Skip to content

Rachel Maddow Explains our Health Care System

This video embodies why I love Rachel Maddow. As she says, don’t blame health insurance companies for our broken health care system — they are just doing what they are supposed to do:



  1. Joe Watts wrote:

    Dude that was like totally amazing.


    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 7:47 am | Permalink
  2. Doug Taggart wrote:

    We need more dems like Anthony Weiner, I’m a fan. Although, I do wonder how much of the dems are also subsidiaries of the health insurance industry.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 7:56 am | Permalink
  3. Cansee Clearly wrote:

    I feel sorry for you people that think one party is all “go team go!” and the other one is the evil away team out to ruin things. Neither party has been representing the interest of the people for a very long time. If you weren’t blindly in love with a party, you could see it for what it really is (that applies to you if you are still a Bill Clinton lover and do not realize the impact of the legislation he signed and the financial proposals his administration blocked . . . for your own sake, see the PBS documentary “The Warning.”)

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 8:19 am | Permalink
  4. Jtheletter wrote:

    – When my house burns down my home insurance policy is not revoked because I once bought scented candles.
    – When my car is in an accident the auto insurance policy is not revoked because I failed to report when someone keyed it the year before.
    – When any other professional service contract is made I can expect the work to be completed or sue for the balance of my payments if they refuse to complete the work, they cannot fail to deliver AND keep my payments.

    Do we see the pattern yet? Every other insurance company is for-profit yet still manages to pay claims without revoking policies for trivial reasons after the fact. Every private industry has contracts that provide relief for both sides if one side fails to deliver. The health insurance industry seems to be the only one that claims it can’t be for-profit AND provide the service they are contracted for. It’s a lie.

    If a health insurance company has full access to your medical files from the start then why do they wait -sometimes years- for you to file a claim before reviewing your history for events that would invalidate your policy? Why isn’t your history reviewed up front for all of those items before you are even sold coverage? They are selling you something while reserving the right to revoke it later because they failed to perform due diligence up front. Note that this is different than a customer hiding something. Policies are revoked for medical history items that are easily researched ahead of time – shouldn’t it be the case that selling you the policy means they are officially accepting your current and available medical history?

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 8:32 am | Permalink
  5. woeful understanding wrote:

    there is a terribly misinformed debate going on surrounding healthcare. one topic never discussed is the idea to increase competition to drive down costs. no this is not the public option, look how well medicare and medicaid operate. they are driving the nation to insolvency.
    what real reform needs to take place is removing the special interest serviing regulations that prohibt greater competition in the healthcare industry.
    competition is the means to lowering costs. increaing the # enrolled through a mandate will be nothing but a windfall for the main players in the health insurance industry. if the big wigs that wrote teh legislation for the obama admin and their dem cohorts in congress had to compete with new players you would see them stream line and be forced to lower costs to remain competitive. a basic economic premise that gets no air time because of how corrupt DC is.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 8:34 am | Permalink
  6. VinnieTheSnake wrote:

    How many additional insurance companies jumped at the chance to move into California when Blue Cross/Anthem announced their 39% increase? None.
    For-profit doesn’t work in health care. It is not equitable. Those with money can afford insurance (whether or not the insurance kicks in when you need it is another matter). Those who cannot afford the premiums for insurance are left out of the program.
    The flu doesn’t know whether or not you have insurance. It is a truly equitable illness. Just as all disease is equitable. I don’t want to catch a disease simply because someone else can’t afford to go to the doctor.
    Getting primary care in the Emergency Room is the most expensive method possible, and it is paid for by the rest of us who can afford primary care when we need to go to the hospital, because the hospital must cover its costs one way or another in order to stay open.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 9:39 am | Permalink
  7. Neil wrote:

    @woeful understanding –

    The problem with free-market solutions to any healthcare problem is the aspect of compassion and humanity that isn’t available. Companies in healthcare shouldn’t be burdened with having to be humane and compassionate; they are for-profit corporations and there’s just no way that environment is the right place to make decisions about people’s lives.

    Any legislative solution to ‘force’ decent behaviour is going to be tested, bypassed, and bribed into impotence.

    Even in the most libertarian model of government, there are always *some* services that government must provide because private enterprise isn’t motivated to do what is right but not profitable. The police is the most obvious example, I believe healthcare is in the same boat.

    So, if I conclude that completely free-market solutions to healthcare are impossible, and that legislating decency is ineffective, then the only remaining option is the single-payer or even public-option.

    I just don’t get this fixation on the free market and the fact that many people think it *MUST* be the solution to every problem.

    Besides, your comment about nobody mentioning using competition to drive down costs? Are you serious? That is talked about *constantly* and in fact the video for this post mentions it at least twice. Both times, Weiner referred to the republicans who asked for it, were offered it, and then backed down and asked for something else.

