of course the editors of the wsj op-ed page read this: they probably solicited it. they are completely insane people, which is why the op-ed page is so nuts.

i read the rest of the wsj, but i never, ever look at the editorial pages anymore.

The WSJ is really Newscorp, so it is better known as FOX (wsj). Would we expect anything else other than an aping of FOX News - they are indistingushable.

Here's something someone needs to write about - there are two groups of people in this country who get health care essentially free:
1. Members of the US Congress
2. People in prison

There are a million jokes there. Go at it...

Watch this poignant video of a good friend of mine, Robin Abbott, who is running for Virginia Delegate in our 93rd District. Robin talks about a local, formerly uninsured woman who had lots of trouble getting medical care. She even considered divorcing her husband as a way out of her troubles:

Robin Abbott

As I recall the "47 million" figure quoted last year during the campaign was from 2007 -- the most recent, reliable figure available at the time.

Right now, given the current economic situation, I suspect the actual number is closer to 60 million.

I thought it wasn't just about insuring the uninsured, but about better health insurance for all at cheaper cost. Also, I thought it was about portable insurance. Millions of people stay in jobs they hate, in places they no longer want to live because they are wedded to their health insurance. As a single mother who would love to be an entrepeneur, I stay stuck in my boring boring job, so that I can get health insurance for my kids. I think universal health care coverage that is transportable across states and is not married to employment would be great for business. Not just existing business, but for potential future business owners. Plus, if employees had the option of health insurance with their employers or insuring themselves and getting a bigger paycheck, wouldn't that be better too? Also, I pay about 7,000 out of pocket per year for my insurance premiums for what is really crappy insurance. I'd rather pay higher taxes (which I'm sure wouldn't amount to 7,000) for a decent public option (or even for a private one) than what I'm paying now.

The Wall Street Journal is simply doing its job. Think of it as a misinformation superhighway.

At the WSJ a conservative's arrogant bitterness has always been seen as a valid substitute for reasoned analysis.

ps -- also, we need to get rid of the existing conditions baloney and the having to call your primary care physician within 48 hours if you want your er visit paid for. And there needs to be legislation taking medical bills off credit reports. My daughter was hospitalized out of state several years ago, and I was so upset/frantic about her situation, I completely forgot to call my primary care physician. It took me two years to get my insurance company to pay for her hospitalization, which was thousands of dollars, and destroyed my credit (not my ex husband's, because the health insurance was under my name, even though he is technically responsible for half of medical expenditures).Which is total baloney.

"The cost of treating the 45 million uninsured is shifted to the rest of us."

Isn't that kind of the whole idea behind insurance? A large pool of people pay into it, a smaller number of those people will need to actually use it (though everyone needs it eventually). The costs of the people using it are paid by the people who aren't (at that moment).

"...the 45 million figure is understating the case, and doesn't include the tens of millions who are underinsured..."

For the record, all of us are underinsured. The lifetime limits on health insurance have been inadequate for a couple of decades, exclusions are excessive, the reasonable and customary amounts are a joke, and when we are adequately covered, insurers frequently seek to deny claims anyway.

Steve's absolutely right. This isn't just about the uninsured. It's about all of us. That point isn't getting nearly enough attention.

geo newman -- wasnt he the chubby mailman on seinfeld -- kramer's friend?

good to see he's kept up with the correspondence courses and got himself a job as a propagandist hack for the medical insurance industry in covering up its profiteering on the ill and weak of this country.

you go, newman!

"Did the editors of the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page even read this piece before publishing it?"

Dumb question. Of course they read it - after all they have to determine whether a piece is sufficiently dishonest, propagandistic and/or ideologically driven to appear in their insidious little enterprise known as "WSJ Editorials"

Sounds like the 71 year old guy, Al Carlin, rewriting science for the EPA about climate change. Poor old wingnuts!! The story is over on TPM, and one of the first comments was great...from westsider8~~

"I'm editor at an academic publishing company, and this is something I see all the time. Old men have a habit of deciding that they know better than the experts of a field in which they have no formal education and draft a manuscript that they believe rights all the wrongs currently on tap.

"Usually, they are scientists who think they know all the answers to the world's political and economic problems, but I've seen a few economists go off the deep end as well. Given the frequency of the proposals, it appears to be part of the natural aging process. Someone give the man a desk by a window and keep him away from keyboards."

