John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan

[mad1]

YouTube - ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan

[zen]

The video is edited to the point of being simply fear mongering. I'd like to see the plain facts. Pros and Cons and no bullcrap.

[mad1]

Will the White House try to ban ABC next?

[MTAtech]

Youtube is blocked here but I can imagine what he said. Stossel ideologically backs the view that the government is the problem and skews data to support that view.

This is my response:

Quote:

After Reform Passes

Conservatives insist (and hope) that reform will fail, and that there will be a huge popular backlash. Some progressives worry that they might be right, that the imperfections of reform — what we’re about to get will be far from ideal — will be so severe as to undermine public support. And many critics complain, with some justice, that the planned reform won’t do much to contain rising costs.

But the experience in Massachusetts, which passed major health reform back in 2006, should dampen conservative hopes and soothe progressive fears.

Like the bill that will probably emerge from Congress, the Massachusetts reform mainly relies on a combination of regulation and subsidies to chivy a mostly private system into providing near-universal coverage. It is, to be frank, a bit of a Rube Goldberg device — a complicated way of achieving something that could have been done much more simply with a Medicare-type program. Yet it has gone a long way toward achieving the goal of health insurance for all, although it’s not quite there: according to state estimates, only 2.6 percent of residents remain uninsured.
...
And reform remains popular. Earlier this year, many conservatives, citing misleading poll results, claimed that public support for the Massachusetts reform had plunged. Newer, more careful polling paints a very different picture. The key finding: an overwhelming 79 percent of the public think the reform should be continued, while only 11 percent think it should be repealed.

Interestingly, another recent poll shows similar support among the state’s physicians: 75 percent want to continue the policies; only 7 percent want to see them reversed.

[Epidemic]

innovation is profit driven (in large part true)

availability is profit driven (in large part true)

People travel to US for care from free care nations like Canada and England (yep sometimes true)



Swiss system seems cool though

Mandetory health coverage for all Purchased by users.



Employers no longer provide insurance they simply pay you for it (now insurance follows you not your job.)

[Pexster]

What a piece of crap that report is . . . full of outright lies and distortions and more fear-mongering. But, what the hell . . . it works on a lot of you. So be it.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epidemic

innovation is profit driven (in large part true)

availability is profit driven (in large part true)

People travel to US for care from free care nations like Canada and England (yep sometimes true)



Swiss system seems cool though

Mandetory health coverage for all Purchased by users.



Employers no longer provide insurance they simply pay you for it (now insurance follows you not your job.)

Remember, all U.S. plans have to do with paying for health care, not providing medical treatment, the way the Canadian system works.

While availability may be profit driven, in general, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust rules and therefore are monopolies in many locations. It's easy for insurance companies to set prices and avoid competing with each other.

The only innovation that insurance companies benefit from is how to systematize denial of coverage, which is profit-driven.

Regarding Canada, read Debunking Canadian health care myths.

Quote:

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

[MTAtech]

I don't know if this rebuttal from Fair is referring to the same Stossel program, but here is what they said:

Quote:

Stossel's Healthcare Distortions
One-sided report omits context--and facts
...
When Stossel does get around to the quality of care under public systems, he relies on showcasing a few anecdotes, omitting mention of research that would undermine his point. "Waits are so long, some people do it themselves," he says, before launching into a string of anecdotes--each premised on the assumption that Americans are accustomed to timely care. But studies of these systems arrive at a strikingly different conclusion; when the Commonwealth Fund studied (5/15/07) various government healthcare systems--including Britain--all but one (Canada) were found to have shorter wait times than the United States. It's a staple of Stossel's journalism to showcase a few anecdotes when more careful research would undermine his point.

Later in the special, Stossel admits, "Now, I should say all of Canadian healthcare is not long lines." But this is merely a set-up for another slam on Canadian care--that animals get better healthcare than humans.

Stossel claims another advantage for for-profit medicine--that it drives medical improvements: "People competing for profit-- that's lifted us out of the 13th century and given us 21st century medicine. Drug companies looking to make money create things that improve our quality of life and save lives." When Stossel notes that government researchers do research of their own, one of his favored guests--Grace-Marie Turner of the pro-free market Galen Institute--responds, "Government is responsible for 4 percent of the drugs on the market today." Stossel follows up with a reference to an earlier guest's medical care: "Those expensive cancer drugs Vicki needs? They were made by companies looking to make a profit. So were these amazing artificial legs and artificial hearts. All invented for profit."

Actually, many of the advances Stossel referred to received significant public sector research support. Reporter and medical industry expert Merrill Goozner summarized the evidence that undermines this industry-friendly argument (American Prospect, 11/30/02):
...

[Epidemic]

First off there is no US model. There are a bunch of platitudes and a few dozen different proposals but AFAIK there is not plan that remotely even looks close to the swiss plan.

especially I have not even heard an inkling that employers would have to give up their direct control of providing health care to employees. With out that the whole portability thing falls apart.

[Pexster]

We could have a whole separate discussion about the relationships between government, public and private research universities, and drug development (or defense systems development or . . . ). The people decrying government involvement here are about as well informed as those Medicare recipients demanding that the government get out of their health care!

John Stossel is masquerading as a journalist.