Streams

Giuliani Update

Friday, August 03, 2007

New York Times columnist Gail Collins on Rudy's plan to transform health care and the role of Judith Giuliani in the campaign.

Guests:

Gail Collins

Comments [11]

John from Stamford, CT

Sano's got it right. Other than asking about Medicare, you really just went along with the prevailing idea that Giuliani has a plan at all.

You're first mistake was asking Collins to come on your show at all. In her column the other day, she wrote, "I, for one, am prepared to defer probing [his plan] any deeper," then went on to write a Dowd-lite column about his freaking wife. Fun stuff for the swells, but not exactly the person I want explaining the Dem candidates proposals on health care for the uninsured.

Aug. 03 2007 04:47 PM
Mark Victor Smith from Astoria, Queens

Could one believe that Mr. Giuliani's proposal to give everyone an up-to-$15,000 tax break could actually be a rather lame way to increase our dismal savings rate?

Sure the extra money (in the form of a tax break) that wouldn't go for insurance premiums could be available to put in the bank, but because this is a tax credit and not a refund or grant, there is less incentive for the taxpayer to save -- sorry, but the money was probably already spent on rent, groceries, utilities etc. Besides, the "medical savings account" benefits the bank more than it benefits the saver. Big Banking breaks the back of both the government and the consumer again!

We Americans have enough personal (and financial) responsibilities. The average American needs a break from the additional worry over how their health is going to be taken care of. As evidenced by the statistical increase in mental disorders (I do not believe this is entirely due to better diagnosis), increased emphasis on a "culture of personal responsibility" is resulting in a meaner, cruder nation ready to break.

Whatever happened to "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble of our constitution? Kusinich's plan helps to do that, removing worry and burden, especially from the 46 million (the ones without any insurance). "Promoting the general Welfare" means providing meaningful, useful services, not giving us money so that we can fruitlessly struggle in the web of health care insurance. That's not healthy for anyone -- and that web is not a safety net!

****************

If anyone would like to see nn extended interview of Mr. Giuliani, check out Charlie Rose's interview on his August 1 show. Pretty scary -- he comes across as a compassionate, changed-for-the-better, reasonable person. (I still wouldn't vote for him.)

Aug. 03 2007 12:26 PM
Corpores Sano from NYC

Brian,

I'm astounded by the 30-second "summary" you just gave Gail Collins on the health care debate. You just said that Michael Moore and Sicko represent one "extreme" of the debate and Guiliani the other "extreme," so the "real, reasoned debate" is somewhere in the middle. You boiled it down to: "France is perfect", versus "Long Lines!, Long Lines! Government control! bad!"

Sounds appealing, that kind of summay permits serious people like you and your guest to dismiss any health care discussion you don't personally like by calling it extreme.

The only problem is the "facts" and the "research" support one of your so-called extremes but not the other. France, by every honest measure does have better outcomes, longer lives, more access and higher satisfaction with their medical care, not to mention lower prices than we do. So in varying ways does each and EVERY other industrialized nation.

So it's not Michael Moore, the loud boorish fat serial exaggerator versus Rudy the Republican scrooge. It's more the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence versus straw arguments which idealize the theory that "private, market driven" solutions are a universal answer to every problem, including delivery of health care.

There's a reason that every other nation with the economic means to do so provides a nationalized approach to delivering health care. The public health data is clear, the economic savings substantial and the positive social results are overwhelmingly on the side of national systems. The research is easily available to you and to Gail Collins. I suspect all she or you need do is read her fellow NYT columist Paul Krugman to confirm this.

Aug. 03 2007 12:12 PM
Charles Fred from Maspeth, Qns

Gail Collins, and everyone else, says say that
employers in Japan or Canada have a competitive advantage because they don¬タルt pay for health care. Yet this is obviously untrue.

Working Canadians don¬タルt ¬タワget¬タン health care; they ¬タワpay¬タン the
government for it with money paid to them by their employers or money the employers ¬タワpay¬タン directly to the government.

Where else do the executives, economists and journalists who repeat this fallacy think the money comes from?

If workers cost Toyota less in Canada than in Alabama, it¬タルs
because they are paying less to those workers.

Aug. 03 2007 12:10 PM
herb from westchester

what is wrong with "socialist" medical solution.
where is the tax reduction for those who don't earn enough to have a tax deduction. (47,000,000)
Medicare for the entire population is the only answer. It helps those who have nothing. It helps the companies who complain about their manufacturing costs. The only ones who gets hurt is the insurance companies who product nothing but profits for themselves

Aug. 03 2007 11:44 AM
a from NYC

wow...another fluff piece...thanks Brian...quite a difference between this and your last piece on Obama...I guess we know who YOUR candidate is (despite the fact that there is a LOT more dirt to talk about concerning the fascist racist pig, Ghouliani)

Aug. 03 2007 11:44 AM
Peter from Manhattan

I find if hard to believe your guests recent statement that most people are happy with their insurance. I don't know a single person that is happy with their current coverage. . . Where are these facts from?

Aug. 03 2007 11:42 AM
jjl from nj

(oops last comment just addressed) --added comment

-- several yrs ago I asked an old school buddy who is a top pharma lobbyist, why they kept charging more each year. His reply was refreshingly simple and deeply insightful:

"Because we can."

Aug. 03 2007 11:39 AM
jjl from nj

Where is the incentive for health care companies to compete in that scenario?

Any Health Care co. that doesn't bump up the costs to account for this subsidy?

Aug. 03 2007 11:37 AM
a from NYC

Excuse me-- the guest said Adolf Ghouliani "doesn't pander much"???? DOESN'T PANDER MUCH????

Flip-flopping on abortion to pander to the far-right
Raking in the dollars speaking about 9/11 (and what did he do...put himself in front of the camera...wow...what a hero)
Mentioning 9/11 and terrorism any second he can to again garner the far-right vote

Doesn't pander????....IS SHE ON CRACK???? His middle name is pander!

Aug. 03 2007 11:36 AM
Brian from Manhattan

So far, the only candidate that has it right is Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- eliminate private insurance! Medicare is a model of success and most people on Medicare do not have private insurance.

Giuliani (and all other candidates) are still finger-in-the-dike, band-aid proposals -- merely tweaking the existing mess of private health insurance providers.

A TRUE free-market approach would be to force private insurance companies to compete against a guaranteed, government Medicare model. Insurance today is an oligopoly; not a true free-market system. Forcing them to compete against a state-run system would surely see a dramatic increase in their quality of service, care, and benefits received per dollar spent on premiums for those who would elect to use private insurance.

Aug. 03 2007 11:17 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.