Why don't all Americans deserve the same level of care as our military?

[bascule]

Jon Stewart vs. Bill Kristol is like oil meeting water. Stewart tore into this Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece, and the argument between them was pretty strange and interesting:

 

http://www.hulu.com/embed/ZkZpH6uXyKo0OPK8VqQA-Q/1085

 

Stewart was talking to Kristol about healthcare, and asked:

 

Stewart: "So you don't believe... no public option... so even though that's good enough for the military it's not good enough for the people of America"

 

Kristol: "Well the military has a different health system than the rest of Americans"

 

Stewart: "It's a public system, no?"

 

Kristol: "Yeah, they don't have an option, they're all in military healthcare."

 

Stewart: "Why don't we go with that then?"

 

Kristol: "I don't know... [confused incoherent blathering]"

 

The discussion continues... Kristol was caught between a desire not to insult the military healthcare system (which is a government-run single-payer healthcare system) and claiming it's first-class while trying to argue that the government wouldn't do a good job at running a healthcare system.

 

I think that's one of the best arguments for single-payer healthcare I've ever heard.

[Pangloss]

I think you may have it backwards in terms of who is a mouthpiece for whom.

 

What is the argument for putting all Americans on the "military plan"? Can you map it out for us? Why is it an argument for single-payer healthcare? Wouldn't that be more like socialized medicine?

[iNow]

Pangloss - I think you may be missing Bascule's larger point (as I saw the interview he referenced the night it aired).

 

The idea is that the conservatives keep saying how the government couldn't possibly run a health program which works.

The response was that they do a marvelous job with healthcare for our military.

When this was being discussed, Bill Kristal (conservative) stated that healthcare for our military is the best in the world.

 

In sum, by acknowledging that the government run healthcare for our military is perhaps the best available in the world he defeats his own argument that "the government couldn't possibly run a health program which worked."

 

It's an illustration of hypocrisy and weak argument. It also demonstrates that the government does just fine with running healthcare, and that the argument suggesting otherwise is specious and unfounded.

[Mokele]

Um, frankly, I'd rather go without any sort of health insurance or plan than deal with the abomination of military health care.

[CDarwin]

It's my understanding that the VA system has been pretty heavily privatized in the past few years. In fact, it's that privatization that contributed to such as the Walter Reed scandal. So, if military health care has anything to say in favor of a public option, I would say the lesson is indirect at best. Government > government contractors.

[Pangloss]

Ah okay, so it's not actually being suggested that we do health care like the military does it. That's cool, but I don't think the government does, or would do, "just fine" at running health care. I don't think that case has been made at all, there are numerous reasons to be wary given the military example, nor is anybody in Washington in favor of such a plan.

[swansont]

For active duty and dependents, you have access to military hospitals and a single-payer system for those not near a military hospital or otherwise requiring treatment not available at a military hospital. I think the VA system works out to be similar. That insurance system is currently tricare; it was something else when I was on active duty, years ago. So it's a hybrid between socialized medicine and single-payer.

 

I have a colleague who is retired military and he raves about tricare, and was upset that he had to leave it when he took a government job. Now that he's retired from the reserves, he's back on tricare and happy about it. FWIW.

[padren]

What Kristol seemed to be trying to say, yet failed in articulating (by my guess, I am not a mind reader) is:

 

1) We have great medical support for our veterans (not because we do, but because it's unpatriotic or counter talking-point to admit the contrary)

 

2) If we offer that amazing level of service to everyone and not just veterans the high per-capita costs (since government is so inefficient) would be unsustainable, but we can get away with it as long as it's just for "the proud few" that serve. His arguments that veterans deserve better healthcare than the rest of us seemed to be an attempt at articulating that.

 

 

It wasn't so much that Stewart caught him with a solid series of facts that support government run healthcare, but caught him up in the consistency of his talking points which only challenged the consistency of Kritol's claims. It looked like Kristol was caught off guard and, combined with that fellow's proclivity to make broad cavalier claims ("I don't think we deserve the same healthcare as veterans") when he doesn't know what to say, dug himself into a hole rather fast.

 

 

It was fun to watch, because I don't like Kristol or what he says, and really dislike the arguments against government involvement in healthcare as they seem (to date) to be mostly sound-bite scaremongering. It didn't really advance the argument other than to point out how quickly the talking points can fall apart when challenged even from within their own framework.

[iNow]

<I> really dislike the arguments against government involvement in healthcare as they seem (to date) to be mostly sound-bite scaremongering. It didn't really advance the argument other than to point out how quickly the talking points can fall apart when challenged even from within their own framework.

 

Bingo!

