Vinehout Follow-Up Story
This story is interesting on so many levels. The story is about the fact that Democratic Senator Kathleen Vinehout complained about not buying health insurance because of the expense, yet found $7,000 to loan to her campaign.
The original story came out in the MJS on July 13th. In that story, Vinehout’s decision was reported thus:
But in 2005, Alma dairy farmer Kathleen Vinehout and her husband, Doug Kane, faced a tough decision: Should they pay $900 to $1,000 a month for their own family health insurance or to cover their farm expenses?
They went without the insurance. “It was very scary,” Vinehout said.
On July 16th, Rick Esenberg posted the information on his blog that in the same period that she allegedly could not afford health insurance for her family, she managed to loan her senate campaign almost $8,000 (actually $7,959.21) and her husband loaned the campaign another $1,000. This story made the rounds in the blogosphere and on talk radio.
Then… finally… yesterday we get a followup story from the MJS in which Vinehout is asked about her contributions.
First, it’s interesting that Steven Walters, the reporter for the MJS, failed to even acknowledge who originally broke the story about her political contributions. He gives no credit whatsoever to Rick Esenberg. That’s just rude. Given that it took the MJS 13 days after the original story to follow it up (10 days after Esenberg’s post), they should have given credit where credit was due.
Second, the followup story doesn’t even handle the issue well. Read this:
Asked about the Nov. 1 loan to her campaign, Vinehout said in a statement that the $7,000 “came from a small inheritance from my mother,” who died in the spring of 2005.
The decision to go without health insurance was made “long before I decided to run for the Senate,” Vinehout said.
Notice the lack of follow-up by the reporter. It was more than $7,000. It was nearly $8,000. Plus, what about the $1,000 from her husband? Also, the $7,000 was from the spring of 2005, but it was loaned to her campaign in November of 2006? She sat on it for 18 months and then loaned it to her campaign? Why didn’t she use it for health insurance? That could have bought a year’s worth of catastrophic insurance, which would have covered her kid’s emergency surgery.
And then there’s this little snippet:
“We decided to drop the commercial insurance when the insurance company closed the plan, made it a high-risk pool and then started rapidly raising the premiums,” she said in the statement. “We were denied admission to their new ‘regular’ plan.”
“Anyone who has been without insurance knows how difficult it is to get insurance, once you’ve been without it,” Vinehout said.
Wait. In the original story she said that the decision was “Should they pay $900 to $1,000 a month for their own family health insurance or to cover their farm expenses?” Now she is claiming that she was denied coverage from her plan. Which is it? And once again notice that the reporter apparently didn’t ask any follow-up questions about her contradictory statements.
It seems clear that Vinehout will spin her personal stories whichever way is convenient to promote her agenda, and the MJS is going to do little more that take her statements at face value.
Owen
She says tight there in your post.
The Plan she had was DROPPED….Then they decided they couldn’t afford the other option(High Risk Pool)
You don’t need to slant the Facts…
your point is still a question, why did she pay the campaign but not the high risk pool? Farmers are often put into High Risk Pools!
unfortunately people have to make choices every day whether to have health insurance or a car, a home, etc..
Her choice was Buy health Insurance or Run for Senate and change the status Quo..
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1040 hrsFOK:
What a bunch of nonsense.
My brother’s employer offers crappy insurance, so he went private. I researched lower rates on the Internet and they weren’t that hard to find.
The fact of the matter boils down to this:
Vinehout CHOSE not to have health insurance and put $9K into her campaign.
Her BAD CHOICES should not constitute - as you put it - a “change in the status quo”.
I’m sorry, but there is NO EXCUSE for someone to put $9k into their campaign, not pay their son’s health bills, and then expect US to start footing the bill for health care (shoddy, socialized health care at that) via exhorbinant tax rates.
Vinehout is not some noble crusader.
Posted by Amy P. on July 27, 2007 at 1051 hrsNo, her choice was to lie about her choice in her campagin or to tell the truth. There is a difference.
Also her explination is still pretty lame. Why just drop the insurance. Why not try to switch to another company before dropping. That why she would not have had to apply to a second company as uninsured. Surely, a healthcare consultant and economist’s wife should have known that.
