Political Animal


September 23, 2011 11:30 AM The ACA would not have killed Cain

By Steve Benen

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain continues to make a ridiculous argument about the Affordable Care Act, and it’s important the public realize that the candidate is simply lying.

Here was his pitch in last night’s debate, explaining why he “would be dead under Obamacare.”

“[M]y cancer was detected in March of 2006. From March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go — get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed by treatment.

“My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government’s timetable that’s what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I’m here five years cancer free, because I could do it on my timetable and not a bureaucrat’s timetable.

“This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to Obamacare, because we need get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.”

Fox News’ Steve Doocy gushed this morning that the argument was “very, very powerful.” What Doocy may not understand is that Cain was also very, very wrong.

What we’ve had for many years is a system in which bureaucrats have, in fact, gotten between patients and care, “micromanaging” treatment decisions and imposing “timetables.” Those bureaucrats, of course, have worked for private insurance companies, and consumers had little recourse.

The Affordable Care Act mandates consumer protections — no lifetime limits, no annual limits, no rejections based on pre-existing conditions, etc. — that empower Americans against these bureaucratic hurdles.

What Cain is peddling is little more than “death panel” garbage without the literal phrase.

Kate Conway recently explained, “What the Affordable Care Act does do is increase access to health care coverage so that other people (people without Cain’s pizza fortune) who find themselves facing a diagnosis like Cain’s can afford quality treatment. It also makes it illegal for insurance companies to drop patients diagnosed with serious (and expensive) illnesses based on unintentional errors on applications. It’s kind of twisted that Cain uses his against-the-odds recovery to condemn a policy that could help others less fortunate than him beat similar obstacles.”

There’s a reason the American Cancer Society was an enthusiastic supporter of the Affordable Care Act — it will save lives.

Everything Herman Cain said last night was completely wrong.

Update: Another good take: “The ACA does not include death panels, it gives more people insurance, and it makes colon cancer screening free. You may not like the ACA, but it doesn’t make it more likely that you will die from colon cancer. It does just the opposite.”

Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly, joining the publication in August, 2008 as chief blogger for the Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal.


Post a comment
  • Texas Aggie on September 23, 2011 11:36 AM:

    Everything Herman Cain has ever said is completely wrong. The man is Dick Cheney in black face.

  • stevio on September 23, 2011 11:44 AM:

    "Everything Herman Cain said last night was completely wrong."

    And everyone of the free liberal press reporters called him on it in their early broadcasts/newspaper articles. Everyone of them. NOT!

    This is what we have become. Liars lying and the Fourth Estate twiddling their thumbs and collecting paychecks while lighting candles at the feet of their rich providers.


  • Bob M on September 23, 2011 11:45 AM:

    Unexpected benefit if true.

  • Mark-NC on September 23, 2011 11:46 AM:

    What on this Earth makes you believe that Doocy doesn't KNOW Cain was lying?

  • slappy magoo on September 23, 2011 11:48 AM:

    Sounds to me like he was arguing "if poor people have access to health care, then there won't be enough specialists to see rich guys like me in time." Which means, he's essentially advocating the death of the poor so that he might have a better chance of survival. Or, in other words, he's a Republican.

  • c u n d gulag on September 23, 2011 11:49 AM:

    If Herman Cain wasn't Herman Cain, he would not have been able to get health insurance ever again after that illness, let alone be able to pay for additional treatment.

    Or, at least he wouldn't have been covered by anything until he got to 65 and got Medicare, for which he became eligible last December.

    Oh, and I think Mr. Cain is against Medicare, so that only wealthy assholes like him could ever get any care if there was a relapse.


  • Michael Carpet on September 23, 2011 11:55 AM:

    Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Herman Cain, and yes, even Jon Huntsman. Is this the best of the GOP? I would never vote for these guys, but seriously, after listening to them, aren't people creeped out? Incoherence; inaccuracies; 19th century views on race, religion, society; outright falsehoods like Cain's cancer story -- what it is about these mooks that resonates with anyone, let alone the Teabaggers?