[The Bear's Key]

That's cool, but I don't think the government does, or would do, "just fine" at running health care.

True...government might not do "just fine" at running health care, but they can do just fine at providing access to it.

 

Something the private industry lacks.

 

But who's the guilty party responsible for the health crisis -- government, or private industry?

 

(If you said government, you'd be half correct. Because mostly one party is responsible for thwarting every attempt at universal care -- even when it allows for private industry to continue merrily)

[Pangloss]

It was fun to watch' date=' because I don't like Kristol or what he says, and really dislike the arguments against government involvement in healthcare as they seem (to date) to be mostly sound-bite scaremongering. It didn't really advance the argument other than to point out how quickly the talking points can fall apart when challenged even from within their own framework.[/quote']

 

Nor does that tell us that government health care CAN work.

 

That's one of the problems generated by this perpetuation of ideology-driven social discourse -- it creates an atmosphere in which people come to believe that they should do the opposite of what the people they dislike are telling them to do, because that must be the correct thing to do. As you say, the "socialized medicine" fear mongers don't advance the argument, neither reflecting the real concerns about government-run health care, nor analyzing objectively whether those concerns could be overcome. They are incapable of providing that analysis. They are ONLY capable of promoting their own agenda.

 

Just exactly like the left-wing socialized medicine advocates, e.g. Michael Moore. Now I don't include John Stewart in that bunch, but it's revealing that in his interview with Michael Moore in 2007 the questions were decidedly soft, empathetic and unanalytical.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-27-2007/michael-moore

 

So much for John Stewart the objective educator. Oh well.

[padren]

Nor does that tell us that government health care CAN work.

When worded like that it sounds a little abstract and philisophical - I'd take the side of the debate that says it can work, but it's not really on point, the question should be if the current proposals that include government involvement wouldwork.

 

However, I don't think that there was any discussion in that interview really to do with whether Obama's plan would work - it was merely critiquing Kristol's arguments against it, not claiming to state any case for it.

 

That's one of the problems generated by this perpetuation of ideology-driven social discourse -- it creates an atmosphere in which people come to believe that they should do the opposite of what the people they dislike are telling them to do, because that must be the correct thing to do.

I don't think anyone here is taking that from the interview, nor considers the shredding of Kristol's arguments against government aided healthcare as something that supports government aided healthcare.

People who decide what to think based on their existing ideology all across the political spectrum already are 'converted' and will view these sorts of interviews as affirmations one way or the other anyway. These sorts of interviews really don't help those people decide what they think of the issue, only decide what they think of the participants and their nefarious biases.

As you say, the "socialized medicine" fear mongers don't advance the argument, neither reflecting the real concerns about government-run health care, nor analyzing objectively whether those concerns could be overcome. They are incapable of providing that analysis. They are ONLY capable of promoting their own agenda.

That's the real tragedy. They bring these inane arguments up and promote them until they dominate the discussion, and all you can do is point out how inane they are. Even worse, no matter how many times you do that they just seem to repeat the same shtick - if they'd try to get into the real meat of Obama's plan then they could actually win some real points against it - but they are throwing that all away because fear mongering while wholly disingenuous can meet their desired ends more easily.

 

Just exactly like the left-wing socialized medicine advocates, e.g. Michael Moore. Now I don't include John Stewart in that bunch, but it's revealing that in his interview with Michael Moore in 2007 the questions were decidedly soft, empathetic and unanalytical.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-27-2007/michael-moore

 

So much for John Stewart the objective educator. Oh well.

 

I would have liked to see Jon be more confrontational, but Moore's view is actually really simplistic and idealistic: having people not covered is unethical, and even if aspects of our heathcare system suffered by being "Canadianized" it would be better than we have now overall.

But that's a very subjective opinion - based on Moore's idea of "better" and you can't really get a lot deeper. You could ask "really?" and he'd say "yeah" and - if you were really lucky, he may make some sort of Kristolesque statement so self contradictory that you could nail him on that. I haven't seen Sicko so I don't know if he glossed over some of Moore's poor assertions, though it wouldn't suprise me considering the 'quality' of Moore's work in later years.

[Pangloss]

I don't think anyone here is taking that from the interview, nor considers the shredding of Kristol's arguments against government aided healthcare as something that supports government aided healthcare.

 

Then they're making a mistake. Stewart is not an objective journalist digging for the truth. He's a comedic commentator in the progressive camp. This is an example of the subtle danger of posting John Stewart videos as if they are useful, critical, and/or productive socio-political commentary.

 

The fact that Stewart isn't a partisan ideologue doesn't mean he doesn't have an opinion on the subject, or that it doesn't influence his choices in interviews. Just like all commentators.