But may favorite part of the story is that the JS reporter used this line:
“As part of the debate over that plan, Vinehout has talked about the 2005 decision she and her husband made to go without health care.”
She did not go without health care - if she had she would not have any bills to pay. She went without insurance. It is not the same thing. Also, has anyone asked her if she applied for charity care? As I have said 8 billion times before 300% of the fed poverty line generally gets you a discount of some level.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1056 hrsOwen, just wondering why you weren’t this tough on Ziegler…..?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1100 hrsDang it, PJR, how am I going to get all this soda off my flat screen?
Posted by John Foust on July 27, 2007 at 1113 hrsBecause Ziegler wasn’t using her personal story as a justification to double my tax burden and foist government-run health care on me.
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2007 at 1113 hrsSo Vinehout supports a bill that would directly provide a financial benefit to herself and her family. Where’s Common Cause and WI Democracy Campaign on this one? Where’s the “conflict of interest” outrage that we usually hear from the Left?
Posted by Mr. Pelican Pants on July 27, 2007 at 1127 hrs“Because Ziegler wasn’t using her personal story as a justification to double my tax burden and foist government-run health care on me.”
See that’s what connects the gopers!!
It’s all about ME!!
If it doesn’t benefit me….Screw it!!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1156 hrs“Because Ziegler wanted us to ignore her ethical and legal conflicts so she could get on the tasty Supreme Court wage and health care package, all the while furthering her conservative agenda?”
Posted by John Foust on July 27, 2007 at 1159 hrsfok:
With all due respect, you’re full of it.
Socialized health insurance benefits few and costs many much more than necessary.
If you’re all for paying for other people’s health insurance, should I start sending you a bill every month for what I pay? Should I give you opportunity to put those socialistic tendencies into practice?
I wouldn’t because - and here’s a RADICAL NOTION - it’s MY responsibility to pay for MY health insurance.
If I didn’t have any through my employer, I’d find a new job. If that didn’t work, I’d pay for it out of pocket. If that meant sacrifices - no cable, no Internet, no car - I’d make them because I take care of myself and my family.
I don’t expect you to pay for my housing, my food, my health care…because then YOU’D have control over me.
What part of that don’t you understand?
Why do you pro-socialized health care folks think that our government won’t screw up socialism like it’s screwed up in Canada and Cuba (or everywhere throughout history)?
How can you be serious in thinking it would cost less and do more? When has ANY government program done that? (Hint: It hasn’t!)
Posted by Amy P. on July 27, 2007 at 1202 hrsAmy
It’s really Hard to Argue with you when your 1st point is So Wrong!!
This is a new way to help pay and get access to healthcare.
It’s not Socialized Medicine where everyone goes to Govt Doctors and Hospitals!!
Medicare Admin costs are the lowest of any HMO or similiar health benefit program!!
The Govt. can do some things right!!
Just not everything!!
I’m just glad you have the opportunity to change your job/career to get better benefits.
what about the folks who can’t make such change as easily and go without??
If this bill does nothing more than further discussion on the healthcare crisis, it’s a success!!
What’s your plan to Address the Crisis Amy??
Health Savings plans, More Tax cuts for healthcare?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1236 hrs
Great ideas…for those who can afford it in the 1st Place!!Amy - I don’t think you understand insurance. The very point of private for-profit health insurance is that it benefits few and costs more than necessary. Every month, you’re paying for some else’s health care, because you’ve volunteered to join the pool. You’ve all joined together, kumbaya, to share each other’s risks and costs. Why do so many employers offer health insurance as a benefit? Shouldn’t companies just offer more in salary and let us buy our own?
Posted by John Foust on July 27, 2007 at 1246 hrs
What sort of magic style of bureaucracy happens inside a private insurance company that doesn’t happen in a public bureaucracy? (Not that I’m trying to agree with Fok here.) Does your health insurance company “have control over you” any more than your mortgage bank or your grocery store? So tell me, if there was a private non-profit health insurance company, would it cost you less than private for-profit health insurance?Why do so many employers offer health insurance as a benefit? Shouldn’t companies just offer more in salary and let us buy our own?
