The fight over health care is getting dirty...

[candyman]

Full story

Senior Scare, Yet Again

A DNC ad falsely accuses Republicans of voting "to abolish Medicare."

September 8, 2009

Summary:

The Democratic National Committee says in a TV ad that "Republicans voted to abolish Medicare." Not true.

The ad refers to a proposal endorsed by most House Republicans as part of the alternative budget they presented earlier this year. In fact, the GOP plan actually called for:

■Preserving the current Medicare program for anyone now receiving it, or within 10 years of qualifying for it.

■For those now under age 55, converting Medicare to a system of private, government-approved health insurance plans purchased mostly with government payments.

The proposal is similar to one endorsed a decade ago by the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. It is controversial, to be sure: Most Democrats don’t like it, and not all Republicans do either. It’s a plan to change Medicare significantly but not to "abolish" it.

Analysis:

The DNC released the ad at the start of the Labor Day weekend. Besides claiming that Republicans "voted to abolish" Medicare, it also claims that "Republicans want to end Medicare" and that its leaders are now calling "for killing it."

The DNC also unveiled similar ads aimed at GOP House members, including Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and eight others: Reps. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, Jean Schmidt of Ohio, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Don Young of Alaska, Mary Bono Mack of California, Patrick Tiberi of Ohio, Lee Terry of Nebraska and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, claiming in turn that each of them "voted to abolish Medicare" and is "no friend of seniors."

I knew those damn republicans were up to something!

Oh yeah and the title has a spelling mistake...sorry but I was laughing at the story...

Edited September 9, 2009 by candyman

[Rev.Reverence]

Hm...phase-out Medicare sounds more like it...but really, if there is nation wide health care...who will need this in the future?

I really don't 'get' the fuss.

[Slogo]

if there is nation wide health care...

NOOOO!!!!

Don't even bring up nation-wide health care. If that ever exists the fabric of space time will rip into a billion pieces.

Ok. It's not like the death panel claim had a lot of credence to it either.

[Rev.Reverence]

NOOOO!!!!

Don't even bring up nation-wide health care. If that ever exists the fabric of space time will rip into a billion pieces.

Ok. It's not like the death panel claim had a lot of credence to it either.

Exactly.....it is the same for both sides...so many years of shit talking back & forth...they just CAN NOT stop now...I think togo with the minimum age for such high offices, we should have a maximum age as well.

[candyman]

With the way all the mud slinging is going on I am expecting someone in congress to call for pistols at high noon sometime soon...

[phee]

With the way all the mud slinging is going on I am expecting someone in congress to call for pistols at high noon sometime soon...

Now that would be an interesting chapter in the history books

[Rev.Reverence]

With the way all the mud slinging is going on I am expecting someone in congress to call for pistols at high noon sometime soon...

...funny, that used to happen ALL THE TIME.

[torn asunder]

With the way all the mud slinging is going on I am expecting someone in congress to call for pistols at high noon sometime soon...

can somebody get a petition-drive going for this!? i bet everyone would sign!!

Edited September 9, 2009 by torn asunder

[taysteewonderbunny]

Well, does anyone plan on actually reading the thing for themselves? What about watching the address tonight?

[candyman]

Well, does anyone plan on actually reading the thing for themselves? What about watching the address tonight?

What thing? The actual bill? Then yes I have read some and have had some read to me...still don't like it. But it is funny watching the bitch fight that it has caused in Washington. Honestly, I never knew that the weak Republican party could pull the granny-panties so far up the collective Democrat ass...and I never knew the Democrats would fire back with statements that are not just twisted...they are just plain false.

Tell you what...when the government gets a grip on getting the DOT to work right then they can have more stuff to play with...but first they need to show that they can properly handle easy stuff like the DOT...

[Shade Everdark]

What thing? The actual bill? Then yes I have read some and have had some read to me...still don't like it. But it is funny watching the bitch fight that it has caused in Washington. Honestly, I never knew that the weak Republican party could pull the granny-panties so far up the collective Democrat ass...and I never knew the Democrats would fire back with statements that are not just twisted...they are just plain false.

Tell you what...when the government gets a grip on getting the DOT to work right then they can have more stuff to play with...but first they need to show that they can properly handle easy stuff like the DOT...

I have to wonder why everyone bags on the DOT and the Post Office when the matter of public health care comes up. Every year, my plate renewal form comes in the mail, and I renew it either by mail or online. A couple of weeks later, my new tag arrives, as easy as pie. Seems pretty efficient to me. Even when I was still going to the office to renew, I didn't wait more than 20 minutes, and that was only because the place was FULL, and that in a location where Secretary of State offices abound. And for the post office, you pay $0.42, drop your letter in the mail, and in less than a week (usually significantly less), your letter arrives where it's going. Where's the complaint?

Just my opinion.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Shade Everdark

[candyman]

I have to wonder why everyone bags on the DOT and the Post Office when the matter of public health care comes up. Every year, my plate renewal form comes in the mail, and I renew it either by mail or online. A couple of weeks later, my new tag arrives, as easy as pie. Seems pretty efficient to me. Even when I was still going to the office to renew, I didn't wait more than 20 minutes, and that was only because the place was FULL, and that in a location where Secretary of State offices abound. And for the post office, you pay $0.42, drop your letter in the mail, and in less than a week (usually significantly less), your letter arrives where it's going. Where's the complaint?