[Mokele]

This is an example of the subtle danger of posting John Stewart videos as if they are useful, critical, and/or productive socio-political commentary.

 

I disagree - I find he's more useful than any of the other talking heads, and can be quite insightful, in large part *because* he's a comedian and is unfettered by the strictures of journalism (such as referring to other journalists as 'douchebags').

[iNow]

None of it matters anyway. All of this talk about Jon Stewart and his qualities as a commentator have NOTHING to do with the subject of the thread.

 

Why don't all Americans deserve the same level of care as our military receives?

 

Why are all of the arguments against healthcare reform we continue to hear so premised on bullstink?

[Pangloss]

Which health care reform do you mean? The pie-in-the-sky socialized ideal which the example of "bullstink" posted in this thread addresses but which nobody in government is actually considering, or the insurance fraud posed as health care reform currently being considered by Congress?

 

I'll try to answer both of your questions, though:

 

- Nobody deserves something that is taken from another at the point of a gun. It's not a question of need, it's a question of benefit.

 

- As to why all health care does not reach the level the military receives, nothing aside from a couple of individual experiences has been placed in this thread to indicate that it doesn't.

 

- Not all arguments against all forms of health care reform are "bullstink". There are very real concerns.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Pangloss

[padren]

Then they're making a mistake.

Wait, what?

Which would be a mistake? I thought I was basically saying "you are right and that doesn't say anything about if a government plan CAN work" and also noting that I doubt anyone here would think it did.

 

 

Stewart is not an objective journalist digging for the truth. He's a comedic commentator in the progressive camp. This is an example of the subtle danger of posting John Stewart videos as if they are useful, critical, and/or productive socio-political commentary.

 

The fact that Stewart isn't a partisan ideologue doesn't mean he doesn't have an opinion on the subject, or that it doesn't influence his choices in interviews. Just like all commentators.

 

I agree on the first part, but disagree on the second. Any video should be evaluated on it's own merit and within the scope of it's relevance. Jon has a bias like all commentators but when it comes to "digging for the truth" he has an almost rabid obsession with ripping apart demagoguery and hypocrisy from the right and left and ridiculing it as part of his comedy show.

 

While I think journalistic integrity is an issue that matters a lot to him, he admits himself he does not consider himself a journalist by any stretch - he has no need to show "both sides" of an issue or anything else like that, he just finds things that he thinks will get a laugh by mocking the doublethink and demagoguery in public figures and especially journalists.

 

 

 

Re the OP, I personally disagree with Bascule on this video having an argument, let alone 'one of the best' ones, in favor of a single payer system. All I saw was Kristol's arguments against a single payer system going up in flames, and his complete failure to regroup.

 

The issues completely untouched in that interview are:

 

1) what is the per-capita cost to provide this to veterans, and could we even afford extending that to every US citizen? Is it more or less costly than the system we have now?

 

2) Is it really that good? Kristol may say it's the best in the world, but he isn't exactly known for having an exemplary command of the facts at hand.

 

3) Are the current per-capita costs reduced in part due to benefits that are derived from being embedded in a privately run healthcare industry? Are the costs of procedures reduced in a manner through competition and advancement of techniques that would suffer without the free market medical industry running along side it?

 

If we could answer those three questions, then we could seriously consider this an argument in favor of a single payer system or not.

[iNow]

- Nobody deserves something that is taken from another at the point of a gun.

When did anyone mention guns? Talk about scare-mongering.

 

It's not a question of need, it's a question of benefit.

This is not some objective truth. It is merely a subjective interpretation.

 

 

- As to why all health care does not reach the level the military receives, nothing aside from a couple of individual experiences has been placed in this thread to indicate that it doesn't.

The response to this point is quite simple. The difference is that the government pays for military healthcare. That's the difference. Further, it's illustrative of the FACT that the military healthcare which is government run is a good program and shows how the government is fully capable of providing a healthcare system which works admirably.

 

 

- Not all arguments against all forms of health care reform are "bullstink".

When did anyone suggest that ALL arguments against ALL forms of health care reform are "bullstink?" My point is that the ones currently being put forth are, not that it's impossible to make a good argument.

 

Please, recognize this difference. It will help us to avoid further misunderstanding if you don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

There are very real concerns.

Agreed. However, they're not getting a lot of air time... what... with all of the "government wants to murder our senior citizens" and "the government can't do ANYTHING right" rhetoric flying around.

[Mokele]

- Nobody deserves something that is taken from another at the point of a gun. It's not a question of need, it's a question of benefit.

