What was Alan Grayson thinking when he agreed to be interviewed by Eric Bolling on the Fox Business Channel? Apparently dismissed Congressmen no longer have handlers to give them guidance.
The highlight? When Bolling looks around the studio and says, “It’s almost like I’m talking to a medicated person now.”
H/T: Weasel Zippers
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (24)
Wow what a difference a week makes to me... When I read Alan Grayson I was like who the heck is Alan Grayson? He has become a non-entity to me, he should become a non-entity to everyone. Who the hell does he think he is? Insulting the host who respectfully asked him a question right away? Why is this guy allowed to still be on TV? He needs to go away and soon.
no need to educate me administrator. i am well versed in the free market and history. historically, the free market only works for our country when it's regulated. without regulation we create a very poor and very rich society (like mexico), which we've already done... somehow conservative fools want to revert to that time. easing of regulation, like our free trade, the banking system and your proposed interstate insurance only benefits the top tier and allows for insuring of the healthy and wealthy only. educate yourself "genius" on the workings of both the free market and the fallout from interstate insurance offerings. it puts a huge burden on the tax payer and gives corporations carte blanche when creating policy. i notice you didn't comment on tort reform... is that because i am right?
Jesus...what a moron....don't know what else can be said..............................
like or dislike grayson, the point is, republicans plan is to repeal health care reform with no alternative plan. they have no plan... have had no plan and will continue to offer nothing other than lip service. i guess that's enough for conservatives.
Wrong. Paul Ryan has a specific plan that could work, but Dems have no interest in listening to ideas from the right side of the aisle. They wants debates, but only on ideas that they have put on the table.
which is?
Look it up Donovan. We're not here to educate you. Start with Google.
nor am i to educate you. that's how it works my friend. companies can then go to the least regulated state and offer that as insurance and force states with different regulations to adhere. "look it up" genuis.
what kind of masochist are you? you're having your head handed to you on here. you have to be a fake; a conservative posting under the guise of making liberals appear to be the weakest, dumbest animals on the planet. no wonder they're doomed!
There's really no way to educate someone who does not understand how the free market works.
But thanks for recognizing my "genius."
Right. Tort reform and interstate competition, among other things, are "no plan."
typical.... ha ha ha. mal-practice lawsuits account for less then 1% of all health care costs. that point is mute. additionally, mal-practice lawsuits have been trending down over the last few years, but we don't see insurance companies adjusting fees to represent that trend do we? no we don't.
let's take a look at interstate competition. correct me if i'm wrong but aren't conservatives supposed to be states rights advocates? so now you're saying it's okay to establish a national health care plan and take away more states rights? not sure about you, but the last thing i want is alabama dictating coverage for my state. that's what we open ourselves up to... a clustering of companies in a state with less restrictions and regulation and greater abilities to deny coverage indiscriminately, nation wide. which to me seems stupid... but apparently to you and conservatives that's a plan.
"mal-practice lawsuits account for less then 1% of all health care costs. that point is mute (moot). additionally, mal-practice lawsuits have been trending down "
Is that mal-practice lawsuits in general or just successful mal-practice lawsuits that find for the plaintiff? Asking because I don't know.
Because mal-practice and class-action lawsuits had become such a lucratrive industry ( thanks to a "something-for-nothing" entitlement mentality encouraged by personal injury lawyers ) hospitals and doctors, for self-protection, started ordering more and often seemingly unnecessary or irrelevent medical tests, not necessarily as diagnostic tools, but rather as evidence in any potential suits that they had examined all possible avenues in performing their diagnosis. With an average cost of $100-200 per test the cost to the consumer soared. Add to that the cost to hospitals and doctors for mal-practice insurance, said costs being passed on to the consumer covered by the insurance company.
Let us remember that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are not not-for-profit entities. I'm sure you're aware that the cost of medical training for doctors is well into the 6-figure range, which must be paid back. Hospitals have expenses like any business - salaries, physical-plant costs, medical equipment and other supplies, drug costs etc. which must all be paid for. Insurance companies are not zero-sum charities but for-profit businesses, likewise with expenses such as salaries, building costs/rental, supplies, share-holder payments etc. which must be paid.
So, how shall we reduce the incurred costs for all parties so that insurance companies don't have to charge such high premiums and can afford to take on pre-existing condition clients?
There is an awful lot of defensive medicine going on out there. I'm finishing up paying for about $8,000 worth of defensive medicine for someone who loves to be dramatic, without realizing that if you tell your doctor that, you're going to get a CAT scan, an MRI, and all that, even though your doctor already knows they won't find anything. The actual appointment cost? $120. The diagnosis? Gas pain. I can't blame the doctor -- they have a lot to worry about in this day & age.
I remember in the old days -- if you went into the Dr's office complaining of flu symptoms in the winter, and this after the entire community went in with the same, the Dr would say: "sounds like you have the flu!" Pure genius.
Any more, you'd need a lot of tests for defense against lawsuits. Of course, nobody will call them that -- they just code it so they get paid and pass the costs along, just like they pass their malpractice premiums along where they can.
something we agree on! they pass everything on. whether it's mal-practice, uninsured or more tests or that they just want to make more money. insurance companies never have and never will see a bottom line sacrifice. they're profits grow, our coverage becomes smaller and smaller the number of individuals in the country who are covered gets smaller. this is exactly why we need a public option. it's protection against an industry that doesn't have our best interest.
I feel that the real problem began when people stopped using insurance to protect against catastrophe, and started using it as a bill-paying mechanism. This mainly happened when insurance became a work benefit. When that happened, a lot of good medical care things, such as house calls went away. Does that mean I want to go back to what it was before? Nope. Not without fixing the fundamental flaws of the system. I don't want to see anybody suffer any more than you do.
