Elderly Woman w/ Diabetes & No Insurance Told “Good Luck” by GOP

by TheCameraObscura | June 22, 2009 at 04:49 pm

493 views | 38 Recommendations | 26 comments

Stop the presses! The Republicans do have a way to reform health care in this country, it's called "good luck!"

At least that what former Republican Congressman Tom David told an elderly woman, with diabetes who could not get insured, on C-Span.

To be fair, after he was called on his callousness by the next caller, Davis did backpedal, so give him a little credit for realizing how horrible the GOP cure is.

On CSPAN’s Washington Journal yesterday, former Republican congressman Tom Davis received a call from an elderly woman named Dorothy, who said that because she has diabetes, health insurance companies “reject” her. “They don’t even want to accept me,” said Dorothy. “Is that, is that possible they could get away with that? That seems like discriminating.”

Davis responded by saying that he understood her “dilemma” and that she probably wouldn’t be able to retire by 62 as she desires. Advising her that she’d be alright if she found “a job with a major employer,” Davis said it would be “difficult” on her own:

DAVIS: I don’t think you’ll find, probably be able to find some health insurance but if its with a small business or you’re going out on your own, it’s difficult at this point. There may be a government plan or private plans that are mandated coming out of this that are maybe able to help you. … I don’t know any reason why you shouldn’t be able to find something out there, but you want to look for an employer that has a health care plan. Good luck.

Later in the show, another caller criticized Davis for his “good luck” response, saying that it “encapsulates the entire Republican Party’s attitude towards any problems that are facing the American people today.” Davis replied that he didn’t mean “good luck” as a “kiss off,” but just as “good luck to you as you try to move through this problem.”

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

albertacowpoke

at 16:57 on June 22nd, 2009

To be fair this is a GAF by one person and can't hardly be attributed to the GOP as a whole. The operative sentence in here is also former Republican Congressman. I hope I don't get lynched every time I mispeak.

The_Cynic

at 17:17 on June 22nd, 2009

The only real problem with that, your point, is it isn't a matter that he is an ex, or that he made a gaff - GOPers, Republicans, Conservatives - which I am told are completely different in the US - really do not care about people who do not have insurance. They really do mean it when they say "Good Luck" because that is their over-all philosophy.

Republicans/Cons/GOPers readily agree that the military, police, fire service etc should be government run - why not healthcare?

Because the insurance companies give them massive donations!

albertacowpoke

at 17:33 on June 22nd, 2009

My point is about one person making a GAFF, notwithstanding what the GOPs policy on health care may be. I live in a country that provides universal health care and benefit from that. So my point wasn't about health care, it was about attributing the comment to the GOP as the title suggests.

The United States will go through a lot of growing pains on its passage to health care for all. In Canada we heard all the same arguments in the early 60s when an unknown politician from a poor Province, Saskatchewan named Tommy Douglas advanced his ideas on health care.

My sincere wish is that when and if health care is implemented in the US, that it is well planned and thought through and it does not become another disaster such as Medicare and Medicaid.

I don't think partisan rhetoric from either side is useful.

TheCameraObscura

at 08:29 on June 23rd, 2009

I clearly stated in the original post that Tom Davis recounted his statement after being called out by the next caller.

Davis' views are certainly in sync with the GOP, many of whom claim the only problem in healthcare is too much government regulation and the "free market will somehow save us all."

Roy C

at 17:34 on June 22nd, 2009

Your statement, Mr Cynic, reflects little real knowledge of the US.

Anyone, especially and including illegals, can walk into any emergency room in any hospital and demand care, and they do.

All the states have some kind of care of the people on welfare, and there are clinics and I have used them myself.

The insurance companies need to be reformed, but I have lived in Italy and experienced their care and I would rather be ill in the US, frankly.

I had a young woman in my ESL class in Milan who had lost her leg becauase the system was so slow getting to her in Italy, she had to arrange for care in the US, a not so uncommon occurrence.

She arrived in Dallas, Texas too late to save her from her sarcoma without losing the leg. Had she showed up a few weeks earlier, that leg would be whole.

Now, I am all for a reform based on models that work, either the Safeway plan or the plan now being worked out by the employees of the King County, the county of Seattle, and I have had extensive conversations with Regence wellness coaches and even talked to several of the presidents of this multi-state system

They all have programs I would endorse.