    And the audience members cheering for executions and death by medical insurance neglect, or booing an active duty serviceman -- where was even ONE of these "leaders" in calling this malign behavior out? At least John McCain had the strength to contradict some poor lady's ignorance about Obama being a "muslim."

    It is a toxic combination of sick and sad, and it is the face of the Republican Party.

  • T2 on September 23, 2011 12:05 PM:

    Carpet, of all the candidates you name, only Romney could actually function as president. Didn't say he'd be a good one, just simply function. Sure he's a flip-flopper but so are most pols when they need to. The rest of that list are just crazy or stupid or both. Now maybe Cain is an effective CEO, but his ideas are just as loony. Then there is the point that the Republican Party will never nominate a black man....he's a token. He may be a millionaire ten times over, but he's still a token. I wonder when he's gonna figure that out?

  • Herschel on September 23, 2011 12:07 PM:

    The lady suggested Obama was an Arab, not a Muslim.

  • Jmom on September 23, 2011 12:21 PM:

    Hello? Do you all even pay attention to what actually happens in government run programs? Why do you think people in countries with socialized medicine come to the US for treatment for complex illness?

    Cain had this right - under our current system he was able to get second opinions, individualized treatment and fast. I do not have Herman Cain's money, but I can get that kind of treatment too. My sister does not even have health insurance but she has been able to get quality care without any problem. These liberal arguments are bogus.

    Are their problems with the cost of healthcare? Yes, but there are free market solutions that have been proposed but Obama lied and said that Republicans did not have a plan. Herman Cain has excellent ideas for bringing the cost of healthcare down without turning it into another government MONTROSITY like Medicare.

  • Bartender on September 23, 2011 12:23 PM:

    Isn't Cain a millionare? He can afford the best treatment possible with or without insurance so why is he floating his obvious clueless barbs regarding ACA? What an odd thing it is for him to argue about - let alone lie about.

  • Casey on September 23, 2011 12:29 PM:

    The fact of the matter is, government shouldn't be in healthcare any way. Where is the Constitution do they get that authority?

    Open the markets, let people get themselves covered. Cant afford it? go to a free clinic. get assistance from charity. but keep the government out of it

  • Mark-NC on September 23, 2011 12:33 PM:

    Jmom, you say that your sister had no problem getting tx, you don't say what it cost or who paid for it. If she had anything significant, it was quite expensive AND, those paying cash get no discounts. She will pay far more for the care than an insurance company would settle for.

    BTW, the monstrosity called Medicare has less than 2% overhead.

    What we "liberals" want is good basic health care for everybody. That doesn't necessarily mean "Cadillac", and it doesn't and never will preclude anybody from getting 2nd opinions, individualized tx, or fast care. AND, for the "everybody has a pile of money" Republicans, you will always have the option (like in all countries with Socialized medicine) of paying for whatever you like in private.

  • Bill Welsh on September 23, 2011 12:34 PM:

    WOW this is obviously a uneducated group. Have you all hugged Obummer today? First, lets ask anyone on social medicine just how amazing it is. Secondly find anyone that is receiving the medical care they need. Thirdly if any of you Libs still believe that the Dems are for the poor, you are partially right, they continue to make new ones everyday! Obama is a failure, to put it kindly. And to try and speak on any of the GOP candidates as if youve been following along and you know any of their platforms or history is a joke. When there is one candidate that is offering solutions to Americas problems, it is Herman Cain. Yet you all will link hands and follow the leader into the sheep pen. Do us all a favor, educate yourself on the candidates. Educate yourselves on the issues. And by all means dont fall for any "Hopey Changy" crap like you all did last election. Hes changed America for sure. Into a hapless, boot licking nation. Wake up Dems, the distress call has been on for almost 3 years. The blame game is old, and let me tell you Ive never had a job where i was allowed 3 years to train, and still have a job when im not performing. Obamacare is a disaster, face it. Romneycare was a disaster. Its not about healthcare for rich and poor, if it was Obama would be covered under "his" plan. Which he is not. So if the man believes in his med plan, shouldnt he be covered by it? The main difference here is, I dont listen to what the MSM says. Ive looked into the amount of businesses and states that want out of the plan! They know its a train wreck! The problem you all have is that Herman Cain is a black conservative, and those people just dont exist! He left the plantation! He isnt coming back...

