Share

Joe Scarborough Is Shocked, Yet Awed by Single-Payer Logic

by: Leslie Savan  |  The Nation

photo
Former Republican Congressman-turned-pundit and talk show host Joe Scarborough. (Photo: Getty Images)

    Something rather remarkable happened on Tuesday's Morning Joe. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York pointed out that the health insurance industry has no clothes, and Joe Scarborough, after first trying to spin it some gossamer threads, broke down and said, By God, you're right, this emperor is a naked money-making machine!

    Well, he didn't use those exact words, but Joe did seem to finally get that America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of health care in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people-without providing any actual health care whatsoever.

    "Why are we paying profits for insurance companies?" Weiner asked Scarborough. "Why are we paying overhead for insurance companies? Why," he asked, bringing it all home, "are we paying for their TV commercials?"

    Weiner, who recently warned that President Obama could lose as many as 100 votes on a health bill if a public option is not included, really wants single payer-Medicare for all Americans is his goal. What a crazy, way-out, reckless notion, Joe went into their encounter believing. But Weiner asked some simple, direct questions that no politician, much less Obama or HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has managed to pose:

What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. Medicare has a 4 percent overhead rate. The real question is why do we have a private plan?

    "It sounds like you're saying you think there is no need for us to have private insurance in health care," Joe asked at one point.

    Weiner replied: "I've asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?"

    Scraping the bottom of a seemingly bottomless pit of spin, Joe is repeatedly left speechless, "stunned" and "astounded," he said, by the questions themselves. Indeed, when confronted with unfettered capitalism's massive failures, the right usually has nothing to say. The "free market" is supposed to eternally grow, not crash under its own greed. They're left ideologically crippled.

    But unlike, say, Lou Dobbs, who began dobbering when confronted with similarly direct argument for single-payer, Joe was able to take a deep breath and return from a break with his eyes opened.

    He even repeated Weiner's points clearly: The goverment would take over only the "paying mechanism" of health care, not the doctors or their medical decisions themselves. His ears perked up every time Weiner mentioned that the nonprofit Medicare spends 4 percent on overhead, while private insurers spend 30 percent.

    And Joe, who has been criticizing mob rule at town halls, seemed to appreciate the way Weiner counters the fearmongering over Medicare: After decades of railing against the program's wasteful, "runaway" spending, Republicans have done a 180 and are now trying to scare seniors that the Democrats' proposed Medicare cuts will come directly from their medical care and not, as is actually proposed, from wasteful, stupid practices in the system-like, as Weiner mentions, putting people into a $700-a-night hospital bed when all they really need, and often prefer, is a visit by a homecare attendant in the two-digit-a-day range.

    Maybe the real turning point came when Weiner asked, "How does Wal-mart offer $4 prescriptions?" Joe and co-host Mika Brzezinski looked as if they'd been thwacked by a hardback copy of Atlas Shrugged, and sat back to let the congressman explain it all to them:

They go to the pharmaceutical companies and say, "Listen, we have a giant buying pool here. You're going to give us a great deal."

Who's bigger than Wal-Mart? We are, the taxpayers. Do we do that? No. Because we have outsourced this to insurance companies who don't have necessarily as much incentive to keep those costs down because, frankly, they are getting a piece of the action.

    Progressives tend to understand this stuff, but many conservatives won't trust such logic, especially in the abstract, which is how most Dems have been communicating. But Weiner, aware that if you can't visualize something it ain't going to stick, argued with a specific, familiar visual-that of a successful, supercapitalist, and, as Mika might say, "real American" company. And suddenly, as the mote dropped from the MJ crew's eyes, Weiner went from "scaring American citizens," in Joe's words, to instant celeb.

    "That was SO great!" said Mika, as she and Joe asked Anthony to please, please come back soon, this week if possible!

    "You have succeeded in doing something that no one else has done on this show in two years," said Joe, his fists rapidly knocking the table in excitement. "You made me speechless. And you made me speechless because you so clearly came here and stated your position."

    While maintaining that he and Weiner have "different worldviews," Joe nevertheless raved, "This is fascinating, and one of the problems with the president's message is that it's muddled." And, damn, that's true.

    Could this episode herald a Single-Payer Awakening? Or is this just the thrill of logic running up Joe's leg, soon to be forgotten as corporate media try to undermine real reform of a system that feeds the nets millions in ad revenue? When the big mainstream players shouted in unison to prematurely declare the public option dead, I couldn't help but think: In the corporate media's total takeover of ideas, they, too, have a death panel-made up of three or four conglomerate owners and chaired by Rupert Murdoch-that will determine whether an idea lives or gets its plug pulled.

    On Thursday, Morning Joe replayed Weiner's best hits, but Joe was occasionally dobbering himself, complaining that our health care problems come down to costs, costs, costs but "now all the President is talking about is a moral imperative." (Of course, Obama put morality on the table only yesterday; until then, he focused on costs, costs, costs.)

    We'll see how far this relative openness to single-payer goes. In the meantime, though, the education of Joe Scarborough is, as always, a sight to behold.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Share         

»


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

One easy reform the Dems

One easy reform the Dems won't touch is to outlaw advertisements for prescription drugs. This was repealed during the Clinton years, and drug demand has soared as people demand certain drugs because they saw happy faces on TV. Pharma spends billions on TV and passes that cost along to taxpayers. Meanwhile, may day is filled with senseless TV ads with absurdly long legal warnings. Is this health care?

"now all the President is

"now all the President is talking about is a moral imperative." When will these guys wake up and recognize that the president is not G-d. What happens is not his fault. Democracy (or a republic to be precise) is a system where majority consensus OF THE PEOPLE rules although this needs to be tempered by individual constitutional rights. Presently, the US has failed in its attempt to administer such a system. Obama is executing the most honest oversight of the ideal that we may have EVER seen. Apparently, that is not good enough for the oligarchs, politicians and the ignorant.

