DNC chief's message is decidedly old


Return To Article
  • Alfred SLC, Utah
    June 2, 2011 9:54 p.m.

    @lost in DC: "She would completely ignore the fact that the dems were doing NOTHING about the problem..."

    You got that right. The Dems couldn't even pass a 2011 budget. They decided to politicize it by making Republicans come up with the hard choices so they could stand by and criticize.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 2, 2011 6:18 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife | 3:39 p.m. " your position is flawed because the government didn't help failing banks, they pushed weak banks over the edge so that their cronies could take them over.

    Please name some of the so called credible economists.

    You realize that if it wasn't for the government that the banks would not have become so big that they were deemed " too big to fail."

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 2, 2011 6:01 p.m.

    Re:Danish American
    I know at least 2 healthcare providers which find it much easier to deal with Medicare than private insurers.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 2, 2011 3:39 p.m.

    redshirt, haven't studied Norberg in detail but have purused him and don't agree with his classic economic views out of the gate. Your example of what happened to banks is flawed because of your implied position that not helping the failing banks (a classical position) would have been the prudent thing to do, and simply would have thinned out the herd, allowing healthy banks to survive. I, and nearly all credible economists believe inaction would not have thinned the herd but would have destroyed the world economy.

    Banks through government inaction had truly become too big to fail. While the bank bailout was clumsy it in no way exacerbated the wealth inequality that had transpired over the past thirty years, it simply preserved it.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 2, 2011 3:32 p.m.

    To RedShirt: What you say is laughable. Capitalism is alive and well, in this country as never before. In fact we got so drunk and greedy about our rapid creation of wealth, with such little controls and oversight, we tripped over ourselves and caused the collapse in 2008. A socialized program for healthcare is no threat to capitalism, no more than adding resources to our education system. where do you think much of our medical advances came from? You guessed it, from government funded research. So shouldnt we all benefit from it?

    By the way the book by Johan Norberg has more to do with "Free Trade" agreements and less about capitalism. In other words it was about government policies between countries.

  • Danish American Payson, UT
    June 2, 2011 3:30 p.m.

    Just one question: Has anyone every dealt with an efficient government agency?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 2, 2011 1:38 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker | 1:12 p.m. " where is your proof. "You pulled the figures out of your head."

    Does it matter if the they insure the most expensive demographic or not? The fact is that that Medicare denies more claims than private insurance companies do. Basically, the government doesn't want to pay.

    As for the overhead, if you can't do the math, that is sad.

    Although, it is great to see that you don't let pesky facts or math get in the way of you views.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 2, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife | 11:35 a.m." go and read "In Defense of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. It explains how it is governments not allowing capitalism to be practiced that is the cause of wealth being concentrated into the hands of a few people.

    Just look at what has happened in the past 3 years in the US. The government gave some banks unfair advantages over others, and further concentrated wealth into the hands of a few people. The problems isn't capitalism, it is government trying to control the outcome of capitalism.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 2, 2011 1:12 p.m.

    Noted. You pulled the figures out of your head.

    I'm acquainted with the AMA figures. Two points: Medicare doesn't have the luxury of dropping or declining coverage to people. They insure the most expensive demographic of society. Point 2: statistics compiled in CA reveal the number of denials by private insurers significantly higher-10 times more than what was reported by the AMA.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 2, 2011 11:35 a.m.

    Redshirt, no where did I advocate the destruction or abadonment of capitalism. In fact I said that capitalism produces great wealth..a good thing. The issue is simply where does that wealth go and who benefits from it. I also agree that capitalism is a good means to eliminate poverty, however in order to do that the capitalist society has to have a specific goal to eradicate poverty..America has no such goal.

    Secondly socialism isn't the only alternative to capitalism in order to produce goods. Lastly the capitalism of today bears little resemblence to the economy of the 1700's. We can argue whether the 1700 economy was capitalist but it certainly wasn't the economy of today, with globlization, fiat money, and, and finance based.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 2, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife | 7:54 a.m." its good to see that you are sucking down the liberal Koolaid.

    What you should do is read "In Defens of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. It explains that what we have is not a problem with distribution of wealth, but a distribution of Capitalism. It explains how the best way to eliminate poverty is to adopt capitalism. Also read "How Chile Got Rich" at Investors Business Daily.

    The other problem is that if you don't have capitalism, what system do you have for producing goods? If you answered Socialism or one of its cousins, you would be right. The problem with Socialism is that it destroys incentive to do things better, faster, and cheaper. It promotes medocrity, which never leads to excellence. Part of the includes fostering a system that promotes irresponsibility and does not allow for people to experience the consequences of their bad decisions.

    If you have kids, you can run a simple experiment with them. For a month, pay them for working around your house, and see what they do. Then, pay them for doing nothing. Tell us which benefitted your household the most.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 2, 2011 9:48 a.m.

