comment #1

Jack South P.I. says ...

Whether you like Olbermann or not, you have to at least respect him for the time and effort he puts into his message. While everyone else seems to speak contemporaneously off the tops of their heads (and often blowing past obvious errors or misstatements), Keith shapes and crafts his message with an erudition that is rarely seen in today's media. I love Keith, love his Special Comments, and think in twenty years when we all go back and rewatch his arguments, we will see he is on the right side of history. Last night's episode was very candid and moving.

Let the pile-on begin.

comment #2

SaveFarris says ...

The most important part of that clip, indeed the whole hour, was 3 sentences after you stopped quoting (at the 7:40 mark):

"I want my government to spend taxpayer money to help my father fight to live."

Someone needs to tell Keith that multi-millionaires whining that someone else should be paying their bills isn't a very good way to win folks over to your side. In fact, it turns A LOT of people off.

Oh, and his contention that "The resources exist for your father and mine to get the same treatment" is a lie that even Keith pointed out in his own roundabout way. He claimed that the Dr. who treated his dad was one of the Top 5 people in the field. Tell me Keith, in your world of everyone getting the same treatment, how long would the line be to see this specific doctor? Since the government is setting prices, how long will this doctor actually spend with your dad when he could see more patients and earn more money (something you yourself pointed out 10 minutes earlier when discussing the current state of Medicare)?

Given the price controls, how many medical students will stay in the field when the ability to profit from their trade is severly constrained and will thus be available when *YOU* will be in need of medical assistance? It's a problem in Great Britain and France, but you somehow didn't find the time for that factoid last night.

The only reason your father is alive is because of private insurance. It allowed him to skip to the front of the line and afford the best possible care.

comment #3

Eloi Manning says ...

You can still pay for private healthcare in Britain if you want. But Republicans don't seem to mention that when they're lambasting the evil NHS that allows people to receive healthcare regardless of how much they earn.

comment #4

Muscle McGurk says ...

"Afford to live? Are we at that point?"

When have we not been at that point?

comment #5

MovieBob says ...

This is as close to "buying it" as I've ever come during Olberman's "special comments." I'm sure he actually IS sincere, but the guy generally doesn't seem able to do this stuff without coming off a touch smug and/or over-dramatic.

I want health-care reform. Fact is, though, the moment anyone making a political appeal segues into making it a "moral" issue is the moment I tune them out. I don't like Conservatives telling me I have a moral duty to live by their Bible, I don't like Liberals telling me I have a moral duty to live "for my fellow man." Give me facts, keep your spiritualistic gobbledygook.

Health care is an important issue with many facets and tremendous nuance, and as such it belongs in the realm of LOGIC and REASON - not "morality," which is what one argues when one lacks the intellectual capacity for reason. Morality is about belief, and belief is a poor substitute for thought.

comment #6

hardlanding says ...

"The resources exist for your father and mine to get the same treatment"

Anyone who says this clearly has never spent any time in a Medicare facility.

Olbermann is wonderfully entertaining and articulate, but he spouts the same populist hypocrisy as any other wealthy politician/entertainer. I guarantee you he'll be pulling strings with his private insurer (or his personal doctor) when his dad doesn't see a doctor for days on end except for the 5 minutes a week the doctor comes in to sign the chart.

Medicare incents the medical care facility to (a) put seniors on expensive, long-term medicine, and (b) to see as many as possible for as little time as possible, because there is a fixed assigned cost to every ailment. Every extra minute spent giving speical attention is a minute "wasted" with no compensation.

This is the true reality of this utopian "we all get the same care" vision.

comment #7

Ronald McFirbank says ...

But the resources don't exist.

The CBO estimates the Baucus plan only comes out even if we cut $400 billion from Medicare.

In other words, the only way we can afford that total a level of care is by reducing the level of care. (Don't even say we'll just cut the waste from Medicare. Just go do it, if you think it's possible. I'm sure no one will object to any of the cuts you make.) Instead, we'll hock ourselves even further to the Chinese, as if that bill will never come due.

We've reached a point where our medical technology, if made universal, is unaffordable. So in some fashion, it will have to give, decisions will have to be made. If you don't want to make them on a free market basis, you owe it to us to be honest about how you will make them. Show me any politician who's willing to do that, and any majority of voters willing to abide by the results.

comment #8

Ronald McFirbank says ...

"Whether you like Olbermann or not, you have to at least respect him for the time and effort he puts into his message."

Whether you like Limbaugh or not...

yeah right.

comment #9

mccool says ...

You can still pay for private healthcare in Britain if you want. But Republicans don't seem to mention that when they're lambasting the evil NHS that allows people to receive healthcare regardless of how much they earn.

Manning ... Again love the name ... very creative ... but have you ever gotten sick in the UK? Or known someone who;s been deathly ill? No one with any money even thinks about anything but private care. So is that what we want? An elite system with the best doctors alongside a public option with the guys who've got diplomans from honduras hanging on their walls?

And what does "because by the accident of life I make more money than he does" mean??? Olbermann's ambition and hard-work have nothing to do with his success? I'm as much of a fatalist as the next guy, but jesus, Keith, give yourself some credit.