Just my opinion.

They are in charge of alot more than plates. They have let the quality of old and new roads get to a point where India laughs at the conditions we face. They are also in charge of public transportation and while the quality of the vehicles themselves may be decent their efficiency is not. Then there are the states that are installing "high speed" trains...that go 135 mph...my 1991 Honda prelude does that. So, why not build better road systems like, oh Germany has, and then I can drive my own ass where I need to go.

The DOT is messed up there is no question about that...but that is the easiest one for the common person to see for themselves after having a trip to the store destroy all that their dentist worked so hard, and charged so much, to keep in perfect shape. It is not that the government is corrupt, although that may be a part of it, however it is the fact that the government has plenty on its plate already and doesn't seem to be giving it the old college try anymore.

Then again I could be wrong...my steel rims were pretty nasty and could have been square shaped when I was on I-94...that would explain the coffee stain on my crotch and the lump on my head from the dome light...

[creatureofthenyte]

But that doesn't say how your DOT is relevant to the fight over health care.

Local and State government operate more efficiently the federal government sometimes.

The federal government couldn't even handle the cash for clunkers program without screwing that up, and now they want to run our healthcare??? Just thinking about that makes me sick.

[Slogo]

But that doesn't say how your DOT is relevant to the fight over health care.

Local and State government operate more efficiently the federal government sometimes.

The federal government couldn't even handle the cash for clunkers program without screwing that up, and now they want to run our healthcare??? Just thinking about that makes me sick.

The thing is, if there is a public option only 5% of the people will get it. And guess what? Those people are probably already uninsured. Hell even if I have to wait an hour to see a doctor, I'm sorta, kinda ok with that.

[Slogo]

I thought this was fitting

[taysteewonderbunny]

Thanks. That was fun.^

(Edit to add: Can we please put a 't' at the end of 'figh' in the topic title, please? It's been bothering me and I just can't let it go.)

Edited September 15, 2009 by taysteewonderbunny

[candyman]

I thought this was fitting

Has the WHO produced any data more recent than the year 2000? Nope, and they no longer produce the ranking system because they admitted that it was unreliable.

I am getting really tired of the WHO using their out of date data...they still think that tobacco companies are advertising and handing cigarettes out to kids for crying out loud!

[StormKnight (1)]

Thanks. That was fun.^

(Edit to add: Can we please put a 't' at the end of 'figh' in the topic title, please? It's been bothering me and I just can't let it go.)

Done...rather have a tastywonderbunny than a lethal vorpal bunny due to grammar errors.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Done...rather have a tastywonderbunny than a lethal vorpal bunny due to grammar errors.

Yay! You wouldn't want to take out the unnecessary apostrophe and add a period to the abbreviation in the "What do you think about corporations, esp (sic) the evil one's (sic)," would you? I know, I know, I ask too much. I will stop now. Oh, my head.

[taysteewonderbunny]

Has the WHO produced any data more recent than the year 2000? Nope, and they no longer produce the ranking system because they admitted that it was unreliable.

I am getting really tired of the WHO using their out of date data...they still think that tobacco companies are advertising and handing cigarettes out to kids for crying out loud!

Politifact broke it down and explains the areas of disagreement, yet still finds the claim "mostly true." PolitiFact link

Article (with one spelling correction, highlighted)

Rocker in viral video mocks U.S. for 37th-best health care in world

Bookmark this story:

Buzz up! ShareThis In a music video, Paul Hipp says the U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.

With biting sarcasm, singer Paul Hipp says the United States should be proud of its global ranking on health care.

"We're No. 37!" he sings in a new YouTube video that was released Sept. 9, 2009.

With some electric guitar riffs and topical references to the summer's vitriolic debate over health care reform -- including Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" heckle of President Barack Obama -- the satiric romp "celebrates" the U.S.'s standing:

We're No. 37

We're the U.S.A.

We're No. 37

And we're so proud to say

We got old people crying at the pharmacy

Pay your deductible

This ain't the land of the f-f-f-free Grandma

We're No. 37

We're the U.S.A.

The number refers to the World Health Organization's ranking of the United States as the 37th best health care system in the world, out of 191 countries. In a cheeky countdown, the video shows viewers a cross-section of nations that ranked better than the U.S. in WHO's tally -- a mix of industrialized nations in Western Europe, Scandinavia and Asia; wealthy oil producers from the Middle East; tiny realms of prosperity such as Monaco and Luxembourg; and some seemingly unlikely nations such as Colombia, Cyprus, Morocco, Dominica and Costa Rica.

It's an anthem for health care reform that even shows its sources: Hipp includes a shot of himself looking at WHO's report. So he wins points for transparency in sourcing.

But as hummable as the song is, we thought it deserved a bit of scrutiny. How did WHO arrive at the numbers? And how widely accepted is the health organization's methodology? Ultimately, did Hipp choose a good benchmark on which to base his song?

