trying) a financial reform that will further regulate and punish insurance companies.
E-AIG, you are spot on. The cost is incalculable and all done with a democartic philosophy of protecting the poor average joe, when in reality, it is all to advance a political demo political agenda of “us v them”, them being any business. Wake up America, big govermnet is far more to be feared than the business community. The Founders knew that goverment when entrusted with supreme power acts like a Supreme Being. To paraphrase a valid aphorism, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Right now the Dems have all the power, making this point, even more appripo.
So, can these guys get their Producer’s licenses back?
Just wondering if people think what was done was ethical, even if it didn’t deserve jail?
Not sure I agree that government is more dangerous than corporations in this world of international corporations like BP, AIG, Citcorp, Sony, Toyota, Google, etc. Where is the check on international corporations if we don’t have government? I’ll still take my chances with a democratically-elected government, with all its flaws. Also Dems do not have all that much power. Repubs have blocked almost every move in the Senate. Also, we have checks and balanced– remember? None of this is to justify improper prosecutorial conduct but let’s keep it in perspective. This isn’t China despite the cries of those who disagree with some of Obama’s policies.
“There is no such thing as an innocent man. There are merely men who have not been questioned properly”
Felix Dezerhinsky, founder NKVD
So now what? Do the 21 who pleaded guilty get to retract? Can’t tell us these 2 weren’t directing traffic on an illegal & highly unethical practice of many years doing.
I was one of the 6 Marsh employees who were forced to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges. Thankfully, Judge Yates dismissed the charges on January 20th. This should have never had happened, all of the attorney’s for the AG’s office should be disbarred for withholding evidence.
What an absolute waste of time and money. Spitzer created a smoke-screen for 6 years with nothing but lies. After all of this, not one conviction or guilty plea — finally, justice was served.
Congrats Billy and Ed –
Quite a leap from a precautionary attitude toward granting government too broad of power to no government v. big corps. Using an absurd analogy to justify one’s trust and belief in government is a real stetch. Of course, goverment has its place and role. As far as the current Congress, please look at the Stimulus, Healthcare and other bills passed using the simple majority ruse of “reconciliation” and “deeming” to get them passed and then tell us with a straight face that Repub are currenlty a par to the checks and balance you seem to treasure. One couldn’t find a better example of power run amuck then what is being demonstrated in this session of Congress.
Power run amuck? How about the last administration and their fake WMD’s and rush to war? Bush should have been indicted on those actions alone. Bottom line is: what Marsh did was wrong; ethically and morally. And they got caught. Could we prove criminal behavior? Maybe not. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. They thought they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it because, like AIG, they were the biggest and the baddest. Well, they aren’t so big and bad anymore and I, for one, am happy about that.
T-Ma, you have a strange and scary way of looking at things such as crimes without proof. Your belief system and thought processing is out of kilter. Bush lied is one of those beliefs you seem to hold regardles of the facts. Don’t forget that Great Britain and Bill Clinton believed that and the dead Halabja villagers who Hussein gassed. To you government is a pure good-maybe you would be alright with the government ordering up the packing of boxcars with human beings, or even LBJs version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident etc.
Not sure how the Marsh dismissals got to a debate over government power. But the Bush-Cheney team were fierce advocates for a strong executive that could declare war, order torture, wiretap, abrogate treaties, hold secret policy meetings with special interests and pretty much do whatever it wanted, damn Congress or the courts. So if you care to criticize strong government, don’t forget to include them “conservative” Repubs in the hole, too. They are typically consistently conservative about restricting government in the face of corporate power; they are not for protecting individual rights for the most part, guns being a noisy exception.
Tom – You certainly twisted the words in my comment. At no time did I say I believed in punishing crimes with no evidence. I said that there may not have been evidence, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Can we punish them? No. I believe in due process and the democratic principles our country was founded on. As far as Bush lied. HE DID! Just because we all believed him doesn’t mean it wasn’t all a fabrication. You need to get your facts straight. I couldn’t agree more with Marty, who seems to be the voice of reason here.
I support T-MA and Marty. Those of us who were underwriters knew there was no opportunity on almost everything that Marsh sent in…we were just columns on their quote pages to show that they attempted due diligence for their nsureds…it was all already decided It was ethically and morally wrong. I do not know if they conspired with other carriers to slice up the excess market or not; if there is proof and this is against the law, punish them. If not, do not think that the morally and ethically poor behavior is now exonerated. As you say, a big diffference in what can be proven as criminal and what we all know is really wrong.