15% of the population is 45 million Americans, many of them children. Callous disregard for their health is ridiculous.

Actually, Callous Disregard is the republican platform.

Look it up.

WSJ=Fox"news"=no credibility whatsoever

'Smater with you people - don't you know what compassionate conservatism is all about. George Newman belongs to that elete group that are compassionate to all those who profit from the health care system.
I found this:
Mr. Newman is an economist and retired business executive.
No doubt if he is retired he is using Medicare - I wish I had time to do the research and expose his hippocritical ass.

Before i get into my own 'horror story' in my next post, I want to ask people who comment -- and particularly anyone opposing a public option, if one shows up here -- to at least mention if they have ever spent any substantial time being uninsured. (Like discussions of homelessness, I find discussions like these frequently based on pure theory and assumptions by people who have never experienced the 'real thing.' I have been both homeless for periods totalling close to nine months and have been uninsured for most of my working life -- until I married and became a 'househusband' for a wife who was able to work but not to keep house. Even then, once she changed jobs, we were unable to expand her coverage to include me -- and once her disability kept her from working -- and me from finding a job assuming I could have gotten one -- we were both uninsured for several years before we were able to get on Medicaid and, eventually, Medicaid + Medicare for her.

Now I know that 'the plural of anecdote is not data' but I'm curious to know which of you have actually experienced the situation yourselves.

Benen seems to miss the subtext of the WSJ op ed which is saying "why should we as a society be collectively responsible for the health and wellness of all especially the poorest, weakest, and the sickest. It's better to let our least fortunate be crushed by social darwinism as the rest of us live out our fat, happy and fully insured lives."

Prup, I haven't been long-uninsured myself but watch the video I posted re above at 11:22 AM. Also, many of us are "insured" but wonder if the company will really pay us. This is very important and not discussed enough: *We are also afraid to report (and hence, afraid to file) instances because we think it will raise our rates* - so to a large extent, what good is our "health insurance" anyway?!*

Second point: the WSJ "editorialists" attitude is, if there's a *chance* that moving to public insurance will "destroy" our current system (already a bloody shirt waving and not a reasonable question), and that chance means maybe we shouldn't do it - is he willing to consider that even "a chance" that continued belching of CO2 will ruin our climate (and that's really more likely) means we should act to reduce ACO2?

Prup,
I've been working since I'm 16. I have a BA in Communications. I'm currently unemployed and uninsured. I've had to use what little I had in a 401k to pay debts in the last 8 months since I lost my job.
In April, I got sick. The ensuing doctor's visits, emergence room visit, lab tests, and medicine drained over $2,000. Luckily, it was nothing catastrophic.
My 401k is just about tapped out. I owe taxes next year on all of the withdrawals. And I'm no closer to a job than I was 8 months ago.
At 51, I'm not without hope. But, I'm not exactly feeling optimistic either.

Hey, George Newman, you already pay for treatment of the uninsured -- HOW'D YOU LIKE TO CUT THOSE COSTS? Essentially, that's the question. Uninsured people, when they do get sick, go to emergency rooms, and we pick up the expensive tab. For lots less, we can include them (and, by making it cheaper for them to be insured, even get some money from them that we do not get now), and probably cut costs for the care we ourselves get under our current coverage.

So what's not to like? If you say, "Competing with profit-making companies," you're right. So, tell me, why should we prop up huge corporations at the cost of the health of 45 million or more Americans? Hmmm? What do you have against Americans?

Ed

"...should we risk destroying a system that works for the vast majority to help 15% of our population?"

Isn't that what they said about the Civil Rights Act?

There seems to be some assumption that - if healthcare reform fails - that the Wall Street Journal and their ilk should be able to continue to remain fat and happy while others do without.

This is unacceptable.

I stay stuck in my boring boring job, so that I can get health insurance for my kids.

In the eyes of some (i.e., big business), this is a feature, not a bug.

Okay, now let's get into a few facts and anecdotes that show that Steve has, in fact, underestimated the problems with 'using the ER as your PCP.'

First is the waiting time. If you are working -- particularly if you don't get sick days, have used them up, or are working on something where you are relatively important -- you may not be able to go during the day, when waits, while substantial, are less. Whatever, unless you are immediately 'presenting' with a serious problem, you are going to have several hours. (And on uncomfortable hard-backed plastic chairs, merely inconvenient if all you've got is a URI, but imagine if your problem involves your back or your legs.)

