Oh no Niki -- Tsongas boots one on health care?

Clarity in Eldridge position (6.00 / 1)

Sounds like Eldridge took a good opportunity to draw a clear distinction. Friend who was there says Eldridge asked the audience "who here thinks the market will solve our health care crisis?" and no hands went up. His "labor and working families" platform calls for universal single-payer.

---

by: Cannoneo @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 16:34:04 PM CDT

Try to guess who said what (6.00 / 2)

Niki's position on health care is very troubling.  To illustrate this, try to guess who said the following:

(1) "We believe the private sector is the best delivery of health care."

(2) "We need to bring in the public sector, private sector and see what happens with the Massachusetts system."

(3) "It probably makes sense to hear from the private sector today, as well, since the delivery of health care is -- in the private sector is equally, if not greater part of people's -- the quality of medicine here in the country."

(4) "....We can get health insurance for all our citizens without raising taxes and without a government takeover. The old single-payer canard is gone."

The first and third quotes are from President George W. Bush (I'm sure #1 was easy given the great grammar), the fourth is from Mitt Romney, and the second one is from Niki Tsongas.

As is obvious from these quotes, Niki's position on health care is very similar to President Bush's.  It is almost identical.  When one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination to Congress is parroting George Bush, I think there is cause for concern.  Then again, I guess Niki's view is not surprising when you consider that her campaign chair is a major consultant to the hospital industry. 

Quote links:
http://www.washingto...

http://www.whitehous...

http://www.lowellsun...

---

by: Winston Smith @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 22:38:37 PM CDT

I wish I could say I was overreacting (5.00 / 1)

However, the health care issue has come up several times, and she is definitely not the progressive on this issue (or a couple others I really care about, like fair trade). She seems to have that neoliberal take on these things...rather like Hillary, actually, another candidate I cannot support. She seems to believe the market will settle everything out on health care, despite the evidence to the contrary. She was on the board of health insurance company Fallon, remember.

I will also go so far as to say there are other candidates in the race that are more well-versed on issues in general (not necessarily her fault; she's been in education not politics before this race) but I've been saying that she definitely needs to get more focused and specific and soon.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:10:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

BMG is Tsongas's blog? (0.00 / 0)

I was checking out her website.  Under the heading "Blog" i clicked on "more..." at the end of the teaser line, and guess where i was taken?.  Ahem.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 23:30:23 PM CDT

It's about like how... (0.00 / 0)

FireDogLake.com became Lamont's blog during the 2006 senatorial primary and general election.

I'm not in Tsongas's district, so I can't vote for or against her, but it is humorous--and annoying, and, quite frankly, quite boring--to note how certain blogs take on certain characteristics.

---

by: raj @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:22:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One more thing... (3.00 / 1)

...if Mrs. Tsongas's name was Mrs. Whoseewho, it is highly unlikely that anyone would be paying her any attention.  It is because of her (last) name that anyone is paying her attention.

---

by: raj @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:25:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The might not be such a good campaign strategy (5.00 / 1)

Based on this post!

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

exactly! (0.00 / 0)

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 16:39:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We don't have a true market based system in the US (0.00 / 0)

Medicaid and Medicare and the paperwork required to participate on the provider side, in those programs adds to the overall cost of healthcare.

The current tort laws add to the overall cost of healthcare, this is one of the biggest differences between our system and other systems.

Single payer isn't the answer, and I'm glad Ms. Tsongas sees that.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:22:10 AM CDT

Well, (0.00 / 0)

She'll be happy to know that the Republicans are with her on this one!

---

by: eury13 @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:06:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm as partisan as the next guy... (0.00 / 0)

but not everything breaks down in black and white distinctions like that.

The debate over healthcare delivery is far too complex to consider it as a battle between Democrats and. Republicans

---

by: middkid @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:04:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

Just pro-corporate and pro-equality, in my opinion.

It is a conflict of interest to let market forces determine the state of our health care system. Making money on health insurance means the bottom line has prevailed over fair health care. People are denied care for no other reason than because it's an expensive procedure and corporate policy is to deny 1/3 of the requests off hand. That sort of corner-cutting is fine when you are not playing with life or death or someone's health.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:13:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In fairness (0.00 / 0)

"The market" is not operating much in the U.S. health care system. That's yet another reason to criticize comments by people who try to defend our current system on the grounds that we have some commitment to "market-based" solutions.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:29:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Further on Tort law in the US and in Single Payer Countries (0.00 / 0)

Press Release from Towers Perrin, a consulting firm

Medical Malpractice Tort Costs Increase
Medical malpractice tort costs totaled $28.7 billion in 2004, up from $26.5 billion in 2003. Since 1975, medical malpractice costs have increased at an annual rate of 11.7% versus 9% for all other tort costs, according to Tillinghast.