As far as the “big government” issue goes, when dealing with AIG, ENron, BOA, Goldman Sachs, et al and etc., the only force big enough and powerful enough to counter them is the “big government.” And, I will also note, that the only force sometimes to make us do what is right is big government…such as trying to attempt to guarantee that all have available health insurance. What you all may consider an abrogation of your rights (and PUL-eeze do NOT talk about consitituitonality in the incorrect contexts) I consider a righting of an injustice in that peopple are not cancelled retroactively for some presumed pre existing condition, people can secure insurance with pre existing conditions, and that there will be more oversight. Is it a perfect bill? NO…but it is a start.
Even if you don’t think the above is an injustice, you must admit that a corporation, which has as its reason for being to make a profit for its shareholders, is not the proper vehicle to right the situation. Society needs to make that decision…and we did on using the log rolled health bill as a start.
A society is known by the compassion it shows the least of its members. I am appalled by the meanspiritedness I hear in most of these dialogues. Had we that think providing surcease from financial ruin due to unforeseen illness been left out of being called socialists and communists and told we are violating everyone’s consititutional rights, we could have passed a bill that just dealt with that issue instead of the eight headed hydra that we ended up with. OH, but then we would have been accused of being tax and spenders. Can’t ever win one for the good guys, can we.
First, let me state that government does have a roll to play in balancing out the private sector but it should be as limited as possible. Big Gov and Big Bus are twin evils that both needed to be watched closely. As respects healthcare, the approach that was taken was like using an A bomb to attack a cornfield. The pre-ex, and availability without destroying the system to rebuild it. Don’t you wonder what the other 2,600 pages have in store? People should not have to face finanacial ruin but that could be taken care of through catastrophic loss coverage. By the way, just because people didn’t have insurance didn’t mean that they were no treated. The current system of state run safety net coverage, charity hospitals and requirement to treat filled the insurance void. Please don’t think you have cornered the market on compassion, you haven’t, there are just different ways to help people. Your view seems to want to elevate healthcare to a state provided “right”. What next, a right to food, clothing, shelter, a job, a set income, and a full panoply of human needs, all provided by the gov.
Power run amuck? Really? It looks to me that there is not much power being exercised because of how watered down legislation is these days. I am not sure what it is you see or know that I don’t but I am impatient with both parties because in their efforts to increase their own influence, nothing worthwhile is being done. It bothers me that people forgot how to be democratic, and not the party…
I am always amazed at political commentary that demands more and more state control. I just don’t get it. Can someone explain the fascination with ubiquitous gov involvement in every aspect of human activity and why people demand even more. Progressives demand that we become more European in our thinking while ignoring the fact that this counrty was founded by people seeking to shed themselves of the European models of governing. Maybe we should drop the Independence part of the Declaration of …… to the Declaration of State Given Rights.
Smartypants, I totally agree with your comment; instead of serving “the people” the Congress now serves “the party” or the special interests rsulting in the watering down.
To Tom, am not saying to have big govt for big govt sake, but that there are certain things that big govt can do that no one else can. Those things are: protect us from over reaching by big business (and big unions); provide for the well being of (all) of its citizens; defend us.
With respect to the healthcare thing, what I meant was that yes, I believe that every citizen in this country has a right to decent healthcare. You are correct; there are other vehicles for charity care, but this are scattershot and not always available. For heaven’s sake, we pay for medical care for illegals in this country via our taxers and our humanitarioan laws and through our emergency roms, why can’t we at least give our own citizens the ability to secure decent healthcare either via insurance or social programs? Like the insurance commercial…it is the “right” thing to do. That every Tom, Dick and Harry special interst group or needy congressman banged onto the healthcare bill is a symtom of what smartypants was talking about. I guess I am willing to take the good with the bad because I think the good really is the right thing to do. But I do not like the political games played with this bill or the baggage attached to it anymore than you do…or the unecessary intrusion attached to those extraneous clauses. I will live with the tax consequences and other costs that may be involved because another 10% of the 15% of our uninsured countrymen now have a better chance at “freedom from want.” I think that is a worthier goal for my tax dollars than many other things they are spent on.
Cassandra (Alexandra), I concur with the sentiment that believe Gov should have a limited role and balances out Big Biz, when needed; however, I don’t see healthcare as a “right” that must be foisted on every citizen. And, I certainly can’t see why covering 7% of the 15$ who are “uninsured” should require that we wreck the current system which works for the 85% majority. And, I can’t see doing so with a “whatever it costs” mentality. There has been little attention paid to the consequences of this system based solely on an end justifies the means premise. No one, not even gov, can waive a magic wand or speed up the printing press to pay for descent healthcare, descent food, descent clothing, descent homes, and demand that every employer pay a “living wage”. These are early 20th Century utopian concepts that fail when their inspiration requires perspiration. I know these concepts are an anathema to many but it is reality and blind ambition and enthusiasm for a lofty goal should not lead to acceptance of a bad idea.