The public doesn't want healthcare run by the federal government, though many of us would accept a state-run system because we could demand more transparency and accountability from our own state.

So, this idea that people without insurance are out of luck has been really exaggerated, as we tend to exaggerate how bad Canada's care is because we do run into Canadians here who have come here to get care. I have picked some of them up at the airport.

"Massive donations" doesn't explain what is going on.

albertacowpoke

at 17:35 on June 22nd, 2009

Roy this is exactly how the Canadian system is run, by the Provinces. I agree that a state government is much easier to make accountable.

The_Cynic

at 19:05 on June 22nd, 2009

Little knowledge of the US or the US healthcare system?

Either, frankly, is irrelivent. Thankfully I have had the oppotunity to live in various parts of the world - and your Italian story isn't uncommon in any healthcare system. Mistakes happen - how many could we utilise in our pursuit of a fundamental right where people have access, all people, to healthcare.

The use of illegals is a strawman argument - it has been and always will be. It is one way of saying that if the US didn't have all these illegals then healthcare could be funded by all - yet I do not hear the same people screeching about the slavish wages that illegals are paid, nor the companies who employ them being hauled before the courts.

What the argument is; is simple: Do Americans deserve an affordable healthcare system? I think they do - all of them.

I have benefited from, mostly, the UK NHS system - I gag when I hear the myths resounded in the US about how bad it is. The Canadians system is quite good in the fact it gives free healthcare at the point of use and need - that is what I and millions of Americans want.

I suppose it is a matter of getting the mindset where you can empathise with the common good - I have never minded paying my share into the system - even when I don't use it. The healthcare system is there to use - whether to see a consutant or a GP.

Roy C

at 19:46 on June 22nd, 2009

Yes, but you have to know the details of what is wrong with our system, and if you make spurious criticisms, that reveals a lack of knowledge.

I don't want the UK system. They actually have rationed care. 65 years old? Need dialysis? Pay for it yourself.

Now, the point I was making about the illegals was not that that they are a burden. I was making the point that if an illegal can get medical care, then so can the woman in the story.

That was not apparent to you.

One of the biggest reasons our care is expensive is that plaintiffs don't pay the legal bills of defendants in malpractice cases when they sue doctors and lose, as is done in the UK. So, many more fraudulent cases are settled for far too much money.

Until we change that, we will continue to have many more spurious lawsuits than the Brits do But the trial lawyers association gives a whole lot of money to the democrat party and Obama is not about to change that law. Yes, the democrat party is the problem here.

We don't trust the federal government on medical care because we see how badly veterans hospitals have been run at times and we see too much paperwork in medicare, and many doctors won't even take medicare patients anymore because of the paperwork.

We do empathize with the common good and the premise of your argument that I inferred from the tone of your post was that we are a morally inferior people who don't care.

Besides a certain moral inferiority to Americans, it appears you believe we have a passivity in the face of the greed of insurance companies. We are not perfect. That is for sure, but living abroad I got a good taste of the various national characters of Europeans, not a collection of saints and wise men, I must say, and I have seen passivity all over the place.

That we don't care is particularly offensive because it is simply not true and represents a cynical view of us as people as if we are different than others.

We are willing, in fact, to pay more in taxes to get a better deal for all. We will end up with solutions to this problem, state by state, which is not the way Obama and the left want it.

They want total control and we are not going to give it to them.

The_Cynic

at 20:08 on June 22nd, 2009

They actually have rationed care. 65 years old? Need dialysis? Pay for it yourself.

As I say - so many myths so many arguments. The NHS is not, by a long-shot, perfect. Yet as the average in the UK is getting older and thus people are dying older I think you can bring your own conclusions to the table.

The woman in the original story obviously couldn't get care - if that wasn't the the case then someone is lying. As to bureaucracy in the system that is where both you and I can agree - since the explosion in bureaucracy in the NHS less people are getting the care they require, this - which is why your point is odd somewhat. Both in the US and in the UK (Canada can be added to that list) bureaucracy and box ticking to prove "value for money" has been adopted by more conservative governments to "show" where tax cash is being spent.

