Save the insurance executives

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from FOD Team, Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, Thomas Lennon, Donald Faison, Linda Cardellini, Masi Oka, Ben Garant, Jordana Spiro, lauren, Drew, and chad_carter - Video

Oh goody, more MoveOn.org video. :roll:

Brilliant!

please.....

I think the main problem with the video is that it appears to make the assumption that none of the problems it cites can be remedied without a "public option." Not only can they be fixed without it, a "public option" doesn't even address any of those problems.

The next problem is I don't believe them that 80% of the public wants the public option.

Typical MoveOn.org.

I think the main problem with the video is that it appears to make the assumption that none of the problems it cites can be remedied without a "public option." Not only can they be fixed without it, a "public option" doesn't even address any of those problems.

The next problem is I don't believe them that 80% of the public wants the public option.

Typical MoveOn.org.

I believe it's called satire.

You can't complain about healthcare reform if you're not willing to reform your own health.

You know, I'm glad all those 'teabaggers' marched on Washington last week, because, judging from the photos, it's the first exercise they've gotten in years. Not counting, of course, all the Rascal scooters there, most of which aren't even for the disabled. They're just Americans who turned 60 and said, "Aw, f*ck it, I'm done walking."

These people are furious at the high cost of healthcare so they blame illegals who don't even get healthcare. Newsflash, Glenn Beck fans: the reason healthcare is so expensive is because you're so unhealthy.

Okay, now -- and not just Glenn Beck fans -- but, it was fun this week to watch the 'teabaggers' complain how the media underestimated the size of their march. "How can you say there are only 60,000 of us? We filled the entire mall!" Yes, because you're fat. One whale fills the tank at SeaWorld. That doesn't make it a crowd.

Now, President Obama has identified most of the problems with the healthcare system, but there's one tiny issue he refuses to tackle. And that's our actual health. And since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick -- like we do with cigarettes, and like we do with alcohol. And alcohol actually serves a useful function in society, in that it enables unattractive people to get laid, which is certainly more than I can say for Skittles.

Now, I'm not saying we tax all soda, but certainly any single serving of soda larger than a baby. If you don't know whether you burp it or it burps you, that's too big.

We need to make taking care of ourselves an issue of patriotism. And if you are someone who condemned Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror, sorry, but the same must be said for Obama and healthcare.

The president has already made it clear, there'll be no "sin tax" on food on his watch. And at a time when it's important to set new standards for personal responsibility, he appointed a surgeon general who is -- I'm sorry -- fat. Certainly too heavy to be a surgeon general. You know, it's a role model thing. It would be like appointing a Secretary of the Treasury who didn't pay his taxes. Oh, he did? He did. My bad.

And get this: our new surgeon general, Regina Benjamin, had previously been a nutritional advisor to Burger King. Which sells something called an "Angry Whopper Triple" that has 1,300 calories and 91 grams of fat. The only advice a health expert should give Burger King is to stop selling food.

The nutritional advisor job was described as-- get this -- "promoting balanced diets and active lifestyle choices." And who better to do that than the folks who hand you meat and corn syrup through a car window?

You know, when you have a surgeon general who comes from Burger King, it's a message to lobbyists. And that message is: "Have it your way."

HBO: Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules: September 18, 2009

Fatburgr | Nutrition information from your favorite restaurants! true and funny. obama smokes and eats at 5 guys, but last i checked he looks healthy.

I think the main problem with the video is that it appears to make the assumption that none of the problems it cites can be remedied without a "public option." Not only can they be fixed without it, a "public option" doesn't even address any of those problems.

The next problem is I don't believe them that 80% of the public wants the public option.

Typical MoveOn.org.

The problem with your post is that you assume that companies seeking profit are going to do something other than try to maximize profit.

The problem with your post is that you assume that companies seeking profit are going to do something other than try to maximize profit.

I did no such thing.

To me, it almost seems like the "public option" is a way of placating the liberals and poor people without addressing the real problem. The real problem is about 40% of our health care dollars does not go to "health care". We are the only country in the world that has a profit driven health care system and it's ranked 37th in the world. There's something truly immoral about that.