Tom…the only reason the current system has the potential to be “wrecked” for the 85% is due to the political game trading and the hope to avoid the political hype (still heaped anyway) from those who decry providing healthcare universally as communism, or some other epithet. Had this bill been able to keep to its primary goal which was to provide a vehicle to provide healthcare to those that could not secure it and to protect those who were losing it after illness struck we would not have this mish mash.
And, only those who think they will be healthy forever think that healthcare is “foisted” on them; they will jump into the lifeboat ahead of the women and children when faced with an expensive illness.
But I guess where you and I primarily diverge is that in this the richest country of the world I DO believe that healthcare is a right of all our citizens and frankly, nothing anyone can say will change my opinion. No one in this country should face financial ruin because of medical bills and the attendant suffering of their families. No one should be denied cures for that which is curable because they cannot afford to pay. Would you like to be faced with the dilemma of food or medecine? This occurs daily in this country….a country, I might add that finds $100,000,000 to pay a BASKETBALL PLAYER, for heaven’s sake! (Forget I just said that…that is a debate for another day).
I agree that some changes are in order, but a wholesale change is a recipe for disater for everyone. Cat insurance and safety net coverage can be crafted to reach this shared goal. Affordability needs to enter the fray. Germany just announced their program need and increase that will bring their healthcare cost to 16% of income. Let’s take what most of us think is a reasonable approach to fill in around the current system. One other concern is that the political design behind this is a march to a single payer system, something that would give impetus to rationling of medical care based on QUALY years of life. I don’t think you want that. So let’s end this by agreeing that change is needed to help those who need it.
Yes, see how nice we all can play when no one is hurling names at each other.
Frankly, I wold be for a single payor system. but I would settle for your solution with out all the rest of the junk attached…I would have expanded Medicare but with stringent provisions for fraud discovery and punishment; with stringent proof of need; with stringent proof of citizenship; with govt negotiation on pricing of pharmaceuticals; with additional support for medical students entering general practice or family practice; with true dcost assessments and best practices formulated by the medical profession (NOT company claims examiners). I would also look at specious medical procedures (some chiropractic and “sleep clinics”, for instance.
I think that ultimately some form of rationing is inevitable as the population of this country and the planet swells (it is to double by 2050 I think is the latest statistic). We want ethical and moral humans making these decisions, not bonus hunting insurance company CEOS…I think that profit is antithetical to those decisions. i also think that govt bean counting is also. time to start dusting off the ethics books and really think about these issues…because they will rear up in the foreseeable future regardless.
I find much of your ideas interesting and helpful in advancing the debate. I do see major problems with replacing the private sector involvement, one of which is that the ability to go to our judicial system for redress of a wrong decision or action would be severely limited. That means the the gov worker (bureaucrat) has enhanced power to control health decisions. And, I fear “boards” like those in GB which help decide how much should be spent on a person who is terminally ill, or near life’s end e.g. a decision where an older person with Mac Deg in both eyes can have the doc save one eye and not two since one eye is sufficient for the few years the older person has left. By the way, the US population, absent immigration, like Europe will not swell. In fact, the current birth rates for both are below the population replacement rate. This has consequences not only for healthcare but for social security. Which leads me to one last point, the cost of this program. Spending over 1 TRILLION dollars to insure an additional 7% of the population makes this program unsustainable. Thus, I don’t think that throwing the current baby out with the bathwater makes any sense whatsoever. Thank you for the civil discussion of a difficult topic.
Yes, Tom, thank you for civil discourse on subject that we both appear to care depply about. I do not think that we will agree on how we would like to fix the situation, and I do not think your stats are correct, but that is irrelevant as you are so very correct in pointing out the issues and problems and future costs.
I also know that eventually there will have to be some kind of rationing…as I believe the private insurors are engaged in now under various guises. I personally have had five grandparents and parents that should have had peaceful last days but instead were subjected to harsh procedures with no different outcome. regardless of the expense involved, the real issue for me was pain and suffering from these procedures instead of a calm surcease for all of their last days. Sometimes, people are tired and just want to gently go.
I thank you for our dialog. I think we could eventually find a strong common ground between us. Too bad those of our Congress in DC cannot work to find one and dispose of all the political hype and shut the doors to all the special interests who always have their hands out.