Thatcher really got into that in the 80s - she hated/hates the NHS with a passion - GOPers who brought in the insurance system under Nixon, he made a ton out of it, too, and in the great white north - guess? As for the insurance claims - we could look at all spurious claims from hot coffee to smoking. The ambulance chasers are everywhere now - because lawyers can make a fortune out of it - and for some odd reason judges bring about more law suits because they award millions in damages to a person who should know that boiled water in a plastic cup is, well, hot!??

The real cost to the American system is the idiotic charges that insurance companies pay out on. $6 for an aspirin is, well, shall we say ridiculous? They pay it because doctors charge them that amount - and that is why a doctor drives a Ferrari and a mill worker drives a 12 year old truck. As this is the case - your premiums go up because the insurance company needs to make a profit for shareholders and the ever increasing circle widens. That, in turn, takes people out of the insurance scheme, those still in it, through business or individually has to pay more because the profit drops and we start all over again.

This is why business is looking at healthcare reform with renewed eyes - they cannot afford it! As Obama said during the campaign - if he can have the care he gets - for free - why can't all Americans? I agree with him.

[My edit - it all went into one paragraph]

TheCameraObscura

at 08:37 on June 23rd, 2009

Roy, I have walked into emergency rooms in Los Angeles - UCLA and Cedars Sinai - and been refused medical care because of lack of insurance.

The idea that non-emergencies will be treated in emergency rooms is fallacy created by Bush. BTW, If we have non-emergencies in the ER, where will the emergencies go?

It's not as if we have this magical unlimited amount of medical care. In California, 30 hospitals have closed in 10 years while the population has increased.

A recent CBS-New York Times poll says 72% want government healthcare. It's success in other countries is too well documented and Americans are wising up.

Roy C

at 08:44 on June 23rd, 2009

If you have been refused care, you didn't have an emergency. If you need care, you will get it. Bush didn't create this.

In fact, in Texas, Bush took care of everyone, illegals included.

I am not against care with the "government". I am against the FEDERAL government being in charge instead of the STATE government.

TheCameraObscura

at 08:54 on June 23rd, 2009

Actually Roy, emergency rooms can refuse you care, they have the option, under federal law, to transport you to another hospital, which can transport you, etc...

Again, where will 49 uninsured people go to get medical care for non-emergency issues, which left untreated, of course, will end up being emergencies, thus costing everyone even more tax money.

Only in America, would people rather pay more later than less now.

If you are in serious pain and need to see a doctor, I seriously doubt youre going to care if the funding is state or federal. I grew up in hospitals, dad was a doc, and never saw that.

Roy C

at 10:05 on June 23rd, 2009

Yes, but they can be sued and lose.

I don't defend the status quo. I criticize Obama's plans, which will make things worse, not better.

The question is: when you are really ill, will the care be good, bad or mediocre? Which approach does the best over-all job?

You seem to think that health care just shows up because you command it.

Roy C

at 17:36 on June 22nd, 2009

Thanks. I appreciate that.

albertacowpoke

at 17:40 on June 22nd, 2009

Here is a comprehensive look at Canadian Healthcare, especially some of the myths:

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/76032/

TheCameraObscura

at 08:45 on June 23rd, 2009

Thanks, that debunks all of the GOP lies about Canadian healthcare. Glad someone posted it.

Guess who Canadians voted the greatest Canadian of all time? Socialist Tommy Douglas, the father of socialized healthcare.

Roy C

at 18:02 on June 22nd, 2009

I am reading through it right now.

Last week ex-senate majority leaders Daschle, Dole and Baker met and declared Obama's plan dead as a federal plan. They, two GOP and one Democrat, want the states to be in charge.

albertacowpoke

at 18:22 on June 22nd, 2009

I really think that's the only way it will work Roy. Anything else will be like Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal Government doesn't have a good record on administering programs. Unemployment insurance is run by the states, is it not?

TheCameraObscura

at 08:48 on June 23rd, 2009

The high costs of Medicare and Medicaid are due to the repeated fraud by private companies who over-bill the government, much like Halliburton charging the US taxpayer $99 for every single load of laundry they do in Iraq.

Amazingly, soldiers are not allowed to do their laundry.