  • June on September 23, 2011 12:37 PM:

    @Jmom - do you even know what's in the Affordable Care Act? It is not a "government-run program." It is not a single-payer program. Obama never said Republicans don't have a plan (which they didn't until the very last minute - to sum up the GOP plan: make it impossible for people to sue doctors; institute private health-savings accounts - CBO said it would actually add to healthcare costs and only cover 3 million people).

    Obama many times said Republicans have over 200 of their ideas that have been incorporated into the Affordable Care Act.

    As for your sister, the Affordable Care Act guarantees that she cannot be dropped from her insurance, cannot be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, cannot have her insurance capped, and many other benefits.

    Why is it so easy for Herman Cain to fool folks like you? What he said has absolutely no basis in truth. You are being played for a fool.

  • Catzmaw on September 23, 2011 12:45 PM:

    Jmom, you are completely off-base. First, it's NOT a government run program. Maybe you should take the time to read its provisions. It doesn't set up anybody between the patient and his provider - nothing new at all - all it does is make health INSURANCE accessible to those who've been denied it before or could not afford it. What the ACA REALLY does is forbid discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, direct that at least 80% of the premiums go to patient care and NOT to so-called "administrative expenses", forbid insurance companies from their practice of "contract rescission" whereby when someone makes a claim they find an excuse to end the coverage and cut that person off, and forbid caps on benefits for the insured. In other words, many policies used to provide a maximum benefit for the whole family of $1 million.

    What the ACA does NOT do, despite all the kool-aid you've been drinking, is a) interfere with patient/doctor relationships or regulate them in any way; b) establish a government system of medical care (this would be single payer, which much our misfortune as a people we don't get thanks to the kool-aid drinkers who have been suckered into believing it's a bad thing); or c) sadly, provide a public option (meaning a non-profit, publicly funded alternative which would force the insurance companies to really compete).

    I can tell you know NOTHING about the current health care system. If you did you would know that Americans pay more than twice what everyone else in the world pays for medical care and that it's actually quite often inferior to what all those benighted people you've been propagandized into pitying receive overseas. Europe's citizens have: a) higher life expectancies than we do; b) NO possibility of losing everything they own through medical expense related bankruptcies (the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.), and c) are far less likely to die from untreated medical conditions. Their preventive care means their costs are far lower than ours because in America people often don't go to the doctor until they're really, really sick or suffering. The Harvard Medical School did a study prior to passage of the ACA which established that 45,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR for lack of access to medical care - mostly caused by lack of insurance or insufficient insurance coverage.

    There are NO free market solutions. Period. The free market was what we had for a century and where did that get us? The goal of insurance companies is to make money for their shareholders, not to provide the possible medical care. The goal is to save money, NOT to spend it on the customer. THAT's what your precious free market is all about, making money.

    You condemn Medicare right now, but I'd bet you'll be first in line for its benefits when you hit 65. Just like Ayn Rand. When she got old and her health turned bad her free market solutions weren't there and she took Social Security and Medicare because that's why we have them, to serve a need that the free market can't possibly serve. I can tell from reading your comment that you know absolutely nothing about the health care issue and are merely repeating what you've heard on Fox and from Herman Cain. Please do some research. I can't tell you how silly your arguments sound to anyone who knows anything about the issue.