Are we so heartless that we let the rich live and the poor die and everybody in between become wracked with fear

Wracked with fear? Poor dying [in the streets!!!]? This is how a messenger comes to completely overshadow a message...with hyperbole and exaggerations (if not outright fabrications).

Is it ok to alter facts, exaggerate claims, and lie to achieve what one believes is just and right? Do the ends justify the means? Or is sincerity and honesty the right path, even if man, fully informed, makes the wrong decision? What would Arthur Koestler say?

comment #10

hardlanding says ...

"we'll just cut the waste from Medicare"

I always wondered, if there's really $400B of waste that can be cut from Medicare, how come we haven't publicly drawn and quartered whoever is in charge of Medicare, who is wasting so much of our money?

What does it say about our politicians who make this argument, to say such a bald-faced lie with a straight face. And even worse, what does it say about us as a country that we just accept it without laughing them off the stage.

And how come the democrats haven't proposed a "remove the waste from Medicare bill" on its own?

comment #11

Gordon27 says ...

It's pretty strange; all of the anti-healthcare comments here (and just in general) seem to be making the argument that it's better to have a system which we definitely know doesn't work at all for the majority of people who need it, rather than even trying to fix it, because it's possible that fixing it won't work as well as the entirely fictional, hypothetical idealized healthcare situation that everybody agrees upon in theory, if only it were possible to be 100% perfect.

That's just silly.

comment #12

Gordon27 says ...

"We've reached a point where our medical technology, if made universal, is unaffordable."

The flaw of this argument is that its based on the current situation, where pharmaceutical companies' profits are more important than human lives. Yes, if the drug companies continue to raise prices -- admittedly, a simpler way of increasing profits than increasing production, filling demand with supply rather than charging more for an artificially low supply -- the system would be untenable. But the system, as is, is untenable anyway. So your argument is flawed.

comment #13

Eloi Manning says ...

"Manning ... Again love the name ... very creative ... but have you ever gotten sick in the UK? Or known someone who;s been deathly ill? No one with any money even thinks about anything but private care. So is that what we want? An elite system with the best doctors alongside a public option with the guys who've got diplomans from honduras hanging on their walls?"

That's not true at all. The NHS in Britain works far better than conservative critics would have you believe, and allows for the top consultants to be paid very handsomely and drive lovely cars to work. It's not true at all to suggest that the NHS doctors are second-rate, because they aren't. And indeed in many cases, private healthcare providers have to refer their patients to the NHS in order to receive specialist treatment from NHS doctors.

I've known plenty of people who've been sick in the UK and they all got treated and it was all for free.

comment #14

hardlanding says ...

> rather than even trying to fix it

I agree with you that it's frustrating that we're not really discussing ways to reform the system, all we're really discussing is different levels of government subsidization.

There are LOTS of problem with our health care system and our insurance system, but politicians (democrats & republicans alike) aren't really interested in true problem-solving.

comment #15

joncro says ...

'... but have you ever gotten sick in the UK? Or known someone who;s been deathly ill? No one with any money even thinks about anything but private care....'

Untrue. My parents live in London - my father had a heart bypass, my mother has had a knee replacement, both on the NHS. They could have afforded to 'go private' but as my dad says, 'we've already paid for it'.

I grew up in London and lived in the USA for 10 years, I have seen both systems. The NHS is far from perfect but my own experience told me that the care we got in the US (living in Philadelphia and New York) was about as good as the care we get in London on the NHS. The difference is, you pay at least twice as much in the USA.

comment #16

joncro says ...

'That's not true at all. The NHS in Britain works far better than conservative critics would have you believe, and allows for the top consultants to be paid very handsomely and drive lovely cars to work. It's not true at all to suggest that the NHS doctors are second-rate, because they aren't. And indeed in many cases, private healthcare providers have to refer their patients to the NHS in order to receive specialist treatment from NHS doctors.'

All true. Sometimes the muckraking media will expose how much the NHS is paying the top level staff, it's an easy sttory.

'I've known plenty of people who've been sick in the UK and they all got treated and it was all for free.'

This is in fact not true! It's not free. We do pay for it, we pay taxes. It's described as "free at the point of use"; i.e. they don't send you a bill. This way you don't have to worry about the cost of your treatment. To those who might bring up the point about how this leads to rationing, just think about how much rationing goes on when the brass at the top need to answer to shareholders...

comment #17

SaveFarris says ...

all of the anti-healthcare comments here seem to be making the argument that it's better to have a system which we definitely know doesn't work ... because it's possible that fixing it won't work as well

That's not silly at all. It's quite a legitimate concern. Even the people clamoring for ObamaCare don't like living under it once it's enacted.

comment #18

Ronald McFirbank says ...

Gordon27's responses, unfortunately, demonstrate the dishonesty of the debate. I didn't argue FOR anything; I'm simply pointing out that there's no free pony to be had here, it has to cost something. This, of course, makes me a heartless bastard who wants to kill poor people. Which, of course, is easier than saying where the savings will come from...

