Comments on: More on Specter and town halls

By: Lee Levan

Lee Levan — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:48:59 +0000

Michael

Before you changed course and began discussing healthcare reform, your piece sounds more like a campaign argument against Specter instead of an analysis. I’m a Sestak supporter, but I know the difference between a balanced analysis and an advocacy (or opposition) piece.

You placed you conclusion that the recent town halls have hurt Specter in the context of a 15 year long picture. First, that doesn’t make sense when talking about recent events. Second, how many voters know or remember what happened 15 years ago?

By: Pat Yang

Pat Yang — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:39:08 +0000

I don’t think we can really call these people right wing nuts. They have been lied to and they are scared. Who can blame them for coming out en masse to scream and shout about the horrible, socialist future that is being painted by special interest. Some of these are elderly people who complain that they don’t want government involved with their health care. When asked if they are on medicare and how they like it, they generally answer that they are and they have no problems with it.
I do not know how Senator Specter would have voted on the Clinton Health Plan in ’93, but what I do know is that he is doing everything he can to support the President’s approach to what the public has demanded. He is trying to educate these people who have been misled and he is tirelessly working to make sure that every Pennsylvanian and American can go to a doctor when they need to. I applaud his efforts.

By: David Diano

David Diano — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:47:19 +0000

Michael-
If you do more preventative care, you reduce long term costs.
In today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer made VERY false argument against this by using completely fabricated numbers about the costs of prevention vs treatment.

FALSE ANALOGY #1:
“Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care. ”

First of all, simple blood tests cost under $100 and can identify dozens of VERY COMMON potential diseases. So, screening for common stuff like high cholesterol, liver disease, kidney problems, diabetes, and various other treatable problems wind up costing a few dollars each. Also, a routine exam can catch high blood pressure and heart problems.
The long term costs of these, if left untreated, costs FAR in excess of $40,000. Not only in direct costs (hospitalization and surgeries) but in lost wages (taxes) and productivity.

TOTAL LIE, FALSEHOOD #2
‘In Obamaworld, as explained by the president in his Tuesday town hall, if we pour money into primary care for diabetics instead of giving surgeons “$30,000, $40,000, $50,000″ for a later amputation — a whopper that misrepresents the surgeon’s fee by a factor of at least 30 — “that will save us money.” ‘

A factor of 30? Total BS. You can’t get any surgery, especially an amputation, for under $2,000 unless you work in a non-union shop with dangerous machinery.
Seriously, an overnight hospital stay, operating room costs, follow up care, wheel chair, etc.

So, Michael, you and your fellow right-wingers need to take some math classes. Not only for computing health costs, but to understand that making the majority of noise, doesn’t mean you have the majority opinion.

By: WESTPADEM6

WESTPADEM6 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:46:27 +0000

Nah… yeah they are right wing nuts… seriously dude. Uneducated, misinformed… if that works better then so be it.

I am glad Sen. Specter says all options are on the table. Criticizing someone for hearing out and observing the situation on health care isnt something i think people without health care are interested in.