  • krazeeinjun on September 23, 2011 12:47 PM:

    You're so full of it Bill Welsh it's oozing out of your ears. Every reputable (key word - meaning not from Fox Nation) poll ever done asking Canadians or Brits if they would exchange their publicly funded national healthcare systems for the profit-driven system we have here in the U.S. has shown they overwhelmingly reject the U.S. system in favor of their own. They acknowledge issues with their systems, but they still prefer their "socialized" medicine to America's pay up or hit the road system. You simply do not know what the hell you are talking about - which being a winger is not surprising at all since people like you get all of your news and information from Fox and Limbaugh. It is you who needs to educate yourself instead of just coming on internet forums and regurgitating right-wing talking points and the latest rant from Limbaugh.

  • June on September 23, 2011 12:48 PM:

    @Bill Welsh -

    It's amazing to me to read conservative arguments that simply have no basis in reality, yet are written as though they're the God's honest truth. What are conservatives so afraid of in the Affordable Care Act? The Affordable Care Act is a private-industry-based (your beloved insurance companies) law, not "government-run."

    If you'd like to see people who are benefiting from it already, here is just one example:

    Young Adults Make Gains in Health Insurance Coverage:

    Now what is so horrific and frightening about parents being able to keep their kids on their health insurance plans until they're 26? Nothing! But if Cain had his way, if these kids got cancer, they would go uninsured. It would financially break most families. That's the truth. And that's what's really scary.

    Do conservatives have the guts to just go over to healthcare.gov and take a look at the bogey-man that scares you so much? Or will you to continue to insist that all your information be pre-digested by Republican politicians who stake their careers on playing you for a fool.

  • Letitia on September 23, 2011 12:50 PM:

    This young woman with CF needs $700,000 for a double lung transplant. Perhaps Cain would like to kick in? Too bad she doesn't own a successful pizza franchise. They've got the lungs, but not the money. And apparently she does have health coverage but CF can be an overwhelmingly difficult and costly disease. It may be a worst case scenario but what would Cain and the other Republicans say to this family? They have two daughters with CF and have apparently been fundraising for their care for many years now as the scope of costs is surely well beyond the ability of most average earners. As medical care advances and increases the lifespans of individuals with CF families may already be faced with terrible decisions if they haven't won the economic lottery like Herman Cain has.


  • Brad on September 23, 2011 1:53 PM:

    Letitia - Herman Cain has won the economic lottery by making a company profitable? What does that make the lifetime woman-leech John Kerry? How much has he and Teresa given to help this poor family, especially since apparently this family lives IN THE STATE HE REPRESENTS IN THE SENATE?

    No problem throwing around the hypocrite label but don't be one yourself by only applying it to one side of the political spectrum.

  • Rugosa on September 23, 2011 2:06 PM:

    Bill Welsh, I know and have known many people who lived under "socialized medicine" in Europe, Asia, and South America. They are amazed by American free-market healthcare, all right. Amazed that we pay so much out of pocket for insurance, and then more out of pocket for care in co-pays. Amazed that you can only get health insurance through your employer since individual policies are so expensive. Amazed that people are driven to bankruptcy by health care expenses.

  • damselfly1213 on September 23, 2011 2:15 PM:

    @Jmom - "My sister does not even have health insurance but she has been able to get quality care without any problem. These liberal arguments are bogus."

    How does she get her quality care? Who pays for it?

    Is she paying out of pocket? If she's young and healthy and seldom sick that works. But if she comes down with something serious - like cancer - she'll go broke pretty quickly.

    Or, does she go to a public hospital emergency room? Is she on Medicaid? If so, then she's on socialized medicine with the rest of us subsidizing her care.

  • June on September 23, 2011 2:16 PM:

    @Brad - your argument sounds wonderful, as most conservative arguments do, because they're based on a belligerence that sounds sort of logical, until you look closer and realize it's not.

    Herman Cain is out there deliberately spreading mis-information about the Affordable Care Act - an action which will hurt people who don't know any better, and who don't care to, and since Cain wants to "drive the car," to "hurt some people," then, mission accomplished.