    To "Truthseeker | 7:42 p.m." ok, here is your proof.

    See "Obama cuts pay raises for federal workers" at the Hill to find "a 2.4 percent increase would cost $19.9 billion more than the 2 percent increase" From here you have to do some math to see that about 30% of the federal budget is salaries.

    Read "Medicares Refusal of Medical Claims Continues to Outpace Private Rate" at the Independant Institute. They quote the 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card produced by the AMA where the AMA found that "Medicare denied only 4% of claimsa big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior years high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%an astounding 75% improvementwith similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%".

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 2, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    Here's your answer Mike. First of all democrats and most of America realize that we don't live in the 1800's anymore and that life and society are decidedly different. One major difference is the power of a capitalist economy. Capitalism has the power to produce enormous wealth. It however does not have a wealth distribution system that naturally benefits society. In fact left unaltered it produces enormous wealth for a few and poverty and enslavement for the many. Unaltered capitalism also uses up and destroys any environment it functions in.

    Most Americans find this unacceptable and long ago realized that only a unified society can alter these natural outcomes. Government is how a society is unified. Thus Democrats when in charge of government concentrate on those outcomes of markets that they find unacceptable.

    Seocndly your opinion of what is legal is just your opinion. It may be supported by others, but the courts, the legal entitiy for such decisions have decided against you many times.

    The tug of war between the natural functions of markets and the good they produce and the harm natural markets do to society will continue. In America it's called politics

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 1, 2011 10:10 p.m.

    Why do the Democrats focus on health-care, insurance, and all the other unconstitutional things that the government has decided is somehow Constitutional?

    Do they know that if the government stayed within the Constitution that every Democrat and 95% of the Republicans would be voted out of office? Is that why they're arguing over health insurance instead of asking what is legal and what is not legal for the FEDERAL Government to do?

    Who cares who the Democrats have chosen as their pointman (woman) when all of their points are wrong? Finding someone who can talk over everyone else is not much of a feat. It takes no talent to find someone who cares so little about truth that she would tell us having a $100 TRILLION unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare is not such a bad thing - but that anything the Republicans offer is to be mistrusted.

    The real question is why anyone, man, woman or child would try to tell us that what the Democrats are offering has any merit. Why would anyone agree to accuse the Republicans of 'shady practices' when the Democrats have offered nothing but empty promises in decades?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:29 p.m.

    One of the biggest fallacies that republicans promote is that "For profit" health insurance companies can save health care costs. Just the opposite is true. Very few countries are still in that business. Almost all of the other westernized countries have government sponsored programs or highly regulated nonprofit insurance companies involved and their medical costs are less.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 1, 2011 7:42 p.m.

    Where do you get your statistics?
    For the private insurance market, a 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. CBO cited data, compiled by the McKinsey Global Institute, that estimated administrative costs for private insurers at 12 percent. However, data cited by CBO found that administrative costs for private insurance were about 7 percent for employers with at least 1,000 employees, but 26 percent for firms with 25 or fewer employees. Meanwhile, in the individual insurance market -- that is, plans secured by individuals on their own, rather than through an employer -- the rate was nearly 30 percent, CBO said.

    A 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- the document prepared by Medicares fiscal overseers prorated administrative costs of 1.3 percent. Other estimates, using different calculations peg the cost between 3 and 5 percent.

  • SUNNY ALL DAY Saint George, UT
    June 1, 2011 7:19 p.m.

    Re-Publicans/Conservatives/Tea Party types just said NO from 11/08.

    In fact, they said "H" No!

    It too, got to be "decidely old".

    "Decidely old" yet very effective.

    The Democratic Party is just using the same tactic used by R/C/T's.

    The fact that a right-wing newspaper would complain about it proves it is working.

    "...grating, antagonistic, negative, manipulative..."

    If she was not spot-on target, the article would have never been written.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    June 1, 2011 4:25 p.m.

    It is sad that when we are on a sinking ship, the only thing our politicos do is wrestle for the helm.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    June 1, 2011 4:19 p.m.

    JOe Moe:; Are you saying Mitch Mcconnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan and the rest of the clowns leading the republican party, are positive? That they are trying to work with this administration? The democraticly controlled house passed hundreds of bills, some creating jobs, to help the economy. All were shot down by fillabuster's in the senate. Republicans do nothing. Their partry is a joke. Their agenda is obvious, to make the poor and middle class pay for everything and give More tax breaks to the wealthy. Their message is a old tired one, that didnt work with Reagan, or Bush's. Nancy Pelosi was one of the best speakers we ever had. And she will be again, after the 2012 election. Kinda warms your heart dont it?Speking of poor choices, Mitch mcConnell fits that bill. Along with the entire GOP feild for president.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 1, 2011 3:21 p.m.