A simple allegory, from where I used to work in auto insurance. Most auto insurers will pay for replacing a cracked windshield. They tout this as a "free replacement". If you go to the shop, they will ask you if it is insurance, or cash. Every time I say cash, they say $150. If it is insurance, they bill as a minimum $200, but usually $300. They have to -- insurance companies are slow about paying, and the added expense of collecting drives up costs they have to recoup. The insurance company then turns around and hikes your rates. They have a right to do so -- they are not Santa Claus, but they also collect a little more, since they figure you're likely to do it again. Over time, others will pay over $600 for the 'free' windshield, while I paid $150 for the same replacement. Is medical care as simple as that? Nope. I have no idea what some procedures are, and would need an experienced professional to be able to tell me if I am paying for what actually happened.
Health insurance is the same deal amplified. Do I think that fundamental flaw will get fixed via a public option? Not really. I fear an overreaching government that doesn't fully understand what they are implementing. Do I think that giving this work to a government with a bad reputation for fraud, nepotism, profiteering, corporate welfare, and abuse will be cheaper? Not if past experience with $800 toilet seats is any indicator.
Do I think that they will take my health information and use it against me? Pretty much -- I have no faith whatsoever in government. They can't even steal from us with any consistency. Yes, in private industry, the MIB is already used against a lot of people -- but all's that does is what the government wants to do -- centralize data.
I've had family experience with socialized medicine -- to be honest, the contrast between their broken system and our broken system is startling. We enjoy a lot of peculiar benefits thanks to health insurance companies driving the costs of procedures down. When the wife's friend had a hysterectomy, the Russian system basically sawed her in half, she had to spend two months in the hospital, and one of her friends had to take that entire time off from work to care for her, giving her shots and such -- they just don't pay nurses there to do that. They also had to give the doctor an extra payment because the doctor's salary is so poor, and unless you want your major surgery done by the lowest intern on the totem pole, you'd better sweeten the deal up.
Contrast that to when the wife had hers -- laparoscopic, in and out of the hospital in a day, and recovered in a week. When we told her friends in Russia before the surgery that she would come home from the hospital after a full hysterectomy in two days, they held a wake for her, because they thought the hospital was sending her home to die. Would it have been nicer to stay in the hospital longer? Possibly -- but judging by the new resistant bugs you can pick up in a hospital, I'd prefer to stay out as much as possible, leave the hospitals for those who really need them.
Do I think the free market is without flaw? Absolutely not. Do I think it will get resolved? It can be, but nobody is exploring all options to do so, so it isn't likely. Some things unpalatable to the Right, and some things unpalatable to the Left will have to be implemented. As long as our elections are operated on a bumper sticker mentality, that's a deal-killer.
the downward trend is across the board. less lawsuits, less finding for the plaintiff. if we look at texas, which applied tort reform, we see DR's insurance has not stabilized, it increased. so much so, that texas is seeing a massive exodus of medical professions. they now have a severe shortage. tort reform has no affect and will have no affect.
we can say that unnecessary or irrelevant medical tests have caused an increase in health care costs... but that's no the primary contributor. the uninsured are what drive up costs. those who cannot pay because they're unable to access a plan, due to pre-existing conditions or lack of funds. our laws require that patients be treated when accessing an emergency room regardless of insurance status. using a hospital for health care is far more expensive than a general practitioner. clinics and hospitals accrue great losses from the uninsured and that cost is passed on to the insured (raises our premiums) and by way of government supplements (we pay in taxes). 1/3 of our national debt is attributed to health care costs. by providing a national plan for those with pre-existing conditions or financial limitations, we allow the insured a stabilization in premiums, a decrease in our national debt (confirmed by the CBO) and a healthier population... which increases productivity.
i'm fully aware that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are for profit... but does it warrant giving your CEO a $1billion bonus when people are being dropped for high cholesterol or blood pressure (united health care ceo). doctors are actually getting the short-end of the stick. the number of mal-practice suits that are actually won are very small in comparison to what insurance companies are making from rate increases.
the key is a national plan for those who can't get access(like we currently have, but reps want to overturn). it mitigates serious illness, which is more costly, stops the uninsured from using clinics and the ER for health care (which the insured pay for) and creates a healthier population, which increases productivity. sorry to be repetitive... tort reform... well many DRs are now asking patients to sign a wavier that protects DRs from mal-practice suits. recently experienced that and i was fine with it.
Sorry Donovan, apparently you do not understand what interstate competition is. It is the ability of an insurance company to sell into other states, so then people in each state has many, many more choices of insurers. Calling this additional choice and competition "national health care" and saying it runs contrary to states rights, shows just how ill-informed you are.
But welcome back, Donovan, it's amusing to have you to around.
wrong... considering 80% of all health insurance is owned by a handful of companies, which is called monopoly ("look it up"), it means we, the consumer are at a huge disadvantage, state by state. AND allows another states regulation to therefore determine ours.
monpoly is one seller the term you should have used is oligopoly which is a few sellers
to add this plan actually creates a sick class of uninsured. much more than what we currently have.... which creates a heavier burden on the government (our taxes), but greatly increases profits for private insurance. so if you're saying let's create more money for private insurance and increase our tax burden, then i think i understand your logic...although...i find that stupid.
I so glad his smarmy ass is un-elected.
Political consultants (i.e. "handlers") bail on losers. They couldn't get away from Grayson fast enough.
Not only is he a loser, but he is a basket case idiot... going on a Fox channel right after his lost is idiotic.