Friday, July 24, 2009

VIDEO: The Robin Carnahan Interview

In the first clip, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Robin Carnahan explains why she's open to a public option to help revamp the healthcare system.
"What I think this is really about is getting things done for folks and not staking out hard and fast partisan positions."
"We've got to create a system that creates pricing pressure and so I'm open for however we do that."
"There's already somebody standing between you and your doctor. It's called the insurance companies."
"Congressman Roy Blunt and I disagree about this. He seems satisfied with how things are working in healthcare. I don't."

In the second clip, Carnahan grapples with the issue of cost -- and is less specific about which taxpayers should bare the burden of paying for healthcare reform. She also attempts to clarify her position on the economic stimulus package.
"We've got to come up with money somewhere and what I'm against is having it be on middle class folks and small businesses."
"I'm not going to take a position on what that number is."
"When you walk up to me and give me some binary choice about something somebody else decided -- am I for it or against it -- I'd probably come up with a different plan."
To watch The Notebook's interview with Carnahan back in February on the economic stimulus package, click HERE.


Andrew said...

Same old tired nonsense from liberals. Profit bad, government good! Tax the rich! Can this woman quit using liberal talking points? Cost controls? Where what cost controls?

Yeah medicare and social security are great, going to be insolvent in 10 years! That proves that the government can solve this? One question Ms. Carnahan. Why do so many doctors refuse to accept new patients with medicare/medicaid?

She "doesn't think" that the government will destroy private insurance! Apparently she hasn't read HR 3200 it is right there on page 16 if anyone wants to read it for yourself. No new policies after passage.

We don't need another McCaskill she has already cost us enough money!

Paul Seale said...

The fact that she is open to the public simply because it creates "downward" market pressure shows that she doesnt understand economics/capitalism 101.

If Democrats were serious about reforming "health insurance" (thats the term they are using now), then they would find what is creating upward pressure and focus on that.

That would include tort reform though.

Bigger question I didnt see here, but is implied, is that she supports putting illegal aliens on the insurance roles.

In either case it was interesting to note her responses were void of facts and specifics. She essentially brushed off serious criticism about the pending legislation without any clash.

It mimics what we are seeing on the national scene which tells us that Carnahan, if elected, will be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the extreme left in her party.

gumshoe said...

Hey Andrew, to get you up to speed "liberal" isn't much of a talking point and when used as a slander has kind of lost it's stigma now.

The reason many doctors don't accept patients with medicare/medicaid is because there is a long turn-around time and an increase in administrative costs for these doctors.

gumshoe said...


You should know capitalism doesn't work well under a cartlel -- which is exactly the burden current health insurance companies have placed upon our families.

We need regulation and a not-for profit system to protect middle income families. The costs are outrageous and these companies make money when we are sick.

For-profit healthcare has no vested interest in a healthy public -- from the common cold, to cancer, to diabetes, strokes, and heart attacks.

Over the last seven years the cost to insure has gone from 5% of a families income to more than 15% of their income. Healthcare is the number one cause of bankruptcy in America .

Every health insurance provider is experiencing record profits. Why hasn't the market corrected itself, Paul?

Obviously the government needs to step-in and defend middle class families that are being exploited. That is one function of our government.

Andrew said...

Not really trying to slander. Just simply stating the fact that "liberals" are the ones that are supporting this massive overhaul that is HR 3200. Sorry if your feelings got hurt.

Of course you have read the bill so you know how good it is. Right? In fairness I haven't read the whole thing either but you seem such an expert on the matter I would have figured you would have refuted my statements about it.

Regulation works well, that's why the financial sector didn't fail, right? Oh, wait it did, and it was the most regulated sector of the economy. Regulation by some states is actually part of the reason for healthcare going up now as it is. States tell the healthcare companies they have to cover certain things and low and behold the market adjusts and prices rise.

It would be nice if we actually could get people off of traditional health insurance completely. The only real insurance you need is a HDHP (high deductible health plan). You can cover the small stuff yourself.

There is the issue of the 12-15 million that are probably too poor to cover their own. Instead of handing out money to failed banks maybe we could cover the high risk procedures for these folks and make everyone else take responsibility for their lives. Routine stuff would still be their own problem.

For anyone that wants to read it. 5 freedoms you would lose under healthcare being proposed. From CNN of all places! Read this you might actually learn what

Andrew said...

Sorry didn't finish my last sentence. "learn what they are up to."

Paul Seale said...

Nice straw man there gumshoe.

At the very least you dodge my point because you know it is the true. At best you ignore the results of adopting a system which would degrade health care to a rationed state with new research and break throughs being stymied by regulation.

These are not just my words or a random opinion. It is based on years of actual performance in multiple countries (Canada, United Kingdom) and the failed experiment in Massachusetts.