Actually, this is because of government tinkering with the private market. In the 1942 Stabilization Act, the government limited how much employers could increase wages. So employers could not attract needed workers with higher pay. But they could offer extra benefits, like health insurance, to attract workers. This is the kind of unintended consequence that can result when government meddles in the private economy.
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2007 at 1258 hrsGreat catch, Owen. When I saw this in the MJS this AM, I wondered if anyone would notice. As I recall, the original article was on the front page with a picture, today’s was page 5b in the Metro/State section. I guess if you need to backpedal after 13 days, nothing like “burying” your mistakes. PS, how about a link back to the original discussions at the Boots & Sabers site?
When I read the article this AM, one thing that struck me was the bouncing back between the terms “health insurance” & “health care”. “Health care” is used 4 times, “Health Insurance” is used 5 times. Maybe Steve Walters is an idiot & maybe I’m being too picky about semantics, but in my book there is a huge difference between Health Insurance and Health Care. In my mind, Health Care is the act of receiving medical attention or taking preventative steps to live healthy (diet, exercise, no smoking, etc.) & Health Insurance is one of many ways to pay for it.
When her son had the operation, did they forgo “health care” - I think not.
Vinehout is a “former University of Illinois -Springfield professor of health care” - what the heck is that? Nursing, medicine, wholistic healing?
So what exactly is Vinehout’s agenda? I’ll have the answer when I find the original post on this topic.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1311 hrsHere’s my original post on Vinehout: http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalin k/typical_farmers_or_manure_spreaders/
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2007 at 1322 hrsOwen(13) I tend to agree, and I remembered similar histories of why this came to be - except I thought they pre-dated WW II. There’s lots of meddling in this market, with endless years of tax benefits and obscure rulings. This regulated market is quite far from being a free market. When I hear calls to “let the market decide”, I can’t help but think someone has their head in the sand, ignoring the massive government rearrangements of priorities in this market.
Tx, yes, the fluid language makes this debate difficult. Health insurance plans are merely one gatekeeper to the purchase of health care services. It’s perfectly possible that the cost of health care services can rise and fall for reasons beyond the influence of the buyers.
Posted by John Foust on July 27, 2007 at 1330 hrsThanks (us hillbillies out in the country can’t get DSL, so it takes a long time to look things up)
For all ya “Green Acres”/Eddie Albert/Eva Gabor fans, this is what I said was the real Vinehout agenda:
...read the tea leaves. This farming thing and legislative endeavor is just resume’ building. WI produced two Secretary of Health & Human Services secretaries (Donna Shalala in the Clinton admin & Tommy Thompson in the Bush admin). Imagine a candidate (and a woman, to boot) from WI, who is a ‘poor farmer” with a deep knowledge/professional experience of health care issues and was responsible for the most sweeping and comprehensive & innovative health care initiative in the nation. Tommy Thompson’s horse that he rode was welfare reform.
I think if Obama or Hillary comes acallin’ for a Secretary, she would wipe the cowshit off her shoes, head for Washington, and leave her cows behind to starve (like a meth-addicted farmer). Hell, let’s even think bigger - health care is such a big issue (which it needs to be), we will probably have a Health Care Czar, and Kathleen Vinehout be thy name.
John - you are right - I myself used the term “care” many times in my original post - maybe that was the theme of the original article, and I got caught up in that term.
I think this answers #1 above:
Her choice was Buy health Insurance or Run for Senate and change the status Quo..
As if. Her choice was to not buy health insurance & run for Senate & change the status Quo & maybe get a bigass career boost at the same time.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1346 hrsThe point comes down to why should Vinehout or anybody else have to make this choice between insurance or anything else?
Yeah, Walters gave Vinehout a platform for her, but are you so blind to the fact that Stevereno has carried so much water for your guys with his Doyle “corruption” stories that it would keep the lawns of the city of New Boreland growing all summer.
As far as the government “tinckering” with the private market, let me again refresh your memory. Why was the government tinkering with that and a lot of other things going on in 1942?
The guy in the Oval Office was a president who knew how to fight a war. If FDR would have fought that war by telling people to go shopping and passed tax cuts I think all of German language skills would have been much better and Paul Wolfowitz would have met the fate of Anne Frank.
