Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved - The Great Health Care Debate

[thomhartmann]

Run time: 34:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebcLKFROC9s   Posted on YouTube: September 12, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 12, 2009 By DU Member: thomhartmann Views on DU: 1424

 
The Thom Hartmann Program can be heard daily M-F 12-3pm ET. Visit www.thomhartmann.com to listen live, join the community or purchase a podcast.

[Overseas]

1. K&R. Thank you Thom Hartmann. You got in some excellent points

with that dogmatic Michael Medved.

You got through some hopeful statements we all want to share-- that healthcare is a life & death issue like fire and police and national security-- there's nothing wrong with paying taxes for it.

But he was playing Mr. Free Market Dogma. And that was a pity. Lobbing the "what's wrong with making a profit?" at you, and not listening to your reply about accepting the profit motive in all kinds of areas, just not making money on moving the money between us and vital services we need from our medical professionals. I wonder how he would answer the question on whether medical care is a right or a privilege.

And yes please, I saw you do what I love Anthony Weiner for doing lately too-- saying, look, let's talk about a system we have that is working well-- Medicare. It's been up and running for over 40 years, it has a high patient satisfaction rate, and is a mixture of public and private systems. THen Medved dumps a load of Medicare-is-Broke scare stories, which you start to carefully rebut and he started to shovel another questionable statistic out before you were done, moving to a break, so good on ya for getting in the statement that "But the checks are still going out. Payments are being issued." It's working.

Those right wingers are so dogmatic about the Primacy of Profit and the Purity of the Profit Motive. They consider it taboo to question the profit motive at all. They are so rigid about that, even as they obtain benefits from many government agencies, like the FAA. They consider it tantamount to sin to question the profit motive. So I love it that you're a successful entrepreneur who has demonstrated his prowess with profit. You've made some money and can still think that not everything should be privatized and can explain why.

You conveyed the seriousness of the discussion well too. You demonstrated how many areas of our national priorities need to be discussed. You brought up the Me Society vs We Society concept. That seems to be changing across generations-- I see a lot of "We Society" sentiment among 20-somethings out here on the coast; I hope that carries across the country. I think the "We Society" thinkers were a large part of President Obama's voters.

You are really good at not over-reacting to the rhetorical tactics of the Right. You used each opportunity to share our progressive goals instead. That was great. You gave him the courtesy of replying seriously, even to that one where they lob a double-- toss an idea at you which you begin to answer then toss the next loaded question before you're done. You rolled with those tricks well.

Thanks for tolerating his rehashing of lies that had been asked and answered before. He had to bring up death panels. So you asked-- what is a death panel? Because you both know it's a ridiculous right wing meme. And in his reply, he said he liked the idea; he didn't want to pay for a 90-year old woman to get experimental chemotherapy drugs.

But you know, at least he tried, and presented a more serious discussion than the outlandish rumor-mongering of the town halls. But his points were still full of recisions and exclusions. Talking forcefully about how very expensive Medicare for All might be, but not acknowledging how expensive our current system is. Except when he made an offhand comment something like-- of course I don't want to see someone dying on the doorstep of the hospital. But otherwise not talking much about the 45 million uninsured.

And how unfair he was to seize the last bit of time to lob some questionable statistics about outcomes that glorify our system, without allowing you time to refute them with other data. Not allowing you time to ask him how he feels about other nations paying so much less than we do and covering everyone.

But thank goodness Medved was willing to bring you on to volley back at the standard right wing arguments. You did a great job in bringing the human and moral dimensions into the discussion. And brought it back to what kind of society We The People want for ourselves. Bravo!

[snake in the grass]

2. saved for later

[JDPriestly]

3. Great discussion.

I have two points.

1) The for-profit health insurance companies have a conflict of interest with their patients/clients. The term "conflict of interest" is good to use when discussing why health insurance companies should not be trusted. That term can be clearly defined and differentiates the relationship between health insurers and their patients/clients and other businesses and their arms-length transactions with consumers. Lawyers in California are familiar with the concept of conflict of interest and must comply with ethics rules and laws that protect clients from their conflicts of interest.

Patients/clients have only become aware of this conflict of interest in recent years. Many, including, apparently Mr. Medved, still don't recognize it. They still think that their friendly insurance company is representing their interests in dealing with the hospital and doctors. Not true.

The concept of a "conflict of interest" explains why we can trust the airlines but not our health insurance company. An airline wants to make a profit. It can best achieve that goal by sharing the passenger's interest in keeping air travel safe. An airline with a bad safety record will lose money because passengers will not fly with it. That is not true of an insurance company with a poor record of paying claims. There is too little competition in the health insurance business to check the conflict of interest of the companies. Besides, many Americans have to rely on their employer to choose their insurer and are just captive to the conflict of interests of both their employer (valuing a cheap rate and good terms over the quality of health care) and the insurance company.

The health insurance company in today's market faces little competition and has no financial stake in insuring the health of the patient/client. The health insurance company's interest is in terminating the policies or restricting the coverage of unprofitable patient/clients and offering as little product as possible for premiums received.

At least, a government-run plan would answer to Congress as well as to our doctors. Doctors are subject to the arbitrary decisions of the health insurance companies just as the patients/clients are. They could probably fight more effectively for us if they were fighting bureaucrats rather than greedy insurance companies.

2. The British national health care system is not wholly, if at all, to blame for the poor teeth of the British. When I lived there in the 1970s, candy shops seemed to be everywhere. In addition, many British do not drink tea with sugar but rather sugar with tea. The quality of their teeth may also be due to their drinking water or their genes. It is probably a combination of all of these factors and some I don't know about.

In my experience, Austrians who also have a single payer healthcare system have very good teeth. My husband was born there. His teeth were so good that he did not have a cavity until he was in his 30s. Of course, he drank mountain well water back as a kid. I think that the Austrians may have a different genetic pool when it comes to teeth. That is because my children have such good teeth. Of course, they were given tooth candy (fluoride in a chewable form) in their Austrian kindergarten (from ages 3-5).

By the way, when I went to live in Austria many years ago, my dentist was horrified to discover composite fillings with mercury in my mouth. He insisted on replacing all of them. Apparently the U.S. is one of only two industrialized nations primitive enough to allow composite fillings. Our health care is not the most advanced in the world in every area.

I loved the health care in the four European countries in which I lived. (I wasn't just visiting. We lived on the economy in every respect.) French healthcare literally saved my live and that of my baby. All the healthcare was great, but I have a special love for the medicine in France. Vive la France.

[Go2Peace]

4. Thom is great. But where he needed to nail Medved was on the immorality

of not covering everyone.

Progressive's need to wake up. Cognitive scientists and Republican strategists have understood that people do not act or listen rationally! They react and hear in "Frames" based on their life experiences. We are getting clobbered because we keep trying to get them to answer to reason. They never will.

"Shame" is a Frame that is heavy in their mindset. Shame the hell out of them.

Read George Lakoff. He does a great job of detailing how the mind and decisions work.

[Snarkoleptic]

5. Go Thom Go!

Thom is the smartest guy on radio.
I listen daily on WCPT in Chicago.