    John Kerry fought the hard, long slog to pass the Affordable Care Act to make sure that those who are going through experiences like that of the young women referenced in Letitia's post, don't have to deal with the addtional nightmare of suddenly being dropped from their insurance, or refused insurance based on pre-existing conditions, or having their insurance company refuse to pay for treatment beyond a certain amount, or any of the hundred and other abuses meted out by insurance companies that are now, or will soon be, in the past.

    I certainly know which approach I prefer. And which one actually benefits the lives of these young women.

  • Cha on September 23, 2011 2:33 PM:

    Good Morning June! It's nice to be waking up on the Island and when checking out the comments under Herman Cain's stupid claims..reading your rebuttals of actual facts to those who pack their sentences with lying wing whiny points.

  • June on September 23, 2011 2:42 PM:

    Good morning, Cha - thanks for the shout-out.

  • Brad on September 23, 2011 3:00 PM:

    My point was not to say that people getting dropped by their insurance company was somehow appropriate. Letitia asked if Herman Cain would be willing to pony up the $700K for the operation. I just wanted to know if Letitia knew how much (if anything) Kerry might have ponied up to help the family.

    I'm all for a logical and reasoned debate on what direction the country should go in. But to say that someone won the economic lottery because he worked his way out of a sharecropper's shack to the CEO office should be condemned, not praised IMHO. But it's always easier to be envious of what someone else has rather than take an honest look at your own situation.

    And look at your own words: "an action which will hurt people who don't know any better, and who don't care to,"...if they don't care to become informed, then hopefully they won't vote in the next election because an uninformed voter is the most dangerous person in America.

  • Brad on September 23, 2011 3:10 PM:

    And if ANY candidate lies from ANY party, he or she should always be called on the carpet for it.

  • Brad on September 23, 2011 3:53 PM:

    And from the New Republic, certainly no bastion of conservative thought, on the subject of universal healthcare:

    "Truth be told, if you really care about which country has the best health care system, you may have to answer a far more complicated question namely, whether paying for the newest treatments, which are frequently the most expensive, is really the best way to spend money on health care. Some would argue that it makes more sense to spend that money on other treatments, like preventative care, that yield much greater improvements in health at much lower cost. This seems to be what countries like England, among the lowest-spending countries around, are trying to do.

    Still, that particular question whether countries should invest so heavily for what may be marginal extensions of health is an ultimately philosophical one. This issue of universal health care and how it affects cancer drugs, on the other hand, is strictly empirical. And thanks to this new study from the Swedish researchers, we can answer it a little more definitively than before with the arguments against universal health looking even less convincing than before."

  • biggerbox on September 23, 2011 4:41 PM:

    As a two-time cancer survivor, it amazes me that someone who has gone through so much up-close-and-personal experience with our current system would be so deliberately spreading lies about the ACA. I mean, I've been accused of having chemo-brain, but Cain is really quite confused. Assuming he's not intentionally lying.

    Perhaps as a wealthy CEO he had minions to deal with all the insurance company bureaucrats deciding to nickle-and dime every expenditure and randomly denying covered procedures just to keep their profits up? And I assume he never had to face the prospect of losing his job because he was sick, and therefore losing the insurance coverage that went with it?

    It's not just that he's lying about what in the ACA, he's also lying by omission about how bad the system was before, and, sadly, still.

  • Tea Party Jim on September 23, 2011 4:46 PM:

    And the asses continue to bray....on command of Mr. Benen. Wish y'all in favor of "ACA (aka Obamacare)" could spend some time in Britian under that "gummint" system, the one that Krugman thinks never fails, or maybe in Canada, so you could slip back over the border down to the USA and get the tests and care you might need.

    Bray! Bray! November, 2012, will come, but not soon enough.