 

So people don't *need* to be alive? Because last time I checked, healthcare was pretty much essential to the whole "not dying" thing. And we're not just talking about emergency care, but things like regular cancer screenings. The result is over 20,000 deaths per year. Did those people not *need* to be alive?

[tomgwyther]

Hello all, admitedly I've joined in this threat rather late. Having read all the back-and-forth debating something caught my eye.

 

"1) what is the per-capita cost to provide this to veterans, and could we even afford extending that to every US citizen? Is it more or less costly than the system we have now?"

 

If the US government is capable of providing healthcare to a large body of people - i.e the U.S military - then, as the OP suggests, could it not be rolled out to include the entire U.S population?

 

I don't have the statistics to hand right now but it's a fair guess to assume that persons involved in active military service are likely to have higher health costs than civilians.

Given that the U.S government is able to pay for and administer health care to 'high risk' military personnel, then it must be possible to administer and pay for the larger population.

Some one working in an office must be at lower risk of injury or illness than someone who is or has been on the front line.

Therefore the per capita cost for the whole U.S population - military or otherwise - would be less than it is for military personnel alone.

 

 

p.s. In my honest opinion: The idea that every man, woman and child should not receive health care from cradle to grave, regardless of their social-economic background, from the state to which they pay tax, especially in a developed western country, seems to me to be alien, uncongenial, and to be frank, unintelligible.

[padren]

If the US government is capable of providing healthcare to a large body of people - i.e the U.S military - then, as the OP suggests, could it not be rolled out to include the entire U.S population?

 

I don't have the statistics to hand right now but it's a fair guess to assume that persons involved in active military service are likely to have higher health costs than civilians.

Given that the U.S government is able to pay for and administer health care to 'high risk' military personnel, then it must be possible to administer and pay for the larger population.

Some one working in an office must be at lower risk of injury or illness than someone who is or has been on the front line.

Therefore the per capita cost for the whole U.S population - military or otherwise - would be less than it is for military personnel alone.

 

You can't really make those assertions solidly based on the available information. It's not necessarily true that active service personnel are likely to have on average higher healthcare costs - that all depends on the casualty rates and must be offset by the fact that a lot of people cannot join the military because they can't pass the physical or have medical complications - the armed forces are comprised of probably some of the fittest and healthiest people in America.

 

I have no idea which offsets the other in terms of costs, but it's also beside the point - if the government can pay for 'high risk' recipients, it gives no indication to how much they are paying for these people - for all I know, these people may have costs that are three times higher than the civilian population on average, yet the government could be paying 300 times on each one what civilians pay for themselves. I am not saying there is evidence to that effect - just that we don't have any numbers to evaluate right now, and would need the hard stats to truly work this out.

 

Plus, we need to know the actual quality of service they get.

[tomgwyther]

You have a point.

I failed to take into consideration those who are unfit for military service and considered the U.S population as one homogeneous soup.

Under my original assumption, one could extrapolate that a diabetic 90 year old grandma would be fighting the Taliban with an M16!

These are clearly two different demographic groups.

 

Although I still think that the U.S must surely have the ability to follow Europe in providing some kind of socialized health care system for its citizens.

We understand that it can logistically do this; financially it can't be too far away, if it can bail out banks and pay for foreign conflicts etc.

[padren]

So people don't *need* to be alive? Because last time I checked, healthcare was pretty much essential to the whole "not dying" thing. And we're not just talking about emergency care, but things like regular cancer screenings. The result is over 20,000 deaths per year. Did those people not *need* to be alive?

 

If it was as black and white as "everyone gets sick from a plague and one person patents the cure, but limits supply to make a profit" we all know that person would have the formula taken from him at gunpoint. No one would look their dying child in the eye and say "It's the free market honey, his patent won't expire for a long time, and by then he'll have enough money to get politicians to change patent laws so, we have to die so the free market may live unfettered, it's our duty."

At that moment you cease to believe in your society's benevolent laws and demand by force if necessary what you need to live.

 

 

When someone's coverage is pulled due to a legal loophole and they are left to die - all of us who are not dropped benefit from that by having lower cost premiums. That person who is left to die has every right* to put that gun to our heads - we are complicit and benefiting from a system that cheated him out of (without drastic action on his part) his life.

 

Who would be expected to honor the social contracts that binds us all together as a society under such conditions? You can't say "it's not our fault he got sick and afford the cure" because we support the very system that renders those costs so unaffordable, and the insurance companies to legally drop coverage under exceptionally suspicious circumstances that would not be tolerated in other nations where the insurance industry isn't allowed to gain such a powerful lobby.