To me, it almost seems like the "public option" is a way of placating the liberals and poor people without addressing the real problem. The real problem is about 40% of our health care dollars does not go to "health care". We are the only country in the world that has a profit driven health care system and it's ranked 37th in the world. There's something truly immoral about that.

you need not be poor or liberal to lose your health care and be shut out by preexisting conditions...it is criminal that most bankruptcy actions involve medical debt.

When I was 8 years old I asked my father why people didn?t just give things (that I wanted) away. He told me that if they did, nobody would work and there wouldn?t be any things to give away. I thought about that and understood that he was correct. It?s a lesson every capitalist innately understands.

It may sound morally reprehensible to some that our health care system is driven by profit. To me it sounds like the only way to assure continued health treatment innovations that benefit everyone. It would be worse than just a shame to stifle innovation by discouraging competition and profit.

When I was 8 years old I asked my father why people didn?t just give things (that I wanted) away. He told me that if they did, nobody would work and there wouldn?t be any things to give away. I thought about that and understood that he was correct. It?s a lesson every capitalist innately understands.

It may sound morally reprehensible to some that our health care system is driven by profit. To me it sounds like the only way to assure continued health treatment innovations that benefit everyone. It would be worse than just a shame to stifle innovation by discouraging competition and profit.

I agree Winnie - Here is a good article that explains "Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains" Take note of profit numbers for health insurers vs. other industries.

Why Health Insurers Make Lousy Villains - Rick Newman (usnews.com)

"As always with these spot-the-celebrity political spots, it?s boring and three times longer than it needs to be simply in order to accommodate everyone involved with sufficient camera time. Not one in 10 of you will make it all the way through, but as an incentive to get you to try, you?ll discover that (a) apparently 80 percent of America is gung ho for the public option, which is news to me and to the dozens of Blue Dogs terrified of what?ll happen to them next year if they vote for this sinkhole, and (b) people who make millions churning out one unwatchable piece of bilge after another inexplicably feel no shame in accusing insurance executives of being overpaid. Here?s Will Farrell?s pay from a few of his movies, courtesy of IMDB:

Salary
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006): $20,000,000
Bewitched (2005): $20,000,000
Kicking & Screaming (2005): $20,000,000
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004): $7,000,000

No one who pocketed $20 million for any movie, let alone Bewitched and Talladega Nights, has any room to talk about overpaid execs."
Hot Air ? Blog Archive ? Video: And now, an important message from celebrities on ObamaCare

When I was 8 years old I asked my father why people didn?t just give things (that I wanted) away. He told me that if they did, nobody would work and there wouldn?t be any things to give away. I thought about that and understood that he was correct. It?s a lesson every capitalist innately understands.

It may sound morally reprehensible to some that our health care system is driven by profit. To me it sounds like the only way to assure continued health treatment innovations that benefit everyone. It would be worse than just a shame to stifle innovation by discouraging competition and profit.

That concept doesn't make sense. If everything were given away no one would produce anything? That would mean that there was nothing to give away.

The only thing health insurance companies have innovated is complex billing practices rivaled only by the IRS, pre-existing conditions, and denial of contractually obligated services. No health insurance company on the planet can claim a cure, procedure, or medical break through. Perhaps you are confusing health insurance companies with drug companies?

"As always with these spot-the-celebrity political spots, it?s boring and three times longer than it needs to be simply in order to accommodate everyone involved with sufficient camera time. Not one in 10 of you will make it all the way through, but as an incentive to get you to try, you?ll discover that (a) apparently 80 percent of America is gung ho for the public option, which is news to me and to the dozens of Blue Dogs terrified of what?ll happen to them next year if they vote for this sinkhole, and (b) people who make millions churning out one unwatchable piece of bilge after another inexplicably feel no shame in accusing insurance executives of being overpaid. Here?s Will Farrell?s pay from a few of his movies, courtesy of IMDB:

Salary
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006): $20,000,000
Bewitched (2005): $20,000,000
Kicking & Screaming (2005): $20,000,000
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004): $7,000,000

No one who pocketed $20 million for any movie, let alone Bewitched and Talladega Nights, has any room to talk about overpaid execs."
Hot Air ? Blog Archive ? Video: And now, an important message from celebrities on ObamaCare

Why not? There is no correlation between movie stars and health insurance executives. Denial of access to a movie won't end your life or cause you irreparable harm.