The key sentence, I believe, in creating reform is what Carnahan's (and Obama's) stated. They have that much right. It is about putting downward pressure on the market.

There are a lot of smaller factors which lead to insurance costs whether it is government not paying doctors their fair market value (that is why drs dont like medicaid), lawyer fees or regulations which do not allow insurance companies to directly compete with each other.

With that said I do think there can be area of agreement and true reform. However I do not believe Democrats are interested because it would mean limiting their special interest (read lawyers) and actually looking into market based solutions which they cannot totally control.

So when we talk about health care reform lets get it right instead of using cliche and terms dating back to the seventies.

Policy specifics please.

For those interested, I would urge them to read a few editorials at investors business daily and WSJ regarding some of the details of HB 3200. Creepy stuff, especially on end of life care.

Then again I think the editor of this blog posted a companion article from the NYT espousing the need for rationing of Healthcare based upon whether or not the person was worth spending large sums of money for a few months of extralife.

Paul Seale said...

p.s. gumshoe,

If someone has bad insurance and there was a better option they would take it.

If people had a choice between paying lots of money for good insurance or bad insurance which would they take?

I would also add that this comment:

For-profit healthcare has no vested interest in a healthy public -- from the common cold, to cancer, to diabetes, strokes, and heart attacks.

Tells me you know nothing about the industry. How or why do you think there are so many more medical advances here in America? It is because someone has an idea and wants to make money off of it.

This is true whether you are talking about a drug, medical procedure or equipment for that procedure.

Take away the profit motive and you have what the former Soviet Union was.

Andrew said...

Paul, well stated!

gumshoe said...


Do you even know what a strawman is? Facts and data are not the merit of a strawman.

But there we have it... you said it, socialism. That, in fact, is a strawman. Distort the President's approach to healthcare reform, shout "socialism" from the roof tops, and try to scare the public and Missouri families from having the health coverage they want and so badly need.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship.
It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money.

You know, prisons and wars weren't always run by private contractors, Paul? What I simply stated what people with Diabetes, Cancer, or HIV are not cured -- just left to be good enough to "live with it."

In the U.S. today, three mega for-profit multi-industry companies own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. Interstingly enough, the U.S. largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins.

Paul writes: How or why do you think there are so many more medical advances here in America? It is because someone has an idea and wants to make money off of it.

Wrong. Despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation, we rank poorly.

Fact One: The United States ranks 29th in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

Do you really think insurance companies are in business for your health? That's called an economic cost. Are you aware of what "recision" is? It's when insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for God knows how long.

Ever heard of a pre-existing condition?

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything?

The problem with the current healthcare debate isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

Andrew said...


There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. When you cite statistics cite a source for the data otherwise you are just blowing smoke into the air. I am always open to statistics, but when you just rattle them off as if they are obvious fact you are doing a disservice to any layman that reads it. You talk like you are educated you ought to know this!

Capitalism is not the evil, the evil in our society right now is our moral code. No one respects the value of the individual anymore. Not all corporations are "evil greedy corporations." I am sorry that someone never taught you the value of our economic system. You are not the only one.

gumshoe said...


Indeed. I usually cite my statistics. The data I had is from 2003/2004 I believe. However, I reviewed the most current data available now and found it's actually much worse. Check it out for yourself:

CIA World Factbook

Secondly, when you understand the difference between an economic system and a system of government, lets talk. There's a difference between liberty and markets.

Capitalism is an economic system governing capital and labor distribution. It is not a governance system of societal contract or law.

Freedom can be encapsulated in law, social convention, constitution, social contract or through the democratic process. There is no inherent connection to capitalism. Economics and governance are separate entities and until you realize that ideology and policy are different things then you are incapable of any objectivity.

Andrew said...


Apparently you are incapable of reading for meaning. Where in my statement did I state that capitalism was a system of governance? Gee, I think I learned this fact back when I studied Political Science in college. Thanks for the refresher course though. When a society, such as this one, begins to alter it's government to choose an immoral economic system such as this socialist mess we are moving towards, one expects problems. If you are okay with that fine. Just remember Robin Hood was an immoral thief and you aren't much different than him. When you hold at gunpoint the more successful to aid the less successful, you are little different than a two bit thug on the street. A man has the right to his own labors and wealth. It's personal property and for you to state that others need it more than they do I have little respect for that.

I will look at the CIA factbook when I have a chance. Thanks for putting it out there.

gumshoe said...

The bailout, etc. was predominately a response to the collapse of markets we de-regulated -- such as the automobile and housing industry. The lack of government oversight is why these industries started to fail.

Is there enough oversight on the bailout? NO.

However, the predatory lending that caused all this mess was part of de-gregulation -- which, as I assume you learned in your poli sci class, comes from the laissez faire philospohy and is an extreme form of capitalism.