I watched the show and while

I watched the show and while I was pleased with the content, I don't see this as any kind of game changer. The media already has most convinced that health care reform is dirty, bad, unpatriotic and dead.

While it's refreshing to see

While it's refreshing to see a democratic voice finally getting through all the inane conservative noise on health care reform, Weiner's questions don't really help make the case for a single-payer system (which I support, by the way). His arguments are just as valid for criticizing auto insurance companies. The fact is that insurance companies of all types provide an important, albeit abstract, service in that they assume and pool risk for individual consumers. It's kind of scary that neither a congressman or a leading conservative pundit seems to understand this fundamental fact.

Morning Joe doesn't want to

Morning Joe doesn't want to be the next Glen Beck. Beck has had 20 sponsors pull their ads from his show in protest over his tirades about Obama. Money talks and bull**** walks. Hello Joe waddia know?

What really bugs me on this

What really bugs me on this issue is that nobody points out that insurance is a socialist concept to begin with. Nobody can afford to go it alone in the face of catastrophic medical bills, so we pool our money "collectively" and pay out "to each according to his needs". It is a classic example of our society coming up with solution to a problem that can't be handled with a capitalistic approach. So at what point was it decided that somebody in the middle should get filthy rich processing paperwork?

Reply to Anonymous 20:54: If

Reply to Anonymous 20:54: If the auto insurance companies had the same kind of "denial of service" as the health insurers, no one would purchase their policies. That's why the health insurance lobby wants a mandate. Also, one can choose not to drive, and therefore not need auto insurance. What's the option if you don't want healthcare - choose not to live?

He could have also said that

He could have also said that free markets and healthcare are simply incompatible in most ways.

That "they assume and pool

That "they assume and pool risk for individual consumers" is a good description of the service insurance companies provide, but I think the questions Weiner posed DO make a case for a single-payer government pool of risk for health care, with the benefits of a pool of risk that is much larger than any single private insurance company. The difference between health insurance and auto insurance is that every human has a body and thus runs a risk of requiring some type of care, but not everyone has an automobile -- some people don't need auto insurance. There are varying opinions on the specifics of how health (medical) care should be administered, but I don't see private insurance companies (driven by a profit motive) as adding real value to the determination of "how".

Why do we pay taxes? Why do

Why do we pay taxes? Why do we have public education? Why do we collectively pay for roads, garbage collection, military defense? why does the government inspect our food and water supplies? honestly I cannot believe the world's "greatest democracy" is STILL DEBATING free affordable healthcare for all as we are entering into the 2nd decade of the 21st century! I firmly believe that if we lose this battle for true clear reform our country will implode within 50 years

Time to turn up the pressure

Time to turn up the pressure on Congress for a single payer system. We need to convince the Blue Dog Democrats that the money they are getting from the health insurance companies will be filled by other campaign funds and knock them down in one fell swoop with a single payer system

Insurance works by pooling

Insurance works by pooling risk. When risk can be defined, it can't be pooled. Now that we can determine health risks, the only feasible option is a universal pool. Everybody in the pool. Universal, single-payer is the only viable option.

It is odd, an example of how

It is odd, an example of how twisted the discussion has been from the beginning. Health insurance has never been the issue but it is what gets talked about most. Health care IS the issue and it gets talked about least.

Forget it. Single payer

Forget it. Single payer will not happen in this country. Joe Scarborough is sometimes reasonable and analytical, but he's still a conservative ideologue and this one program won't change a thing. Corporate America is in charge, and they serve the interests of the rich and powerful, who have no interest in us peons except as to how much they pay us as workers can be recycled back into their bottom lines when we buy their products and services. The only way to reform health care - not just health insurance - is to do what the Republicans do to the peons: get them fighting amongst themselves, hating each other. If we can persuade corporate America that one segment, the health care industry, is hurting the rest of corporate America, e.g. outrageous premiums for health insurance on their employees, maybe then they'll wake up and support reforms.

Nothing amazes me more these

Nothing amazes me more these days than the sheer thickheadedness of those who oppose a single payer system. They have no rational reasoning and Joe Scarborough is a good example of that. So does this mean that the President has to send a team of doctors to meet one on one with each and every one of these ignoramuses? My bet is even that would backfire as Sarah Palin would decry it as personal arm-twisting squads or some such nonsense and that would become another movement like the birthers.

I like the brief comment of

I like the brief comment of bradb. "Free markets and healthcare are incompatible..." What the macho Ayn Randian, Beck and Limbaugh acolytes need to understand is we progressives aren't about to dismantle "free enterprise." Single-payer, universal health care is no more threat to our nation than the Viet Cong were all those years ago. Yet we're being browbeaten with the same inane arguments we heard during the Cold War with regard to health care reform. Most rational Americans realize the advantages of private enterprise and competition in certain activities. We love our high tech communication, computers and other innovations for which we can thank entrepreneurs and risk-takers. It just doesn't work with health care. Not every problem is solved turning it over to the "private sector." Have the past eight years of neo-liberal, supply-side economics taught us anything? The train wreck on Wall Street, the dominance of the war party in foreign affairs, the environmental challenges, peak oil--which of these problems has been solved by the conservative oligarchy?

to jruss "which if these

to jruss "which if these problems have been solved by the conservative oligarchy?" all of them by ripping and raping the middle class and the poor>

Many excellent arguments,

Many excellent arguments, explanations and observations in support of the bill here. So why don't we hear them in the major news media, from the "experts"?