Roy C

at 19:44 on June 22nd, 2009

I like the Safeway plan the best.

What the state governnents could do is allow people to buy subsidized insurance, if they are too poor to buy the insurance themselves.But, you will get more subsidy if you participate in the Wellness programs.

Even in the UK, if you are too fat, they won't give you a new hip, and, if you smoke, what they will do for you in terms of care for heart attacks is less.

We may not get that ruthless about it, but we will have to help people understand that you are co-responsible for your health and you can't expect others to pay for your bad habits.

A nice fat tax on ciggies and alcohol would help.

albertacowpoke

at 19:50 on June 22nd, 2009

Roy come and buy cigarettes and booze in Alberta. We have had these sin taxes for a long time. They don't necessarily go into the Health Care system though. A pack of 25 cigarettes costs over CA$12. A 12 pack of beer CA$ 24 .

TheCameraObscura

at 08:56 on June 23rd, 2009

The private insurance industry is the problem, not the solution, cut them out, and you're 80 percent the way to success.

Anyone notice how dental costs whent up when private dental insurance hit the country in force a few years ago? A crown, today, costs as much as a used car.

duo

at 20:27 on June 22nd, 2009

Five Supreme Ct. judges told the world last Thursday they do not care if innocent people rot in prison or are executed. The five who ruled agaist post-conviction DNA testing were all likely appointed by Republican presidents. Tom David's response does not surprise many people, I am sure.

Roy C

at 21:07 on June 22nd, 2009

Actually, I have found that story, duo. Why don't you post the story here?

Supreme Court denies DNA test to rapist

You are right that all the justices are the conservative ones.

The problem is that I think that they should do the testing, Alaska, that is, because there is a one-in-six chance that the DNA is wrong, based on older method.

But the woman who was assaulted identified him, and his partner in the crime says that Osborne did it. I can understand why in this case they did not agree, even if I would have done differently.

He looks guilty as hell to me, but I do get that the some politicians who are republican don't always come across as caring individuals, but I have known enough people that didn't care at all after coming across as quite caring.

See, I agree with you about this case, but I don't think that the guy is innocent.

At the democrat end, there is a lot of gushing about people, but when it comes time to help, let us remember that the mayor of New Orleans and the governor were both democrats.

Their results were not consistent with being people capable of doing more than mouthing "care".

As far as prosecutors denying convicts DNA testing, I could do some research on that. You might be surprised that law enforcements types of both parties resist and resist with all their might allowing those tests.

Alaska officials told the justices that even if more sophisticated genetic testing did not show the semen and hair at the crime scene matched Osborne, other evidence remains strong enough to uphold the conviction. And they said that since there was no trial error, Osborne should have made his claim of right to access to biological evidence at the trial, not on appeal.

Osborne was found guilty in 1993 of kidnapping and assault. He and a co-defendant were convicted of raping an Anchorage prostitute, then beating her with an ax handle, shooting her in the head, and dumping her in a snowbank near the airport, believing she was dead. The victim survived and identified Osborne from photo lineups. He was sentenced to 26 years behind bars, with five years suspended.

His co-defendant has continued to implicate Osborne, and the 37-year-old prisoner admitted his guilt in a 2004 parole hearing, although he later said he had made the confession only in the hope it would secure his release. He was not granted parole at that time, but was in 2007.

Initial state forensic testing on a condom and hairs found at the crime scene found the DNA consistent with Osborne's genetic profile, but that one in six -- or about 15 percent -- of African-Americans like Osborne might share a similar genetic profile. Osborne's appointed trial counsel declined more sophisticated, independent testing, believing the initial one-in-six ratio represented "very good numbers" to make a case for mistaken identity, according to an affidavit submitted in the high court appeal. The trial lawyer was also worried that further testing could work against Osborne.

jazzyzazzy

at 23:58 on June 22nd, 2009

Good Luck guys.........................

The_Cynic

at 09:09 on June 23rd, 2009

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/special-interest-money-means-longer.html?2ndtry

health care is one of those areas where both popular opinion and sound public policy seem to take a backseat to protecting those stakeholders who benefit from the status quo. But can we actually see -- statistically -- the impact of lobbying by the insurance industry on the prospects for health care reform? I believe that the answer is yes.