  • Brad on September 23, 2011 4:54 PM:

    The really sad part is that those people that have never actually seen the waste and abuse in a Federal government office will so freely accept that their medical care will be better under Obamacare. And don't kid yourselves, folks, it will be a Government-run healthcare system. Better stock up on your current asthma inhalers if you need them:

    "Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.

    The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.

    The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.

    But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60."

    Oh wait - never mind - I won't have to pay the increased cost for an inhaler - I'll be entitled to it under Obamacare where someone else will pay for it...yeah right...

  • Cha on September 23, 2011 4:54 PM:

    @ teabagger jim.

    Poor little brainwashed idiot. Mainline that shit from limbaugh and fox screws. The least informed viewers on the Planet.

    Your fucking dumbass is showing.

  • Brad on September 23, 2011 5:13 PM:

    Nice to see that we can have intelligent, adult discussions here.

    "The Obama administration has shelved a financially troubled long-term care insurance plan. Officials said Thursday the staff has been cut and it's an "open question" if the program will be implemented.

    Under CLASS workers would pay an affordable sum of around $100 a month or less. In exchange, they would receive a modest daily cash benefit averaging no less than $50 if they become disabled later in life. Beneficiaries could use the money for services to help them stay at home, or to help with nursing home bills."

    WOW - so I would pay $100 a month and I would get benefits worth $1500 (30 days x $50/day)? How dare someone think this would be a problem and oppose this wonderful Government handout...but last time something like this happened in the PRIVATE sector, didn't some guy named Madoff went to prison for running a pyramid scheme???

  • exlibra on September 23, 2011 6:55 PM:

    Where have the blowflies come from, all of a sudden?

  • Anonymous on September 23, 2011 7:04 PM:

    Jmom asked "Why do you think people in countries with socialized medicine come to the US for treatment for complex illness?"

    The simple, honest answer is that they don't. The only people who come to America for complex illnesses are rich people (i.e., politicians) from third world countries and Iraqi war victims that get some charity to fund them. People with "complex illnesses" (whatever that is supposed to mean) from first world countries with socialized medicine get treated in their own countries.

    But while we're on the subject, what is driving "medical tourism?" This is the practice of Americans going to countries like India and Mexico for treatment that they can't afford in the US. It is really big business at the major hospitals in both of the above mentioned countries. There is a reason that the signs on the walls in Hospital San Jose in Monterrey are in both English and Spanish.

  • Texas Aggie on September 23, 2011 7:52 PM:

    One of the functions having trolls come on a comment section is that people learn what the Fox/Limbaugh talking points are.

    Casey: free clinics solve everything. The Constitution doesn't give the government authority to do health care.

    Texas shut down its biggest hospital, Galveston, serving the poor and now the only way someone can get free service if they can find a clinic that will accept them, is if they earn less than $4,000 a year. Above that is considered wealthy.
    An insurance executive quit and joined the fight against insurance companies when he saw people standing in the rain for hours in WV waiting for medical care they couldn't afford.
    Neither does the Constitution forbid it. And the ninth amendment (read it sometime) says that people have rights even if they aren't included in the Constitution. Health care and education are among those rights.

    Welsh and TPJim: People under socialized medicine aren't getting care and don't like it. Obama isn't under his own medical program.

    Canadian politicians are trying to take the country back to the Dark Ages, but one thing they are not about to touch is the single payer health care. My son and daughter-in-law lived in England for five years and had no problems at all, including knee surgery and shoulder surgery on my son. The care was everything that could be asked for, better than he got when he was in the States.
    Actually he is. His program, ACA, is one of regulated private insurance, and it doesn't kick in fully for a few more years. So your statement is just another right wing falsehood. You need to give up on Fox and find out what is going on in the real world.

    Brad: Seems to be against government involvement in health care, but can't really be pinned down. 1. "an uninformed voter is the most dangerous person in America." 2. "with the arguments against universal health looking even less convincing than before." 3. "freely accept that their medical care will be better under Obamacare." 4. Epinephrine inhalers will cost more.