As for insurance. Your point in #13 makes the point that medical insurance has outlived its usefulness. 1942 was time for bold action. So is it now when it comes to how we fund health care.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1354 hrsKr, has Social Security outlived its usefulness then, too?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1415 hrs
Kudos to Mr. Esenberg for his look behind the scenes.
And for the record, with the exception of 2 or 3 J/S reporters whose work I respect, I don’t believe that a J/S reporter failing to ask a simple follow up question is anything new.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1447 hrskr, you wrote:
The point comes down to why should Vinehout or anybody else have to make this choice between insurance or anything else?
Because life is hard! Because you have to EARN things (like a car, a flat screen television, etc.). Because life isn’t fair! People can survive perfectly well without the high-end vehicles, plasma televisions, etc. etc. The basic needs (food, clothing, housing, and health insurance) do not, by rights, need to be fancy or extravagant. Just decent.
I’d love to live in a big, five bedroom house with a huge backyard. But I live in a small apartment with little yard because it’s what I can afford. I drive a little, cheap car because it’s what I can afford. Our television is second-hand because it’s what we could afford. See my point? I’m responsible for my life, my decisions, and doing without is sometimes a very necessary part of life.
Why is it unreasonable to think that people should give up unecessary luxuries in order afford necessary things like housing, food, and insurance?
I don’t argue that people who honestly and truly can’t afford health insurance should be denied. And perhaps did all of you socialist sympathizers stop to think that Gov. Doyle’s very unfriendly tax climate is the reason jobs and economic growth in Wisconsin are so stagnant-hence the supposed difficulty people have finding jobs? In spite of that, I notice that the JS has no problem posting pages and pages of job listings each and every week. So that begs the question: are things really as bad as you paint them to be?
As I said, I have no problem with the truly impoverished getting some sort of assistance.
But I have a SERIOUS problem with the government taking away MY options for health insurance and forcing me to accept socialized medicine which results in wait lists, piss-poor facilities, and stupid restrictions regarding what treatments I can/cannot receive.
I believe the solution is making insurance truly free market - not tying it to employers at all. Insurance companies need to compete directly with each other, and health care facilities likewise need to compete with each other. If the free market concept was applied, costs would go down.
Tying health insurance to employers and/or putting all health care in the hands of the government is a surefire way to render competition moot and price controls pointless. Insurance companies and healthcare facilities would charge MORE because it wouldn’t matter how much it costs. In the case of employers, they raise the employee cost; in the case of the government, they’d just raise the taxes some more.
As a related topic: how many of you who support socialized healthcare are “pro-choice” and believe the notion “keep your laws off my body?” If you answer in the affirmative, then you know exactly how I feel about socialized medicine.
Posted by Amy P. on July 27, 2007 at 1449 hrsSome of us are old enough to remember when you could get medical treatment without insurance because it was affordable. The outrages medical costs have grown out of reach in the last couple of dacades, maybe three. We have learned that there is no free market in the medical industry and they are taking advantage of it.
It doesn’t matter who you buy insuarnce from because it will costs you the same thing. Insurance companies use the same data and come up with the coverage and rates with a little slant this way or that. There is no free market at work, just propaganda.
I think we can look at the V.A. plan and get an idea of how a goverment plan can work. I don’t hear vets crying out to get rid of the plan or privitizing it.
Our nation is in for big trouble if we don’t put a lid on the medical industry raping the economy. The present system is hurting everyone in one way or another.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1527 hrskr wonders: Why should anyone have to choose between health insurance or “anything else?”
This question helpfully explains the rationale for the Senate health program. Namely, if you need something, the government should provide it. Then you won’t have to “choose” between what you need and “anything else.” Life would be so much simpler without all the nuisance choices we have to make.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1605 hrsStill more cogent analysis:
“It doesn’t matter who you buy insuarnce from because it will costs you the same thing.”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1609 hrsWendy, cute as always but devoid of facts. So long as social security is funded it wont. Of course that assertion is based on more radcon hysteria.
Amy, I have limited time to answer your shot gun blast, but a few points.
No, things aren’t that bad but why not make them better, especially when you consider desipte all the lying these programs work well in every other countries in the western world.