 

Society exists as a result of mutual trust, and while we all feel "cheated" by the corrupt in some fashion, we still feel the benefits outweigh the costs.... that is until you are about to be cheated out of your life - at that moment everyone complicit and benefiting from your being cheated is fair game and that's only natural.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Although I still think that the U.S must surely have the ability to follow Europe in providing some kind of socialized health care system for its citizens.

We understand that it can logistically do this; financially it can't be too far away, if it can bail out banks and pay for foreign conflicts etc.

 

I entirely agree, I was only saying that the model we use for our military while being government run may not be a fit enough model to simply expand to all citizens - not that there isn't a model out there that could.

[The Bear's Key]

Although I still think that the U.S must surely have the ability to follow Europe in providing some kind of socialized health care system for its citizens.

We understand that it can logistically do this; financially it can't be too far away, if it can bail out banks and pay for foreign conflicts etc.

I'm wondering something. How aware are Europeans of the U.S. conservative* attacks on them (and on Canada) for being enterprise-hating socialist liberals? Do you know it's a regular (and politically strategic) occurence?

 

Well I'll forward you a couple of vids and/or radio-play of such typical media, listened to by millions in the U.S. continually, and you might glimpse some of the reasons we lack universal health.

 

The root of the problem might be none of what you mentioned. Those attackers likely don't care if a real solution pops up -- and so they'd attempt to destroy it.

 

 

*pundits mostly

[Pangloss]

Wait, what?

Which would be a mistake? I thought I was basically saying "you are right and that doesn't say anything about if a government plan CAN work" and also noting that I doubt anyone here would think it did.

 

Pardon me, I misunderstood. But I think if you look back at the thread (or read below) you'll find a few folks who think it would. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

 

Jon has a bias like all commentators but when it comes to "digging for the truth" he has an almost rabid obsession with ripping apart demagoguery and hypocrisy from the right and left and ridiculing it as part of his comedy show.

 

I think you give him too much credit. In my opinion reporting bias and a rabid obsession for digging for the truth are mutually contradictory things. Opinion bias is another matter -- you can have that and still seek the truth, but not reporting bias. I believe that Stewart has the latter.

 

But I like him too.

 

 

While I think journalistic integrity is an issue that matters a lot to him, he admits himself he does not consider himself a journalist by any stretch - he has no need to show "both sides" of an issue or anything else like that, he just finds things that he thinks will get a laugh by mocking the doublethink and demagoguery in public figures and especially journalists.

 

I agree. But that's also why his "analysis" regarding the issues is suspect and ultimately of very little value. They don't give us any real insight into either the problems or the solutions.

 

 

The issues completely untouched in that interview are:

 

1) what is the per-capita cost to provide this to veterans, and could we even afford extending that to every US citizen? Is it more or less costly than the system we have now?

 

2) Is it really that good? Kristol may say it's the best in the world, but he isn't exactly known for having an exemplary command of the facts at hand.

 

3) Are the current per-capita costs reduced in part due to benefits that are derived from being embedded in a privately run healthcare industry? Are the costs of procedures reduced in a manner through competition and advancement of techniques that would suffer without the free market medical industry running along side it?

 

If we could answer those three questions, then we could seriously consider this an argument in favor of a single payer system or not.

 

Good analysis.

 

 

When did anyone mention guns?

 

I'm only allowed to respond to points others raise? I can't bring up other related points in a thread? How is that fair?

 

 

Talk about scare-mongering.

 

No, it's my opinion. There is a difference. I have no interest in convincing anybody that my opinion is correct and that they should chuck their own in favor of mine. Never have, never will.

 

 

It's not a question of need' date=' it's a question of benefit. [/quote'']This is not some objective truth. It is merely a subjective interpretation.

 

Absolutely. I actually welcome the fact that you and many others feel that the needs of some outweigh the rights of others. I'm not being sarcastic, either -- I value that opinion. It's not just a matter of opposing sides lighting my preferred central path, either. It's a matter of having a variety of values and moral choices that combine to make up the national will. But I'll leave that for another discussion.

 

 

The response to this point is quite simple. The difference is that the government pays for military healthcare. That's the difference. Further, it's illustrative of the FACT that the military healthcare which is government run is a good program and shows how the government is fully capable of providing a healthcare system which works admirably.

 

So people have said, but nothing has been put forth to back it up. I have no idea -- perhaps military health care is a good target. But I haven't seen anything substantive and objective that indicates that it is. In fact aside from two opinion videos no links have been placed in this thread at all. (Though we do have swansont's interesting 2nd-hand opinion, and I believe one other.)

 

 

When did anyone suggest that ALL arguments against ALL forms of health care reform are "bullstink?" My point is that the ones currently being put forth are, not that it's impossible to make a good argument.

 

Great, I am glad we agree.