    1. That statement is true enough and if it actually were taken into account, people like Welsh and jmom would be off the rolls, as would anyone who regularly listens to Fox and to Limbaugh or who belongs to the Tea Party. The last two sets are probably overlapping to a great extent. Remember what the vast majority of polls have found out about Fox "news" listeners' knowledge of reality.
    2. The arguments against universal health care were never convincing at all, and now they are less, thank you.
    3. When you don't have any medical care at all, as is the case with more than a quarter of Texans, and just millions of Americans, or when that care is inadequate, as is the case with millions more Americans (>50% of personal bankruptcies are due to the expense of medical care), then government care looks pretty good. Ask the VA patients how they feel. The surveys show that even though they start in worse condition than nonservice personnel, the outcomes are better.
    4. In the first place there is nothing stopping the inhaler people from using CO2 or nitrogen in the epinephrine inhalers, and in the second place, the side effects of albuterol are MUCH less compared to epinephrine so I don't see why anyone is using epinephrine in the first place. And salbutamol is even less than albuterol.

  • Constitutionally Speaking on September 23, 2011 8:19 PM:

    Actually there is a LOT of truth to what Cain said.

    There is a REASON that U.S. cancer deaths are MUCH lower than Europe and Canada with their socialized medical systems.

    That reason is EXACTLY the same one that Cain experienced and that is early diagnosis. A main failure of the socialized systems is the failure to get care fast enough to diagnose such ailments.

    It is NOT Cain who is lying. It is the left and it's sycophantic supporters of all things related to overbearing government control.

  • June on September 24, 2011 12:43 AM:

    @Constitutionally Speaking - what you call "government control" and "socialized medical systems" is the same insurance coverage your Republican and Tea Party heroes receive as part of their Congressional perks. Why are our tax dollars good enough to secure them the best medical care in the nation, but it's "socialism" for the rest of us (whatever that bogey-man is supposed to mean. I guess "communism" isn't relevant anymore, so Republicans next turned to "socialism" to put the fear of God into those who are easily frightened by what they can't define.)

    Not to be arrogant, but it is amazing to behold the level of sheer willfull ignorance among our citizens these days. Why is being protected from insurance company abuses so terrifying to conservatives?

  • bobbyh on September 24, 2011 12:45 AM:

    Unfortunately, Obamacare would have killed Cain. If you go to Canada or England, after you see your doctor, you have to wait weeks or even months to see a specialist. Then after you see the specialist, you have to wait weeks or months for specialized diagnostic tests, and then after the tests come back if you are still alive, you will have to wait additional weeks or months for surgery or a lesser but still too long time for treatment. Sadly in many cancer cases and other critical medical conditions this is too long. This is why the US has by far the best cure rates for cancer in the world and vastly better than Canada or Great Britain.

    Obamacare will increase the number of insured while dramatically decreasing the number of doctors (as numerous studies and polls have indicated), so there will be waits for treatments and appointments, just like in other government run care systems. Reality is quite different from Obamacare promises, just like the costs have been quite different from Obamacare projections.

  • June on September 24, 2011 12:54 AM:

    Unfortunately, apparently, there's a lot of dumbery on this thread. When you see someone desperately still trying to equate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with cherry-picked "data" concerning other healthcare systems in other countries -- as GOB from Arrested Development would say, "Come on!!!"

    Cain is either a fool or a liar. Or both. There's not any equivocation or gray area here - the healthcare reform law is written in black-and-white. It's not a he-said-she-said situation. Check for oneself as to who has a grip on reality (hint: it's not Cain apologists or rubes):


  • biggerbox on September 24, 2011 10:19 AM:

    It's so tiresome to have to fight all these trolls complaining about 'Obamacare' as if it was some kind of government take-over of medicine, when it ISN"T EVEN SINGLE-PAYER! Sheesh!

    Not only does it NOT make doctors and hospitals part of a government agency, it doesn't even eliminate the huge overhead of hundreds of different insurers by putting a single entity in charge of funding.