Why can’t they work here? Not all governments are as corrupt as the Bush administration. Switzerland, one of the most capitalist countries on earth has such a program. If any one considers them socialist, then crack has truly spread to the suburbs.
What says the Healthy Wisconsin would deny your choice of doctors as so many private plans do? Who says the costs would go up? Independent auditors say that on this plan say they would go down. Who says the government would mess up your health care? The government isn’t running this, it’s only setting up the process and collecting the money.
If you think your policy is going to cover you it might. But it might not. Healthy Wisconsin will.
As for your last point, the government is not touching your body. Doctors working for independent providers are. So get your fact straight please.
And as for your opening shot, only a fool makes their life hard when it doesn’t have to be.
Fortunately two-thirds of the people of Wisconsin and 55% of the Republican voters in this state don’t agree with you.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1614 hrsNo George, the government wouldn’t have to provide anything if it was attainable to everyone in the first place, or in the case of insurance companies who pay a lot of money to find ways to dodge covering their policy holders or people with pre-existing conditions. Or else why do health providers have to employ large numbers of people just to get bills paid by the insurers?
We seem to have no problem or bogus moral bloviating over providing everybody with police protection, fire protection or public education.
I think the point of the post in 22 is this is such a closed system among the insurance companies that there is virtual price fixing.
For crowd that bellyaches like stuck pigs when government raises their taxes a few bucks and then seems to enjoy the shearing when health insurance policies have double digit percentage jumps just defies rationality.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1626 hrsHealth care is not “expensive”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1626 hrs“Some of us are old enough to remember when you could get medical treatment without insurance because it was affordable.”
Anonymous - some of us are old enough to remember when treatment didn’t involve major medical equipment. No transplants, MRI’s, CAT scans, etc. You just died. Health care costs aren’t going up so much as we are buying more. We expect every illness to be treated to the fullest- no matter the cost. $100,000 operations aren’t rare. Treatments approaching $1M aren’t unheard of. People assume they deserve every treatment that medical science can provide- regardless of cost. The only change that will come about if gov’t takes over health care is that they will decide to purchase less. So you may wait for ten months for that mammogram, or whatever. Or gov’t will decide what treatment you get, or where. The cheapest contract wins. I don’t want government to be making those choices for me.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1656 hrsBack to the original point, following the Amber Alert and Vinehout fiascos I don’t recall other “sky is falling” pieces. W/in the newsroom it is certain that there is embarassment over those two stories. As the conference committee proceedings continue one can only hope the paper will be more skeptical about the new predictions terror and inconvenience caused by the GOP budget.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1702 hrsYour statement in #29 is probably based on your lack of knowledge that wait times are only longer in Canada—http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=9930. Other countries which have have government plans have shorter wait times. As for Canada, as Michael Moore puts, “of course you have to wait longer in Canada. Everybody gets taken care of.”
So what are you saying? Other countries don’t treat illnesses to their fullest? Certainly not those countries which have better health care outcomes than ours?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 1950 hrskr,
i don’t think you mean to refer to #29
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2005 hrsThank you George. Typing in the dark.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2020 hrsI am often accused of just plain operating in the dark.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2025 hrsIf you are over 65 and live in Spain and have cancer you will not be treated. How do I know? Well I listened to a man from Spain who is over 65 and who has cancer tell his story in the radio last week. He went to the doctor who said you have cancer and without treatment have little time left to live (1 or 2 years) but because of your age I can’t treat you. He was basically told to go home an die. Instead, he got on a plane and flew to Florida and got his treatment and now he will live. That, I guess, is how Spain keeps its waiting list short. Just don’t every let them on the list in the first place.
That is why I don’t want gov’t run health care.
As for medicare - do you know why it is cheaper? Becuase the gov’t says we are only going to pay you X. End of debate - and that is one factor that increases the cost to all of the non-medicare payors. It is not a cost savings; it is a cost shifting.
The same is true of the cheaper drugs in Canada. The gov’t imposes a price so the companies shift the extra cost on to the US consumers. Canada has not saved any costs - they have shifted them to other payors (us).