Oh, they'll come from drug company profits. Okay, say we have to find $800 billion, the CBO estimate of the cost of the Baucus plan. Please list the drug companies whose profits equal that amount. And then tell me what the new mechanism for encouraging drug companies to conduct all this research will be ("government will pay for it," of course, means you have to find MORE free money to cancel that out).

I'm not defending our present system in toto. There are many, many problems with it. But there are plenty of people out there who will enumerate those, but never deal honestly with the problems of the system they're proposing to replace it. There will be no problems, only free money and better outcomes for all! Riiiiight.

comment #19

mccool says ...

joncro ... i cant argue with your experience, and clearly you are more of an expert than i .... but in the last five years I've spent nearly a year's worth of time in total in and around London. People I've traveled with have gotten ill (one developing sepsis and nearly dying as a result of an NHS nurse improperly inserting a catheter), and through this experience I learned from many native Brits with whom I'm friends or work, that very few upper-middle class folks go the public route for anything major ... they might go for an x-ray or a simple test, but anything so much as an out-patient procedure is done privately. Could be the small sample of people I know have skewed my perspective ... but if that's their experience AND their perspective, I've got to believe there's something to it.

comment #20

mccool says ...

Admittedly, my anecdotal experience and knowledge of the system shouldn't be used as evidence in the argument ... I mean merely to question those who have even less experience with it who point to it confidently.

comment #21

joncro says ...

Yes there is a private option for those who can afford it and there are even health insurance plans in the UK if you feel like paying twice...... I think I have met one person who wouldn't use the NHS on principle and he is, frankly, a snob. There are problems like catheter you mentioned but are we saying this never happens in other countries?

Actually that brings up another point - in the US I found doctors were in the habit of over prescribing and over testing, probably so they wouldn't be sued. Not a worry here.

On another note, I don't think that the US is going to get a decent health care system any time soon but when they do I will be sorely tempted to move back there with my kids; it's a wonderful country.

comment #22

Gordon27 says ...

"I didn't argue FOR anything"

Ah, my mistake; you were merely offering contradiction, not an argument in favor of anything. Noted.

"And then tell me what the new mechanism for encouraging drug companies to conduct all this research will be"

I don't accept that they need to have *increased* profit every single year in order to encourage them to do research as a given the way you do (it seems to be a consistent right-wing argument, "If I made any less money after taxes, I wouldn't bother to do anything to make money!").

In fact, I think there's a very basic, obvious flaw to what you're saying, which is that, if their motivation is strictly to increase profit, there would be far more short-term gains if they *reduced* research and just raised prices. (And, obviously, we know they do this all the time, but that's not even my point.)

Again, I'm not talking about price increases that rise with inflation and cover the cost of research; I'm talking about obscene price increases that are enacted *solely* to raise profits on paper.

"This, of course, makes me a heartless bastard who wants to kill poor people."

No, it means that you are supporting a system which -- well, I think "kill" is a strong word, though some certainly feel that way, I'd be more inclined to say "allows poor people to die needlessly". And doing so through a deep-rooted dishonesty (I'm not calling you a liar; it's quite likely that you believe the things you're saying, but it doesn't make them facts).

It's pretty simple; if you are defending the current healthcare plan as better than *any* alternative, you are supporting the idea that pharmaceutical companies have more right to make whatever profit they can off of people who need their products to live than poor people have to life, because that IS the current system.

"But there are plenty of people out there who will enumerate those, but never deal honestly with the problems of the system they're proposing to replace it. There will be no problems"

I'm with you on the level of honesty in the debate. But your argument, again, is pretty flawed. This is a specific example of exactly what I said before. There are obvious logical reasons why people aren't discussing the problems with the current healthcare plan. The most obvious one is, you're comparing a plan which has been in place for decades with which everybody is familiar with a plan that doesn't even exist yet and for which the language is not even written yet. Now, yes, there will almost certainly be flaws in the first plan that's written, because they're being written by human beings, and humans often have a gulf between intent and execution. I don't think that the flaws in the current system were deliberately built in, and I don't think the flaws which will exist under the new system are being deliberately built in either. So it's completely impossible to talk about them as if they're on equal footing; one of them, as of now, exists purely as a hypothetical.

It's definitely important to discuss the problems now, while the bill is being written, to minimize the problems it can cause later. But your argument, as far as I can tell, is that there's no point in improvement unless the improvement can be 100% guaranteed forever, which is silly.

comment #23

Noah Cross says ...

Weren't the original Fantasia water buckets and brooms kinda evil?

comment #24

Ronald McFirbank says ...

Setting aside what seems to be a fundamental difference about the social value of profit as a motivator, which I can't say I find surprising in these parts, let's say you have a somewhat legitimate beef about drug companies.

So why is neutron bombing the entire healthcare sector and bringing it under the control of the government, probably killing off private insurance over time and introducing rationing and all sorts of other things, the necessary solution to what is, fundamentally, a moderate regulatory issue?

I just don't believe that what you say is the issue is really the issue at all, though it may serve as cover for the issue.