    @cansee clearly –

    Almost nobody thinks that one side is all white and the other side are satanists. Very few people are that simplistic and democrats are generally so unhappy with the way this has been handled by the party that I think they blame the Democrats more, even if they still think the GOP are entirely negative.

    In the last 12 months I haven’t met a single democrat voter who could be described as ‘blindly in love with the party’.

    What you are doing is assuming the same level of blind devotion on the left as we normally see on the right. Unfortunately the right is much better at ignoring reality and worshipping authority, on the left there are too many varieties of philosophy and culture for that – the dems are almost like a dozen smaller parties whose only common ground is their dislike of the GOP.

    I think you will find that the democrat supporters dislike the GOP ideas and attitude, but when it comes to genuine anger, we reserve that for the people on our side that keep scoring own-goals.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 9:39 am | Permalink
  8. Jason wrote:


    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 10:03 am | Permalink
  9. John wrote:

    She is an idiot. They maximize profit by meeting the needs of people. If they were terrible at providing their services you would be able find another insurer who would. The government is allowing the lack of other alternatives by not allowing you to buy health insurance over state lines. A nationally run plan would be the equivalent of a massive expansion of Medicare which we all know is over budget and will become a huge cause of deficit spending for the national government.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 11:43 am | Permalink
  10. I don’t agree with Rachel Maddow. It is for-profit insurers’ fault for their behavior. It’s their job to maximize profit, but not to bleed their customers dry — or to deny coverage to anyone. They are to blame. There’s a difference between “profit making” and “customer gouging.” (But I get what Rachel’s really saying.)

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
  11. Iron Knee wrote:

    John, I don’t know what fantasyland you live in, but (and I’m speaking as a corporate CEO here) there are very few businesses that maximize profit by meeting the needs of people. You’ve been watching “Field of Dreams” too much.

    I agree with you that health insurance should be available across state lines, but that will not solve the problem. After all, California has more people than many countries and yet there is little or no competition between health insurance companies there. Plus, for most people, they DON”T have a choice of insurance company — their employer picks it for them.

    And stop with the Medicare bashing. The majority of countries in the world have a single payer health insurance system (e.g., like Medicare for everyone), and it is far more cost effective than our for-profit system.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 12:19 pm | Permalink
  12. Mindful of Mistakes wrote:

    Medicare or medicaid are always going to be a problem…Insurance companies love medcaid and medicare because it lowers the risk in their pools. Why can’t I buy into a medicare system and help lower costs? I barely use my insurance, therefore my premium would go to help offset expenses that we know will only swell in time. The best way to solve this issue is to allow myself the CHOICE! to elect medicare coverage. I will choose to be subjected to the “death panel” that medicare is because it will help or costs in the long run. Competition is not the issue. The issue is that the only people taking advantage of individual health plans are those who were kicked out of other insurance pools…that is why a policy with a $10000 deductible, yes, 10000, costs 869/month. Give me a break this system is a joke. If this doesn’t pass the only way to gain from the problem is to invest in healthcare companies, share in their profits.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
  13. Drizzle Fritz wrote:

    well in regards to cansee clearly’s comment. what is painfully obvious is the exclusion of context within your argument. it is also clear that at this point in time one party clearly has motives beyond the consent of the people. In general terms you do have a point. but waching someone stand up within the machine is not unlike a breath of fresh air.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
  14. Jake wrote:

    Iron Knee is right. Companies don’t maximize unit margins by meeting the needs of their clients. They do however maximize market share by providing a service or product at the best benefit to cost ratio. This is why every business has sales, specials, and competitive pricing. When people, including the republicans, speak of competition they speak of competing insurance companies. This is not the issue. The issue is a lack of price transparency within the hospital/clinic themselves. If I go to buy a movie I know how much it costs. If I go to buy food, bottled water, tylenol, a plane flight, an oil change, anything, I know what it costs before I buy it.

    Now who can tell me how much an x-ray costs…. or a doctors visit… an MRI? how about mending a broken leg that involves setting a compound fracture and an air cast?

    It’s impossible to shop around and find what medical facility provides the best care for the best price. And why would you!? Most people don’t have to pay the bill. Insurance companies do. Whether it is cancer or a common cold. All other insurance companies pay for major events. A tree falls on your house, a car accident, a tornado, criminal vandalism. They don’t pay to replace a screen door.. or change your oil or tires.

    In Ron Paul’s book, “The Revolution”, he talks about a doctor that owns and runs a clinic in TN. He doesn’t accept any kind of insurance, medicare, or medicaid. He is a cash only business. Now because of this a standard checkup costs his clients about $35. Most people are low income or uninsured, because his rates are affordable and he lets people know upfront costs.