The fact is in the areas where the gov’t and ins. companies are not that heavily the costs have just about matched inflation over the last 10-20 years - laser eye surgery and plastic surgery for example. You want lasik you cut a check. Consumer is buyer and prices are lower.
Another reason prices are high is that the gov’t tells providers what services they must offer. If you want to open a hospital you must provide cardiac care, etc. - even if the market has enough supply and you don’t want to. So to off set the cost of all of that equipment and those highly specialized docs. the cost of a routine procedure must go up.
I reciently read about a group of Docs in Illinois that started a cash business - no insurance and no gov’t payor patients. They are able to offer many procedures and services for about 60% of the comparable costs.
The idea that the market does not work for health care is wrong. The truth is that we refuse to let health care be controlled by the market. We have not had a true market in health care of over 50 years. Lets give it a chance!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2028 hrsEvery legislator who opposes Healthy Wisconsin should drop their state plan and act like the true red state libertarian conservatives they are and CHOOSE a private plan, since so many here think the PRIVATE Sector is so much better. Lead the way, right?
I challenge anybody here to find a private plan that beats Senator Lazichs’ plan. If “socialized medicine” is good enough for her, it’s good enough for all of us.
Put up or shut up.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2031 hrsKathleen Vinehout is an absolute fraud. Farmer, right. Health care professor, right. Has anyone taken a drive past her so called “farm”? She grows organic hay. Thats right. No cows, pigs, or chickens. How many farmers in Buffalo County do you think make a living growing organic hay? It’s a front, a fraud. And someone should check out why she left her professor’s job in Illinois. She is a disgrace to the people of the 31st Senate District. Come Clean Kathleen is the slogan Republicans should use in 2010 to put her miserable one term to bed. Then maybe she can use that 9,000 to buy health insurance she should have had when her son got sick. Walters, the reporter, is a lazy disgusting liberal who can’t write his way out of a paper bag. If Vinehout was a Republican, he or Bice would be having a field day with the height of this hypocracy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2045 hrsMarc,
What would be the cost of givng every Wisconsin resident the kind of plan legislators and teachers have? Compared to the cost estimates in the Senate plan?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2048 hrsWow…All these posts and still i can hear the Crickets when listening for Amy and Pals to tell us how they would help/solve the healthcare crisis!!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2118 hrsfok, look under other posts, people have come up with plans, but no matter what happens, it won’t be perfect. If we go to single payer plan, then the at least 210,000,000 people in the US who currently have insurance get screwed, especially union members. Try telling the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO telling them they can’t have their union bargained health insurance. Try telling the teacher’s that WEAC will be soon out of business. And what exactly will be covered? Will abortions be covered? How about breat implants and sex change operations? How about celebrity drug rehab? The liberals don’t like answering these questions because it will destrroy their utopia plans.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2007 at 2232 hrsBecause Ziegler wasn’t using her personal story as a justification to double my tax burden and foist government-run health care on me.
Hmmmmm… seems to me that Supreme Court decisions impact individual and societal costs and can have a very powerful redistributive effect on incomes.
Did I forget to mention that they can also impact everybody’s RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS?
As long as you want to whine about a 4 figure issue that seems like it is just about distracting us from the issue of cleaning up the mess in the provision of health care, how much did Ziegler have to pay in fines to settle some of her ethical lapses?
What Vinehout chose to do, good or bad, is her business.
Do you want me to believe that this issue is being decided on the experience of a freshman Legislator?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 0200 hrsAmy tpes:
“Why is it unreasonable to think that people should give up unecessary luxuries in order afford necessary things like housing, food, and insurance?”
There is a large group of people who are uninsurable who can’t buy insurance from any company at any price. Such people can go without cable television, going to the movies, an HD television, restaurant meals and they still can’t buy coverage at any price because no insurance company will touch them,
In short, Amy’s ‘personal responsibility” mantra is no solution.
This is just one of the reasons why there is so much societal pressure for a government solution. This situation could happen to any of you rah-rah free market Republicans. There are several groups of adults younger than Medicare for whom there is no free market solution.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 0609 hrsI wonder if the same people that are opposed to Universal Health Care are also opposed to public education and send there children to private schools?
Our vet program works and there is nothing saying that there won’t be doctors in private practice that richer people can still go to.