    It doesn't eliminate private insurance, or private doctors, and in fact, it will drive millions of customers into that market, and help pay for ones who'd be priced out of it. How the heck driving people into the market is "socialized" is beyond me.

    There are those of us who would have loved it if ACA were at least a single-payer plan, if not a national health service. BUT IT ISN'T. So I wish the righties would stop pretending it is. (I'd be willing to defend that type of system, but it doesn't have anything to do with what got passed in the ACA.)

    I'm bored with fighting about the delusions labelled "Obamacare" that float around in the heads of these trolls.

  • FBanta on September 25, 2011 11:47 AM:

    Since RomneyCare is the model, how does government healthcare improve access: 50% of MA doctors now do not accept new patients; or Medicare or Medicaid patients. For those whom doctors will see, the average wait is now 48 days.

    As to 'death panels' what is the purpose of the Health Choices Administration added to our healthcare system in the Stimulus, if not to decide who gets what? Do you forget Obama's comment that a 100 year old woman shouldn't have gotten a pacemaker, but only "a pill" even though at the time of the comment the pacemaker recipient had gotten 5 more years of vibrant life.

    I guess it's best to ignore that insurance premiums are going through the roof because of ObamaCare with the average family increase of $4000 a year. Ohio announced that rates would be increasing as much as 85% next year. MA requires nearly $1 Billion federal subsidy a year to keep RomneyCare going even as their hospitals are going bankrupt since non-emergency services are not covered under RomneyCare since everyone is supposedly insured. However, they are not willing to wait 48 days for help and therefore go to the ER.

    If we want high quality affordable healthcare, the only option is to eliminate ALL government interference in healthcare.

  • Judi Moody on September 25, 2011 2:21 PM:

    Sorry, Steve, I beg to differ. My husband was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in May. It took over 5 weeks for AARP's United Healthcare plan to approve a PET scan for him. In that time, his cancer spread to several lymph nodes, in which he now has Stage 4 cancer. AARP is one of the President's largest supporters in the new health care plan and is already implementing the "death panels" in which your age and ability to contribute to society are considered a factor. Yes, indeed, there are death panels, and his survival is not considered a very good option at this point.

  • RichMc on September 25, 2011 3:10 PM:

    OMG, Dick Chaney in "black face", I can not believe this website allows such a racist comment to be posted. I guess its ok to do so when the receipient of the comment is a Republican and not the President

  • HMDK on September 26, 2011 8:22 AM:

    Oh, wow.
    Another barrage of super-far-right-american idiots proclaiming that various european nations hate their semi-socialized medicine and want to break down all "socialist" laws and become more AMERICAN(tm).
    Yeah, no. I'm a dane and we have a socialized medical system. PLUS a private one, as do most, but which your ridiculously conservative handlers never tell you about. And of course we complain when it doesn't work correctly or when waiting lists are long, etc. But here's the thing: We don't usually have people having to choose between death and despair and total poverty.
    Which is why our discussions aren't about tearing down the system and letting even MORE people die, but about what to do to fix it.

  • kevin on November 16, 2011 3:43 AM:

    Wait wait wait, so Judi's failure of a husband has insurance and that insurance took months to approve of steps to treat the little man's disease and that's proof that the government is doing it wrong? What? Government has less than 0 to do with private insurance workings in regard to length of approval for medical procedures. NONE. The amazing level of intellectual fail on her part is astounding. This girl is on here railing against the government because her private insurance decided her husband just wasn't worth it. I can't even get my mind wrapped around it, government's fault that private insurance doesn't care if he lives. Government's fault, for a private insurance making a decision. I am literally afraid of Judi interacting with society and being given the ability to get in a car, that seriously must put hundreds of people's safety at risk if she's allowed in a motor vehicle, or outside of her home for that part. Please if anyone has the means, they need to track her down, the reality of her seriously injuring someone else is very real.