    I’m not telling anyone what to think, but here is some food for thought. Don’t let the politicians cloud the issue. Take a look at how all other markets look and realize that the Health care industry plays by way different rules, and those rules need to be changed….

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
  15. Rob wrote:

    It’s NOT For-Profit Insurance companies fault that they cancel on people on their deathbed?! That’s just how it works?! Are you kidding me?! NO, it IS their Fault! They are human being just like us, they have the duty to do their best for their fellow humans every single day. Just because they sit at a desk that claims they are ‘for profit’ does not excuse them from being people! They are as culpable to help others as any other man or woman on this earth. Claiming they are excused is absurd. We are all in this together!

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
  16. Iron Knee wrote:

    Rob, I think we all agree with you, but that’s not the point. The point is that businesses are in business to make money, not to be a charity. If they were run like a charity nobody would invest in them and they would go out of business quickly.

    That’s exactly why we have government. And why health insurance cannot be run as a businesses.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
  17. Mike wrote:

    ACTUAL REFORM plz — NOT another expensive entitlement plan!

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
  18. PhiLLyinDaLLaS wrote:

    Maddow is my hero…what a woman!

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
  19. Done with Dems wrote:

    You ignore the public option at your very grave peril.


    I’m done with Democrats.

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
  20. It doesn't matter... wrote:

    1) Corporations are NOT human beings.
    2) What duty are you referring to? There is generally no legal duty to be a “Good Samaritan” either in the United States (there are limited circumstances where there may be such a duty but there is no general duty).

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
  21. Aaron wrote:

    Why is nobody asking why health care is so expensive, instead of why health care insurance is so expensive?

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
  22. Iron Knee wrote:

    Aaron, where have you been? Lots of people are asking why health care is so expensive. In particular, lots of people are asking why drugs are so expensive, and want to be able to reimport drugs from Canada, for example. And a large part of Obama’s health care reform bill is working on reducing the cost of health care.

    The problem is, every time someone mentions reducing the cost of health care, the Republicans and Tea Partiers start screaming “rationing!!!!” and “death panels!!!”

    Friday, February 26, 2010 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
  23. It’s not our government’s job to dictate which businesses profit and which do not. This is the basic fundamentals of how the U.S. became a “Managed Economy” rather than a “Free Market”.

    Also, the media keeps pointing the finger at the insurance companies, but they’re doing what everyone else is doing; raising prices and making cuts to meet the demands of the Pharmaceutical Industry. That industry is on top the mountain claiming whatever price they want on whatever they own … Everything after that is adjusting to them.

    Our politicians simply want to take over from the insurers so Pharmaceuticals can continue to name whatever price they want and just let the tax payer suck up the bill.

    Free Your Mind – Kill Your TV

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:17 am | Permalink
  24. joeA wrote:

    These hippies think they know so much… they have no faith in the lord..

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:41 am | Permalink
  25. Iron Knee wrote:

    Dang, this post hit the front page of Digg today and as a result I get a bunch of ideologues in here spouting nonsense. Sigh.

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:44 am | Permalink
  26. Mark Campidonica wrote:

    Jake is right.

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 1:46 am | Permalink
  27. Iron Knee. Get used to it? You find good stuff, so you’re going to get dugg, redditted, farked, and several more. 😉

    Though I doubt you’ll get slashdotted, at least not for this blog. 😉

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 3:50 am | Permalink
  28. Tebeau169 wrote:

    Finally! This piece tells the truth about the alleged “health care system”. Too bad the American public is too lazy to insist that this broken non-system be replaced with a fair universal health care system. The fear of “socialized medicine” is just so much more “Fast Boat” type of hype. Smoke and Mirrors covered with 5 second sound bites with catchy terms easily remembered is what the opposition puts forth. “Death Squads” is but one egregeous exampl. A lie, but one that because it got instant attention spreed like wildfire and is now part of our vocabulary and the lexicon of the health care debate.

    We need more Congress members like Mr. Weiner. He is the Patrick Henry of the 2010 Healthcare debate. Keep telling like it is Mr. W. and Rachel please keep broadcasting his and other corect thinking representatives’ remarks along with your reasoned comentary. Somebody out there on main Street is actually listening. And that is a start.

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 6:05 am | Permalink
  29. Steve wrote:


    You have a misguided, but typical view of Libertarianism and free-markets. Markets care not about compassion, but this is not a condemnation in any sense. Markets are nothing more than the voluntary interaction between two parties. Compassion may or may not play into one’s voluntary action, but it is neither an argument for or against markets.