"The growth rate for medical malpractice costs continues to lessen," Sutter said. "Some of the moderation may be attributable to various state tort reforms enacted during the past decade."

And in comparison to other countries.

The study also examined tort costs in several other industrialized nations and found that U.S. tort costs exceed other countries' by a sizeable margin, when measured as a ratio to economic output (measured by GDP). The U.S. had a 2.2% ratio of tort costs to GDP, compared with Germany (1.1%), Japan (0.8%) and the U.K. (0.7%). Aside from Italy (1.7%), the other countries examined in the study have tort costs comparable to historic levels observed in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s.

We are a nation of suers.  That dramatically increases our healthcare costs.  As malpractice cost is through the roof.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:54:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you for real? (6.00 / 2)

Nice George Bush talking points, but if malpractice costs were reduced they way that the Rebubs were suggesting, it would account for less than 1% of total costs. 

The problem with your numbers above is that total healthcare spending is well over 1,500 billion - making your point, well, silly.

Healthcare costs are high here for many reasons, and there ARE some problems with the tort system, but to claim that is any kind of significant reason for healthcare costs being high is a total red herring.

But it is an effective distraction from the real issue... you got me off the real subject! 

---

by: FactCheck @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:11:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Defensive medicine (5.00 / 1)

It's my impression that the fear of lawsuits causes US doctors to practice a lot more wasteful defensive medicine -- unnecessary tests, procedures, etc. I don't have numbers for that, but it sounds plausible from what I've heard from doctors. So the actual cost of the lawsuits might not be the total cost of our med-malpractice culture.

Now, is this the main reason why health care is so expensive, as EaBo suggests? Hard to believe, as you point out.

---
Blue Mass. Group
Call Scott Brown's office at (617) 565-3170, or (202) 224-4543 to support a cap on carbon emissions: 350ppm by 2050
My Twitter feed

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:16:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's just a cover. (6.00 / 1)

The "we are afraid of lawsuits" is just a cover for medical providers to schedule expensive tests.  Think about it, they get more money the more procedures they perform.  Do people really think the tests would not be scheduled if there was not the threat of a lawsuit?  Or better yet, are the medical providers who use this excuse saying the tests are unnecessary? 

Here is a more logical way of looking at the issue. The threat of lawsuits ensures that better care is provided.  If the threat was not there, who would police doctors who screw up?  Certainly not the AMA.  The amazing thing is that when legislation is proposed to limit lawsuits by people who are harmed by bad medical treatment, there never is a joint proposal to provide better oversight of the medical profession. 

Access to courts by people who have suffered harm through negligence should never be limited because an interest group is concerned that it affects their member's behavior.  Hopefully it does affect their member's behavior by making them less negligent. 

---

by: TheOpenSociety @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:33:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yikes! (0.00 / 0)

Look at this! US leads the world in number of plastic surgeries, nearly double the next highest nation.

And, we're fat.  The fattest of the fat.  But, when your country is so wealty, you can afford to engage in high risk behavior (like Ho-Ho's) and have the health system pull your fat from the fire (metaphorically speaking) to pay for lipitor (developed in the US) and stints (developed in the US) and portable dialysis machines (invented in the US).

And, although there are no stats to prove it, I bet our hospitals are more nicely appointed and decorated and no question that our doctors are the most highly paid in the world.

But, if we spent less would we live longer?  Probably not.  If we spent more? Same answer.

---

by: gary @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:38:36 AM CDT

Niki Who...Edward Moore.. (0.00 / 0)

Eddie McCormack asked Ted Kennedy durning their debate in the 60's something to the effect

-If your name was Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy would you still be a contender in this senatorial race?-

Somebody needs to ask Niki a similar question.

---

by: Skipper @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:23:45 AM CDT

"Your candidacy would be a joke" (0.00 / 0)

That quote can just as easily be applied to Niki's campaign.  McCormack's point about then 30-year old Ted Kennedy during his first Senate run in 1962 is indeed quite apt:

McCormack also pointedly told Kennedy that if his name were Edward Moore, rather than Edward Moore Kennedy, "your candidacy would be a joke."