Someone above mentioned that doctors in Illinois are able to charge 60% less without taking in patients with insurance. I think the saving would be much greater if the system would be converted to universal care and people would no longer have to worry about losing everything they work hard for to the medical industry.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1145 hrsInstead of wondering, why don’t you ask?
Posted by Owen on July 28, 2007 at 1150 hrsAnon,
FYI, census data show that 29% of MPS teachers with children use private schools. As for their view on health insurance, they seem to like their system, with virtually no deductibles or co-pays and lifetime coverage
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1154 hrsThere was a study done about ten years ago, JJ and Torinus and I are working on finding it, about who actually are the uninsured or underinsured. It was well done. There are many categories but here are the main ones.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1206 hrs
1. Young professionals, that seldom get sick, are making a lot of money with a company. and have disabilty insurance plus savings and investments. They forgo insurnace and put the money into investments. They then pay cash for their medical help and can come out way ahead. I figured how much I had paid into insurance over the years, compunded the amount at 5% interest, subtracted the two major events that we had over the years and an amount for regular fees etc and over 40 years I would have over 500,000 left in the accoujnt. That is what our good senator was doing hoping to luck out. She still made money cause they saved about $30,000 in premiums and only had to pay out about $10,000. Don’t know what she is crabbing about but she obviously is a phoney.
2. Many small offices sign up for HSA’s and take a major medical with $10,000 or more deductible. I am talking about small dental, lawyer, restaurant, retail etc. They are considered undreunisured.
3. There are many religions that do not use standard medcial care.
4. In this country there are large numbers of itinerants, not homeless, but especially men that dirft around the country, picking up work here and there but living at very low level. They have no families or do not want to deal with families so they never get jobs, for long, with insurance. They use medical care occasionally as indigent and we pay for them through our fees already. They cost us very little so that will not change as they seldom have jobs at anytime and they might drift in here or out of here at any time.
So, the uninsured and underinsured are not destitute families or people out of work desperate for help. These people already have help with title 19 and other plans.
In this state we have about 6% of the people that fall into that category. So do we really want to change what is considered the best medical care in the world to a governemnt run program like Canada that has real problems. My daughter is an MD up there. Canada because of a major court decison is now slowly reverting to private insurance. Many Canadians already have private insurance for US in case of a big necessary problem that they might have to wait for six months to gt done up there.
How many people die in Canda waiting for work on their heart surgeries? big percentage. Do we want that?
Sign up for the leatest Wisconsin Conservtive Digest email newsletter on problems like this by going to widigest.com or sending an email to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). They are enlightening.Not a bite in post 35 above. To quote Gomer Pyle: “Surprise, Surprise!
Now for all you right-wing liberatian readers afraid of ‘Socialized Medicine”, let’s see what else is “socialized”.
Ever been to a Brewers game? Socialized sports franchise. Many are.
Fear the “bureaucratic nightmare of socialized medicine”? Apparently you’ve never been in the military, the bureaucratic temple of the world.
For a recent discuss on socialism for the wealthy, read an editorial from the tiny Tomah Jouirnal:
http://www.tomahjournal.com/articles/2007/07/20/opin ion/01edsocialized.txt
This might want you to cancel your season tickets if you’re a true, blue Kool-Aid drinker.
Or perhaps warn your parents living in Florida about more CREEPING SOCIALISM!!!
Make the leagcy of Robert Welch of the John Birch Society proud.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1242 hrsI doubt if many people even know waht the Birch society is anymore so it is hard to scare them. The Birch society interest was in combatting the commies. Guess what, the Birchers won.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1253 hrsThe Birchers won? The kooks that declared that Presdient Dwight Eisenhower was a red communist stooge?
The kooks who sent out a letter to members stating that Eisenhower was a “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy”. All because he supported civil right for Black Americans.
Imagine today if someone wrote the same about King George.
You must be very proud.
I stand by what I posted earlier: If it’s good enough for Lazich to latch on to her own version of “socialized medicine”, it should be good enough for everyone else.
If fans of this website have never heard of the John Birch Society I wonder who handed them a High School diploma.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1404 hrsahhhhh, the JBS, another Wisconsin tradition I once called my own.
that Eisenhower was a “conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy”. All because he supported civil right for Black Americans.
