Charlie Rose

tartufe  06/22/2009 10:50 AM Report

The first thing we do, we kill all the lobbyists.

timj  06/21/2009 04:59 PM Report

22,000 Americans die every year because they lack affordable health care. Two out of every three bankruptcies are caused by health care. The health care industry currently has a lock on our political system. (Max Baucus gets most of his money from the industry, Chris Dodd's wife is on the board of a health insurance company and the list goes on) SINGLE PAYER is the only option to fixing this system. Single payer would deliver better care for less money. It would work just like medicare. Citizens would still be able to choose their doctor and hospital. The only difference would be that it would cost a lot less and EVERYONE would be covered. The majority of doctors, nurses and 65% of the public at large supports single payer according to polls. The only people who do not support it is the industry and the politicians who are bought out. It is interesting that Ronald Williams said he was "scared" of single payer. I'm sure he is, because the day that we go to that system is the day that we cut out billions of dollars of waste (and profit for Big Health Care). Charlie, please do a show with someone like Robert Reich who can put the facts on the table about Single Payer Health Care. For anyone who is interested check out www.singlepayeraction.org

tartufe  06/20/2009 02:20 PM Report

Obama's too young and too susceptible to big-money oligarchs (a la M-I, Financial, Big Pharma, Ins.) to achieve meaningful health care.

He's much more insidious than his perception. His eloquence glosses over his lack of steel in his spine. Indeed his misused or unused talents magnifies his omissions. Even liberals are 'getting' it.

hpicot  06/19/2009 01:49 AM Report

2000 2003

Rank Country Cost per citizen

1 France $3,048 (less than half)

2 Italy $2,314 (just over one third)

9 Austria $2,948 (less than half)

10 Japan $2,249 (one third)

11 Norway $3,269

16 Luxembourg $4,461

17 Netherlands $2,909

18 United Kingdom $2,317 (just over one third)

19 Ireland $2,455

.....

37 USA $6,711 #1 in costs. Yeah!

39 Cuba $220

Think of it this way, you bought a car ranked 37th in quality, and paid $67,110 when you could have got the car rated first for $30,480. Would you be feeling stupid?

Would you be mad at the guy in congress that picked out that car for you, because the guy that makes them pays for his campaign? Sure you would.

Christopher  06/18/2009 02:25 AM Report

These guys are so full of shit. We are at this point because the private sector has consistently impeded universal coverage. There are nervousbecause there is popular pressure on the president and Congress. Single payer all the way. A useless interview. The corporate point of view has been presented ad nauseum.

Deborah  06/17/2009 04:35 PM Report

In five years, Ronald Williams has earned 77.86 million dollars as the CEO of Aetna. This is wealth beyond the comprehension of the vast majority (99%) of Americans. It is a particularly obscene amount of money when you consider the fifty million Americans without insurance and the millions more without adequate coverage. Frankly, it is indefensible and immoral.

The highly profitable private health insurance industry maximizes profits by denying care to the insured and by excluding those who need care the most. In addition to the astronomical cost of premiums, the coverage includes high deductibles and co-pays that most Americans can’t afford to pay when they get sick.

The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that has a profit driven health care system. The most economically efficient approach is to eliminate for profit private insurance and replace it with a national nonprofit insurance. This approach significantly lowers costs by eliminating wasteful administrative paper pushing, spreading the risk to a large pool, and giving the American people bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies.

The majority of Americans want a public nonprofit insurance option. I hope you invite guests to discuss this side of the health care debate.

REMant  06/17/2009 12:44 PM Report

Wyden seems to be more Republican than Democrat so it is not surprising that his bill has bipartisan support. He is I see a Palo Alto native and Stanford grad, so I suess it shouldn't be surprising. His plan would require the uninsured (except conscientious objectors) to buy health insurance, which would be subsidized by the govt. This plan was floated in 2007 without gaining any traction. I don't see this as doing anything to control costs, nor as an effective way to deliver welfare. The admin plan creates an insurance co to compete with private insurers, with the idea that it will trim costs, but I don't really see it doing much either, unless it is somehow able to get into a monopoly position, which can't see happening, altho I think that is what is intended - what is often termed a "camel's nose" strategy. Rather, I think, it, like Wyden's plan, will create another medicaid-type program, and legitimize the devolution of healthcare into a two-tiered system. In order for healthcare reform to work everyone must participate, there must be a budget capping overall costs, and there must be competition, not for profit, but for efficiency. This is the case in places like Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and particularly, Japan. Assuming that there is no shortage of doctors and nurses due to a brain drain, or the nation is simply too poor, IMHO the reason for longer waiting times for some procedures is because not everyone participates and/or because taxation is not sufficiently equitable. What ultimately controls costs is income and wealth equality. Without it you can't do it, even with budgetary controls and 100% participation, and with it you really do not need govt control and only insurance for major illness. A system of treatment evaluation and regulation is also not likely to work and would not be as effective as the simple mkt mechanism in the proper environment. Like the various proposals to improve the financial situation, these healthcare reforms begin at the wrong end. But as with other economic problems, individual countries can expect to have difficulty controlling costs when others do not.