Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
5. So what do you think the implications are of the Health Affairs *original* article?
Wed Oct 10, 2018, 07:13 PM
Oct 2018

The PNHP left out the links included in the text of the original blog post for citations. That's a red flag that it's something that doesn't support the conclusion that PNHP wants.

Here a link to the full blog post, with all citations;

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180927.405697/full/

Can you tell me what conclusions you reached from this? Not clear from your post, which mashes up excerpts from the already edited PNHP report with comments on the PHNP article.

Also - the snippet of an Obama quote in the rotating banner at the top of the PNHP page dated July 22, 2009:



leaves out the full context what he also said in that same July 22, 2009 press conference, cutting it off mid-sentence, which doesn't lend PNHP much credibility on that- he was answering a reporter's question about if his plan would cover every single person or fewer than that. Here's their snippet in context:

Q Thank you, sir. You were just talking in that question about reducing health care inflation, reducing costs. Can you explain how you're going to expand coverage? Is it fair to say -- is this bill going to cover all 47 million Americans that are uninsured, or is this going to be something -- is it going to take a mandate, or is this something that isn't -- your bill is probably not going to get it all the way there? And if it's not going to get all the way there, can you say how far is enough -- you know, okay, 20 million more, I can sign that; 10 million more, I can't?

THE PRESIDENT: I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a what's called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual, because there's always going to be somebody out there who thinks they're indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care, and then unfortunately when they get hit by a bus end up in the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for it.

But that's not the overwhelming majority of Americans. The overwhelming majority of Americans want health care, but millions of them can't afford it. So the plan that has been -- that I've put forward and that what we're seeing in Congress would cover -- the estimates are at least 97 to 98 percent of Americans.

There might still be people left out there who, even though there's an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance, might still not get it, or despite a lot of subsidies are still in such dire straits that it's still hard for them to afford it, and we may end up giving them some sort of hardship exemption.

.................................

So tonight I want to answer those questions. Because even though Congress is still working through a few key issues, we already have rough agreement on the following areas:

If you have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it. It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, if you move, or if you change your job, you'll still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money.


And it certainly doesn't include this quote from a few months earlier- which explains WHY he didn't support Single Payer as a solution to the US problem:

“If I were starting a system from scratch then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we’re not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based healthcare. And, although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers, and you’ve got this system that’s already in place.


“We don’t want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we’re trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy. So what I’ve said is, let’s set up a system where, uh, if you already have healthcare through your employer and you’re happy with it, you don’t have to change doctors. You don’t have to change plans. Nothing changes. If you don’t have healthcare, or you’re highly unsatisfied with your healthcare, then let’s give you choices. Let’s give you options, including a public plan that you can enroll in and sign up for. That’s been my proposal.


http://www.healthfreedoms.org/obama-single-payer-if-we-were-starting-from-scratch/






Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I truly hope Timmygoat Oct 2018 #1
I heard that! Trump and his creepy alert system freaks me out too. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #2
"SinglePayer is proven to slow spending growth without compromising care." George II Oct 2018 #3
Its in the body of the article. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #4
So what do you think the implications are of the Health Affairs *original* article? ehrnst Oct 2018 #5
No comments are indicating any excerpts mashed up. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #6
I have no idea what that sentence means. ehrnst Oct 2018 #7
No, you're not clear what your intent is here. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #8
When you post an edited version of an edited version of a post ehrnst Oct 2018 #9
My title excerpt was not a misunderstanding of the content. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #10
When you edit out content and change the title - that is commenting in and of itself ehrnst Oct 2018 #12
You do understand my edits, which are obvious, not subtle by design, are BeckyDem Oct 2018 #13
I'm not talking about where you put the OP ehrnst Oct 2018 #14
You have slandered PNHP suggesting they were mispresenting O'Shea. They have not BeckyDem Oct 2018 #15
No, that's a strawman. I pointed out that they did not ehrnst Oct 2018 #17
You don't ask hard questions but please, continue to stroke your own ego. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #18
And now an ad hominem attack. ehrnst Oct 2018 #19
Amazing that you imagine O'Shea has ever been misrepresented by PNHP. BeckyDem Oct 2018 #11
Here is something for you to ponder... ehrnst Oct 2018 #16
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Role of regulation in val...»Reply #5