Perhaps half true. Eisenhower’s big mistake was in trying to pull the curtain back on the military-industrial complex. Civil rights just made for a nice overt attack issue during that time period.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1500 hrsI doubt if 5% of the populace knows who the John Birch Mociety members are and what they stood for.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1519 hrs
No matter how you spin it Communisim lost and the Birch Society was one of the leaders of the anticommunist movement. Maybe you should accuse everyone of McCarthyism, no one under 50 knows what that is
At present it is pretty much irrelevant, has been for years. don’t know what they stand for now and what they are doing.
At present I only know one members.marc, they don’t talk about the Birch Society in the H.S. I teach in.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1524 hrs
Probably the reason no one responded to your post is that it was a stupid post. So what if Lazich and all the other state politicians and state workers bargained for their insurance. In addition, and I have been out of state employment for awhile, but aren’t the state health insurtance plans run by private insurance companies? So it is not socialzed medicine.Dohnal, you make me laugh.
The JBS was the sperm that met an egg called Barry Goldwater and fertilized the modern right wing libertarian movement in this country. The resulting embryo turned into a baby that became a big fat bigot.
Too bad there wasn’t an abortion, but nevertheless, all rightwingers should be proud of this putrid offspring; it has face only a mother could love.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1533 hrsMarc, it is so easy to set you guys off and then you make yourself look foolish and destroy your credibiltiy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2007 at 1610 hrsMy divorced sister in law had to get health insurance that is now dropping her because she had test done to see if her ateries are clogged, which there not. She has been applying for others but is being turned downed.
She works for a large insurance agency that the owners decided to drop there group policy because he’s on the V.A. program and she is on medicare with a supplement. The employees are on their own. However, there group policy was $600. per month, $3,000 deductible and as she said didn’t cover anything. Hmmm, how many people can afford that?
She’s a die hard republican that is being converted because of the abuse of the system we have. She said that her doctor is sympathetic and gives her discounts when he can but that isn’t enough. She worries about losing everything because of this system.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2007 at 0858 hrs(Sarcastically to Anonymous)
Well, that’s just tough about your sister-in-law. As a “prolife rightwing god fearing liberkookian nutcase”, I ask you this, Anonymous: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?!?
It’s your sister-in-laws’ RESPONSIBILITY to take care of herself once she exits the WOMB! Don’t you read the Bible/Constitution? Your sister-in-law needs to make things right with G-D before she goes. She needs to start praying NOW!
And remember—the only minority worth protecting is—PRE-BORN BABIES!
I just bet your sister-in-law has turned into to one of those loosey-goosey, latte sipping, Volvo driving, baby killing, devil worhipping, gun-grabbing, queer loving, freedumb hating, EVILution devoting, DEMON-c-RAT voting, affirmative action promoting, trailer trash, tree-hugging, man-hating, bra-burning, human debris LIEberal feminazi McGovern lesbos.
So she deserves it.
Unless she repents.
If that is the case, your sister-in-law will be precious in His sight when she gets to the Pearly Gates.
Happy Sunday (with thanks to Lucianne.com, Miss Coulter, Rush Blimpo and Michael Savage, et al.)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2007 at 1139 hrsWHATEVER HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?!?
Care to apply that to the Iraqi government?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2007 at 1336 hrspir - are you saying that everyone has control over medical costs and insuarnce costs and decisions? Or, are you saying that our goverment provides freedom that requires everyone including the medical industry to be just and fair?
Certainly you’re not suggesting that people making less money or that are not provided health insurance from work are being irresponsible, are you? Or, are you just more responsible then everyone else?
This is a bi-partison problem requiring all people to act to get the problem under control. If you don’t think there is a problem you haven’t done your home work or you haven’t experienced it for yourself. Your house and savings might be the target someday but then it may be to late for you to do something about it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2007 at 0905 hrs
Total Entries: 15519
Total Comments: 86210
Total Trackbacks: 1036
Most Recent Entry: 07/03/2009 02:12 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 07/04/2009 01:28 am
Total Members: 631
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 44
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 07/04/2009 07:03 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Current Logged-in Members: Higby
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).