Too bad folks like you lost their bid to take the Social Security funds and hand them over to the marketers so we could all be making even more “individual choices,” though not by our own choice, and lose our paltry future funds in the market.

22,000 Americans die every year because they lack adequate health care coverage. Cite: The Urban Institute That's a basic, verifiable fact. That's about 60 Americans every day, or six 9/11's every year.

If standing up for middle class families is immoral, then open up the gates of hell for me.

When was the last time you got a paycheck for $9,600?

If it was the last pay period, then the health care reform bill Congress is voting on may not be for you. But if you're one of the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 every year, then you stand to save a lot of money.

The health care reform bill that the House will vote on this week will save you an average of $2,200 a year. It would have those folks who make more than a quarter of a million dollars pay for the reform we need by rolling Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

Andrew said...

Gumshoe my patience with you is waning. I have better things to do then sit here and argue inaccuracies with you so this will be my last statement. The Urban Institute is not a proper citation, actual document is more helpful, I don't have the time to peruse their website to prove you wrong.

Of course people in other countries don't die right? They don't die because they don't have adequate coverage either?

Right in the middle of the middle class, tired of government trying to decide how they are going to "help me." It will save me $2200 a year. Yeah right. There is no research to support that and like any other government bureaucracy it will eventually fail. The bill was just written this year. No one is capable of providing that kind of assessment on a system of this complexity.

Sick and tired of the nonsense on the left. Proof that you have no respect for individuals and the work they put in for a dollar. You incorrectly blame those of success for the transgressions of a small group of rich elites. Most people that will have to pay for this are not "evil" rich people.

Mark my words, keep up this nonsense, and you won't like this country in 20 years. Fixing what you on the left are breaking right now is going to take enough clean up. We keep up, I have little hope for America.

gumshoe said...

Indeed, Andrew. Arguing your weak and ill concieved points is boring me to death.

We'll let the viewers decide...

BUT if you get a chance -- to save you the time, here's where you can "pursue their website to prove me wrong"

Andrew said...

Thanks for the citation. One question though, why is it surprising that those without insurance face a higher mortality rate? The numbers provided do not assess a cost of death, realistically these peoples life styles, diet, and income are going to correlate to the fact that they face a higher risk as well.

All the meanwhile everyone else who is successful and has insurance is now going to pay for the 12 million or so that can't pay for it. Sorry, not going to do that. I am not saying I don't want them to get help either. I just don't trust another government bureaucracy to make good choices for our healthcare. HR 3200 is a dangerous bill that fundamentally alters the system in the opposite direction.

This solution is not an acceptable solution. We do not negatively affect the 260 million that have health insurance for the 12 million that do not. That is an irrational choice, one derived out of your sympathy for those that need help.

Paul Seale said...

Whoa, talk about a response that is completely missing the mark.

Andrew is quite correct in stating that statistics can be misleading and to be frank, that is precisely what is going on here.

Gumshoe reminds me a lot of a guy I debated several times my senior year in high school who tried, and was successful a time out of the three times we met, to equate human rights with ice cream.

Gumshoe is committing the same type of error here by twisting basic meanings, studies and ignoring others.

Through this type of argument we get the same thought processes that the exsistance of blue socks means we will have nuclear war one day.

Obviously that statement is false. The same applies here.

Our local hospital, St. Johns, is owned by the Sisters of Mercy system. According to him, its a nothing more than a lube center. I am sure paitents and those who work there would beg to differ.

It is this one size fits all, ignore the reality of the industry and how people are really being treated which hurts the entire discussion.

That doesnt mean there arent needs to address and areas which can be discussed and address.

HR 3200 aint it. HR 3200 is an attack on our basic liberties and rights as individuals.

Freedom means risk. It means imperfection.

It also means there exists a far greater opportunity to improve and give people choices.

This is why capitalism and freedom/liberty go hand in hand and made this nation the greatest on Earth.

It sets people free to find new curse, research new medical equipment technology, specialize in what ever field they choose so.

You could say its sorta like the fact we have an all volunteer army and why it is so successful. People are there because they want to and are free to choose.

To pretend those principles havent driven our success is being intellectually dishonest.

Pull those principles out and the entire system (and nation) will collapse like a house of cards.

In the end, HR 3200 will not save anyone a dime. Instead it will cripple people's choices and cut others off from health care entirely.

That is not based on some twisted partisan fact, but what the bill says in black and white.

And lastly, Gumshoe, the problem we had with lending centers around Congressional requirements and pressures in association with mark to market practices.

The banks had a hand in it for sure by bundling bad loans with good loans. Congress, Demcorats primary (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) fought supervision and regulation of that part tooth and nail. Why? Because money was going to ACORN and associated groups hand over fist.

So, lets get our facts straight. Shall well?

K, thx bai.

Andrew said...

Thanks Paul, great points, I am done with this conversation.