If Niki's last name were anything but Tsongas, I wonder if those Globe puff pieces would be as free-flowing?  Her candidacy would certainly be a complete joke.

Good link re: the 1962 race
http://news.yahoo.co...

---

by: Winston Smith @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:43:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ya, but... (0.00 / 0)

...that comment totally backfired on McCormack (and he had a lot of gall, gien that he rode on the name of his uncle a fair amount).  If anyone tries to use that line against the widow, it will help her and destroy whoever says it. 

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:05:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, but that doesn't make it untrue (0.00 / 0)

I agree that if one of Niki's opponents called her candidacy "a joke" built solely on her last name, s/he would end up helping Niki.  But it is as clear as day that Niki's campaign would be nothing without the Tsongas name.  Does anyone believe she would have gotten all of the media attention she's garnered if her last name were something else?

We have to hope that the voters see through her campaign.  I don't think this is too difficult given her so-far Reilly-esque campaign of piling up establishment money and endorsements, that she just moved into the district from Charlestown, and her views on issues like health care.

In terms of 1962, I wasn't around for that race, but I figure it would have been pretty hard for anyone to beat Ted Kennedy, 30 years old or not, given that his brother was the President. 

---

by: Winston Smith @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:42:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tsongas is the new Reilly (0.00 / 0)

That's on the money.  And what's up with her Web site being empty?  Shouldn't she, you know, talk about issues?  All that money and establishment support still won't give voters a reason to send her to Washington.

Though if her health care stance is any indication, maybe she'd be better off keeping the site blank.

---

by: Newmstar @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 15:51:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BTW (0.00 / 0)

I picked the one comment because it was the one that so severely stuck in my mind and made it into my notes...I was astounded to hear that phrase.

I know I was a little harsh on Tsongas in my post, but the phrase "what planet is she on??" really summed up my feelings when hearing it.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:18:35 AM CDT

Not perfect but US Healthcare is good (0.00 / 0)

As many people from all over the world continue to come to the United States for healthcare, I am not ready to cede our healthcare system is broken.  Perhaps those other countries aren't spending enough?  For instance in Canada, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that denying access to private health insurance and care, at least in Quebec, is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Patrick Monahan, dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto and a well-known critic of the national health care system, was even more emphatic about the import of the decision. "They are going to have to change the fundamental design of the system," he said. "They will have to build in an element of timely care or otherwise allow the development of a private medical system."

The Canadian health care system provides free doctor's services that are paid for by taxes. The system has generally been strongly supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character. Canada is the only industrialized county that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services.

But in recent years patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either sought care in the United States or used influence to jump medical lines.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "life and personal security, inviolability and freedom" under the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.

"The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

I have personal experience with this system as my grandmother lives in New Brunswick, and she waits for treatments, and basic care.  Our system may not be perfect but it is effective. 

Are there changes that can be made.  Yes.  For starters, health insurance could be catastrophic only.  I'd gladly pay $100 to go to the doctor once a year or so, if I could pay $20 a week for insurance instead of $60 per week.  Health insurance forms on that providers need to fill out for reimbursement could be standardized.  Amongst other changes.

Also how much of our health care system spending is comprised of what foreigners spend coming here for treatment.  It may be small but every bit adds to the total amount.

---

by: EaBoClipper @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 17:21:24 PM CDT

Oh no Niki (0.00 / 0)

Health care can never be provided through a true market. The economist George Akerlof explained why many years ago. Basically, consumers cannot gather enough information to make free choices about what they purchase. Whether it's immunizations or bypass surgery, the fundamental requirements of a market cannot be met when decisions about health care are made. Anyone who doesn't understand this should not be offering opinions.

---

by: wbennett @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 20:29:38 PM CDT

MA-05 Health Care Forum (6.00 / 1)

Health Care looks like it is going to be a big issue in this race.  On Saturday, June 2 the M&W Democratic Coalition is hosting Health Care Forum in Hudson.  It's tentatively scheduled to run from 10 AM to Noon.  Watch this space for details. 

Kate

NOTE: I am a volunteer serving as Vice Chair of the Eldridge campaign, as well as being an officer in the M&W Democratic Coalition.

Kate Donaghue, volunteer.

---

by: Kate @ Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 20:50:53 PM CDT