You are in a room with, usually, 20-50 other people, most of whom are there for the same reason you are, because they don't have a PCP. But you don't -- maybe they don't -- know what they've got, or whether it is contagious. There is a small but definite chance that you will leave the room with a new problem along with your old. (And, at least in my experience, 'triage' includes 'what insurance you have.' If you have none, move to the back of the line and be prepared to wait even longer.)

You ain't getting diagnosed by Greg House, either, but by a (probably) over-worked, over-tired resident who might be very caring and want to do a good job, but who usually has to diagnose you 'by eye' instead of ordering tests that might be needed but which cost money.

Finally, if all you need is a 'prescription for antibiotics and a doctor's note' you're probably okay. But if you need a bed and treatment, that might not be covered under the 'they have to treat you' rules. I think I've told the story of my foot operation here as well as other places. But a long-time problem flared up and got infected. I had a PCP at the time, but no insurance, and he had a podiatrist working with him. When i finally got to see the podiatrist it was 'go directly to the hospital, I'll meet you there, and maybe we can save the foot." They did, fortunately.

My bill was $30,000. (Fortunately there were so many unsanitary and dangerous conditions in the hospital room -- good doctirs, LOUSY staff -- and when i came to their clinic for a follow-up they blundered in a way that their negligence almost left me with my other leg broken -- a 150-lb bench was unsecured in front of where I was siting and when someone sat on it it collapsed on my leg, and I'll never know how it only gave me a glancing blow and a scrape. The result was that the bill was settled on a 'you don't sue me, i won't sue you' basis.)

And remember, i was living in NYC, one of the more caring environments. I shudder to think what i would have gone through in a town whose budget was dictated by Republicans.

Furthermore, let me remind readers that our system doesn't work that well for the insured rest of us anyway. The WSJ is such garbage, and their title explains implicitly why to expect that.

Considering that "Let them eat cake" is part of the philosophical underpinning of the WSJ editorial policy, I'm quite sure their little heads nodded along as they read it.

The Wall Street Journal has editors ? When did that happen ?

Well, also, everyone over 65 has Medicare, so take them out of the general population.

That makes that 45 million substantially more than 15%. But of course, what this no doubt well-insured man doesn't seem to understand-- the vast majority of insured Americans are one firing away from being uninsured. If your insurance is a benefit of your job, and you're laid off--

But that won't happen to him. He's "retired", so he probably has Medicare! And why is he lecturing to the rest of us?

The WSJ and all other major news organizations( except for FOX and MSNBC, if you can call them something other than propaganda machines) are obviously so afraid of being part of the "liberal media conspeiracy" that they host rediculus conservatives (i.e. Liz Cheney, George Will, et.al.) for the sake of being nonpartisan. The spirit is commendable, but the results are... amusing.

Sure they read it. It's classic free-market social Darwinism. It's what the WSJ owes to its success over these many years.

To add my own glance with being uninsured: After 18 months of paying for Cobra, a good enough program but often unaffordable for a lot of laid-off people, it came time to get my own insurance. This is an important point... Almost anyone can get private health insurance at a very modest cost. I was paying, I think, $108/month, far less than the $660/mo for Cobra. However, the cheap insurance covered only the very worst kinds of calamities and then with a very high co-pay. Of course it covered NO existing conditions, so no prescription assistance at all. (That's when I discovered Canadian pharmacies, which made medication somewhat more affordable.) That also means that if I developed pneumonia they wouldn't have covered care because I have asthma. (Ironically, while not covering the medication that keeps it manageable.) That's only one example. You can imagine many other conditions that, if cared for, can make the difference between proper functioning and unemployability, or good parenting. This is how the private sector approaches public health.

So, for the purpose of data collection, I would have been considered to be covered by health insurance by the standard measures. That's pretty tenuous folks.

I'm with you, gulag.

ghK5ZM

Could you help me. How are you. Help me! Looking for sites on: North texas. I found only this - electric companies in tyler Texas. Buy texas electric companies from global texas electric companies manufacturers, suppliers, texas electric companies. Texas electric companies property management companies. Thanks for the help :confused:, Hina from Singapore.