Observers generally agree on two things about the report. It was a landmark study that attracted a lot of attention around the world. And its conclusions have inspired controversy for nearly a decade.

We should point out that the ranking is actually not new. WHO, an arm of the United Nations, published the international comparison in its World Health Report 2000, and it hasn't been updated since. (Other groups have offered their take, as we explain below).

Five factors went into WHO's calculation:

• Health level, as defined by a measure of life expectancy, which shows how healthy a country's population is. This factor gets a 25 percent weight.

• Responsiveness, which includes factors such as speed of health services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of amenities. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.

• Financial fairness, which measures how progressive or regressive the financing of a country's health care system is -- that is, whether or not the financial burdens are borne by those who are economically better off. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.

• Health distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care resources are allocated among the population. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.

• Responsiveness distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care responsiveness (which we defined above) is spread through society. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.

Once these statistics were collected, the WHO combined them into two summary rankings. One, called "overall attainment," is the basic weighted average of the five factors listed above. The other, called "overall performance," took that number and adjusted it for how well a country's health system was doing compared to how well WHO's experts believed it should be doing based on education level and economic resources.

Using the second of the two ratings -- overall performance -- the U.S. does indeed rank 37th. But using the first factor -- overall attainment -- the U.S. does better, finishing 15th. One might be tempted to downgrade Hipp's song for cherry-picking the less favorable number for the U.S., but Hipp seems to be on solid ground here. The WHO itself considers overall performance to be the more important ranking of the two. In a news release accompanying the original report, the WHO placed the 37th-place ranking right near the top and never even mentioned the 15th-place ranking. So it seems fair to us for Hipp to focus on that number.

Of course, any ranking -- whether it's U.S. News and World Report's ranking of universities or the WHO's ranking of health systems -- is subject to disputes over what factors should be included. In his 2009 book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care, journalist T.R. Reid finds value in the WHO's study even as he acknowledges that it is "all but impossible to design a single rating scale that would accommodate countries ranging from Monaco (population, 33,000; per capita income, $30,000 per year) to Nigeria (population 101 million; per capita income, $310 per year)."

Despite some quibbling on technical matters, most observers broadly agree that two of the WHO's five measures -- health level and responsiveness -- are reasonable. The first statistic gauges health outcomes, which are obviously a health care system's No. 1 goal, and the second seeks to measure how well a health system works when interacting with patients, another widely agreed-upon mission.

But there is far less consensus over the other three factors. Concerns stem from a mix of methodology and ideology.

Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University at Northridge, offers one critique in a paper for the libertarian Cato Institute. "Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is 'excellent' for most citizens but merely 'good' for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly 'poor' for everyone," he writes. "Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens."

Whitman also joins other conservatives in taking issue with the assumption that the rich should pay a similar percentage of their income for health care as the poor do. Because basic mathematics suggests that those with smaller incomes will naturally spend a larger share on highly important items such as food and health care, doing well in WHO's rankings almost requires a steeply progressive tax structure.

WHO officials make no bones about their desire to push countries in the direction of aiding the have-nots. They gave the controversial factors that reward socioeconomic fairness 62.5 percent weight, compared with only 37.5 percent for the broadly accepted factors of health level and responsiveness.

Tweak the weighting a little bit and a country such as the U.S. rises or falls in the rankings. For instance, judged on responsiveness alone, the U.S. ranked No. 1 in the world. A bigger weight for that factor -- and a smaller weight for financial fairness, where the U.S. ranked 54th in the world -- would have given the U.S. a much higher ranking.

Adding other factors could also change the results. A 2001 paper in the journal Science found that adding just one more variable into the mix changed the rankings dramatically for 79 of 96 countries studied.

Meanwhile, Whitman also raised questions about the WHO's "overall performance" measure -- the one in which a country's health ranking is adjusted for its education level and economic resources. (This is the category in which the U.S. finished 37th.) The implication from the WHO itself as well as subsequent news reports, Whitman wrote, "is that the United States performs badly ... despite its high expenditures." In fact, he writes, in the WHO's statistical model, America's first-in-the-world expenditures for health care actually hurt its ranking in overall performance by setting the theoretical bar it had to reach very high. "A more accurate statement is that the United States performs badly because of its high expenditures, at least in part," Whitman writes.

Finally, a number of other critics say that WHO listened to the experts but did not measure public satisfaction with health care.

A paper published in the journal Health Affairs found the rankings did not necessarily reflect whether people were happy with their country's health coverage. For instance, Italy finished second in WHO's study, even though only 20 percent of its citizens say they were satisfied with their health care system. Meanwhile, Denmark ranked 16th in the WHO report even though 91 percent of Danes say they were satisfied.

So while Hipp is right that the U.S. ranked 37th in the most widely known barometer in the WHO study, it ranked 15th by another WHO ranking and, for one factor (responsiveness) it actually ranked No. 1. Still, this is a rock song, and a well-sourced one at that. So we find Hipp's claim to be Mostly True.

[Slogo]

We're probably at the top of doctor's making money. And to some that's really all that matters