    I don't know, Joe Moe, she looks ok to me.

  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:46 p.m.

    Wasserman has somehow become a frequent guest on Face the Nation. I cannot stand to listen to her. I tried the first several times. But she is so grating, so antagonistic, so negative, so manipulative. I think that must be the requirement for DNC chair, because the last guy was almost as bad. Except he looked silly more often. Wasserman is simply manipulative, and it shows in the way she says everything. She's probably right on some things, everyone is right sometimes, but her personal style is so antagonizing I can't stand to listen to her. Poor choice for DNC chair. I am a Republican who is sympathetic to some planks on the D platform, but having someone like her for the face of the DNC is poor thinking. She will never reach the moderates or independents.

    (And I wouldn't bring this up, but it was the first adjective the reporter used so I have to dispute it, "attractive"? I mean, it doesn't matter, why the writer felt the need to bring it up at all I don't know, but at least be right when you do).

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    Earlier I posted that it was sad Thomasson was complaining because Representative Wasserman Schultz told the truth, and that he should open his mind. I don't know what was objectionable about that, given the tone and comment of the posts entered by some of the far-right posters here. So I'm trying again.

    To repeat myself -- Representative Wasserman Schultz told the truth. It's sad that Thomasson isn't willing to see and recognize the truth.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 1, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    Medicare currently has $24 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

    What do the Democrats propose be done about that? They claim that the Republicans are trying to steal health-care from Medicare recipients, but they have already spent that money and they have no way to repay it.

    $24 TRILLION means that every man, every woman, every child in America would have to pay $80,000 to pay that money back.

    Add in the unfunded liability for Social Security and you have over $88 TRILLION. That means every man, every woman and every child would have to pay over $293,000 to balance that liability.

    What do the Democrats propose about that $88 TRILLION liability? The DNC spokeswoman is very good at blaming others. When is she going to take responsibility for what the Democrats are avoiding?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 1, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    Re: "Medicare pays out 97.5% of revenues for patient care. No private insurance comes within a mile of that standard."

    Close to true [actually should be about 98.4%], but also wildly misleading, since the primary administrative costs -- human resources -- are not even accounted for in that figure.

    Figuring in all readily obtainable overhead [HHS budget, $79.9B; Medicare Operations, $2.3B; CMS Program Mgt, $3.6B; General Trust Fund, $54.4B] gets you to about 28% overhead.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 1, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    To "Roland Kayser | 9:37 a.m." but where does its revenues come from? They come through the Federal Government. The Federal Government has a 30% overhead rate. That statistic is like saying that your accounts payable department pays out 98% of the money that they receive. That may be true for the one small group, but does not take into account the company as a whole, wich is what you have to do.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:37 a.m.

    To Red Shirt: Absolute nonsense. Medicare pays out 97.5% of revenues for patient care. No private insurance comes within a mile of that standard.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 1, 2011 9:13 a.m.

    To "Mike in Texas | 6:26 a.m." what should scare people is to know that the government has a 30% overhead cost, while their insurance company runs at 15% to 20% for overhead plus profit.

    Lets not forget that Medicare has a higher claims denial rate is higher than private health insurance.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 1, 2011 8:23 a.m.

    If it were the 1950s and the repubs came up with the smallpox vaccine, Wassserman would run scare ads screaming that the repubs want to stick you in the arm, it would hurt, and leave a scar in an attempt to discredit them.

    She would completely ignore the fact that the dems were doing NOTHING about the problem (except make it worse).

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    June 1, 2011 8:00 a.m.

    The article starts off with a false assumption..."an attractive?" Then its point is well taken that the Dems can do nothing but demagog the Repubs. The playbook has worked for so long it should not be changed. Keep up the good work dems, and the pubs are helping you by spending like dems.

  • Mike in Texas Allen, TX
    June 1, 2011 6:26 a.m.

    Wasserman's comments may be "old" but they are real. The Republican plan will kill Medicare as we have known it in favor of private insurance. Private insurance will increase health care costs as health insurers profit.

    Privativation also means profit centered corporate decisions as to who gets covered and at what cost. This alone ought to "scare" people, old and othewise, but especially older people as their cost will be higher due age and medical condition.

    The truth is that Debbie and other Democrats are not trying to scare people, they are just trying to warn them. The Ryan plan just unfairly shifts costs and rewards corporate interests, the same corporate interests that fund the Republican Party. But, from the peoples grass root reaction to the Ryan plan, I doesn't look the people are as dumb as the Republicans think.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:17 a.m.

    Obama has had concrete proposals too:

    Containing end of life care costs which Republicans demonized as "death panels".

    Comparative effectiveness research which Republicans demonized as "rationing".

    Both sides pay this game, its disingenuous to only blame Obama and the Democrats.