That concept doesn't make sense. If everything were given away no one would produce anything? That would mean that there was nothing to give away.

It does make sense.

The only thing health insurance companies have innovated is complex billing practices rivaled only by the IRS, pre-existing conditions, and denial of contractually obligated services. No health insurance company on the planet can claim a cure, procedure, or medical break through. Perhaps you are confusing health insurance companies with drug companie?

My contention is that our current profit driven health care system is responsible for most innovations in health treatments.

It does make sense.



My contention is that our current profit driven health care system is responsible for most innovations in health treatments.

I admit this is not my field but isn't it true private companies don't do basic research? They do research on the production of drugs with great profit potential. The basic research is done by government and academic scientists funded through federal grants.

I admit this is not my field but isn't it true private companies don't do basic research? They do research on the production of drugs with great profit potential. The basic research is done by government and academic scientists funded through federal grants.

I looked it up on Wikipedia for you:

In the United States, the most recent data from 2003[1] suggest that about 94 billion dollars were provided for biomedical research in the United States. The National Institutes of Health and pharmaceutical companies collectively contribute 26.4 billion dollars and 27.0 billion dollars, respectively, which constitute 28% and 29% of the total, respectively. Other significant contributors include biotechnology companies (17.9 billion dollars, 19% of total), medical device companies (9.2 billion dollars, 10% of total), other federal sources, and state and local governments. Foundations and charities, led by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, contributed about 3% of the funding.

So yes, it appears ~28% federal funding.

It does make sense.



My contention is that our current profit driven health care system is responsible for most innovations in health treatments.

Again you're lumping health insurance in with drug companies and medical professionals.

Most health care break throughs come from experimental procedures. Guess what 99% of health insurance companies do not cover? If anything they are great at stifling advances since they aren't willing to take the "gamble" on experimental treatments.

Again you're lumping health insurance in with drug companies and medical professionals.

Most health care break throughs come from experimental procedures. Guess what 99% of health insurance companies do not cover? If anything they are great at stifling advances since they aren't willing to take the "gamble" on experimental treatments.

Of course I am lumping health insurance in with drug companies and medical professionals. I lump in hospitals, ambulance services, and clinics as well. That is our health care system.

What do you think constitutes our "health care system?"

Of course I am lumping health insurance in with drug companies and medical professionals. I lump in hospitals, ambulance services, and clinics as well. That is our health care system.

What do you think constitutes our "health care system?"

My point is that the current issue is health care coverage. Emergency rooms already have to take anyone that comes through the door, ambulances have to pick you up regardless of insurance. Why are you muddying the waters by acting as though the changes to the insurance industry would affect anyone other than the insurance companies?

I looked it up on Wikipedia for you:



So yes, it appears ~28% federal funding.

Great response except you left something out. What percentage of private funding was for basic scientific research as opposed to profit oriented research? This was the point of my post.

Great response except you left something out. What percentage of private funding was for basic scientific research as opposed to profit oriented research? This was the point of my post.

Guess you'll have to look it up yourself.

My point is that the current issue is health care coverage. Emergency rooms already have to take anyone that comes through the door, ambulances have to pick you up regardless of insurance. Why are you muddying the waters by acting as though the changes to the insurance industry would affect anyone other than the insurance companies?

I'm not "muddying the waters." If we get a public option it will lead to a single-payer system. That is according to Barney Frank among many other prominent Democrats. When the Federal Government is the only insurance provider available, it will affect the entire health care system. No mud.

I'm not "muddying the waters." If we get a public option it will lead to a single-payer system. That is according to Barney Frank among many other prominent Democrats. When the Federal Government is the only insurance provider available, it will affect the entire health care system. No mud.

Okay it will affect it (no argument there), but your still not saying how it will affect it negatively, just that it will be bad.