    The reason why some people understand that free markets are the solution is because of two facts.
    1-The extremely high correlation between those industries that are more influence by government force and coercion being impeded by less innovation, higher costs and poorer service. And, conversely, those industries that are least influenced by government force and coercion showing the greatest innovation, lower costs and greater customer satisfaction. This should be easily understood when you realize that markets must compete for customers where governments are inherently and necessarily monopolistic. This is not a conclusion that most come to lightly, but that does not make it any less a fact.
    2-Markets are voluntary and governments are compulsory. Your argument is that markets are not compassionate, but then you state that single payer is the solution. Markets are voluntary and single payer is compulsory, so I ask you, which sounds more compassionate to you, allowing individuals to make their own decisions, or forcing them to take specific actions? If you don’t believe single payer is compulsory, then your understanding of government intervention is as lacking as your understanding of markets.

    Final and quick point is that you don’t know as much about Libertarianism as you believe you do. You say even the most strict libertarian believes that government is needed for at least some industries, and you note police as an example. Not only is this wrong, but it’s wrong a lot of the time for even not-so-strict libertarians. For example, not even strict libertarians could possibly agree that police, highways and courts should all be functionaries of the free market (scandalous, I know). But the main point is that the most strict Libertarian is aptly named an Anarcho-Libertarian. That’s right, anarchy, a social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).

    The strictest Libertarian has great faith in the free individual that most others have lost through generations of increasing Stockholm Syndrome.

    You most likely disagree with either my main points of refutation or more likely their implications, but that’s okay. You’re entitled to your opinion, and if I haven’t convinced you that it is wrong, then we can agree to disagree.


    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 7:09 am | Permalink
  30. Pfred wrote:

    Tere are no free markets. The fundamental problem with libertarianism is the assumption that free individuals will behave well in relating to other free individuals. There are no free markets because some one always has their thumb on the scale.

    Health insurance companies are parasitic. they suck blood money out of the health care system without providing any health care. they just pass the money along after taking their huge cut off the top. They are useless middle men.

    The evolution of our brand of capitalism is turning our entire economy into some weird form of corporate neo-fuedalism. We are enslaved to our health insurance companies like so many serfs, unable to innovate and take risks to start new businesses because we become indentured to our jobs in order to access health insurance. Give us single payer portability and watch a whole new wave of business startups by would be entrepreneurs who can’t afford to lose their insurance under the current situation. That would be economically liberating.

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 8:42 am | Permalink
  31. Mad Hatter wrote:

    Steve –

    I don’t care what people call each other….liberal, progressive, conservative, socialist, libertarian, etc. It’s my observation that the meaning of these terms change over time and mean different things to different people anyway. What interests me more is what people think and why they think that way.

    What is your particular situation in life? Is your Daddy rich and powerful? Were you raised in a middle or lower income family? How supportive were your parents able to be? Have you had to make your own way through life?

    Your parents may have paid for all of your education and needs, I don’t know, but, depending on your age and if you were raised in the USA, you probably received some benefit or general welfare at the expense of the taxpayers. And, these benefits may have been provided and delivered less than perfectly efficiently but they were there regardless of your situation in life. (I’m reminded of Beck’s recent faux pas when he was ranting about progressives and said that all people had to do was go to the public library and read about the evil of progressivism…after all the books were free!)

    Do you honestly think your life would have been better without this collective support from the citizens of America? Why do you think that it should be every man for himself and that that would make a better society?

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 10:21 am | Permalink
  32. Iron Knee wrote:

    Mad Hatter, you make some good points. I’ve spent time in some places where there is little government, and “every man for himself” isn’t very pretty.

    Oh, and to ThoughtDancer, I get Reddited all the time and it doesn’t seem to drive in so many wing-nuts as Digg does.

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
  33. ebdoug wrote:

    Self employed insurance. Excuse me, but most self employed people with no employees can not be in groups. I was never kicked out of my insurance. I paid it myself until I hit 65 last September. I now pay max premiums for A,B,C, and D Medicare and am not complaining after the years I paid for self pay insurance which was raised $100 a month for the last two months. $628 a month to help defeat health care reform, except I want health care reform. No meds which were $3000 a year out of pocket. Then I pay another $2600 for Long term insurance. Over $13,000 a year to breath in and out. Pretty silly I thought. I had no taxable income last year. Just social security paid on my business. Since I’m a tax preparer, I report every penny I earn.

    Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
  34. LaFay Smith wrote:

    People we have a great President who is simply trying to ensure we will all be able to have medical insurance. We have to learn to trust that he has the well being of all of us in mind and if the Republican party would grasp that concept we would be better off. You need to seriously take a look at the intent of the Republicans that are focused on political careers versus the people.Now for all of you who have good insurance because you can afford, you need to think about those who do not. There are so many people losing all they have because they have had to take care of a familys members health care. Lets think for a change!!!!

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 12:03 am | Permalink
  35. Effis wrote:

    Hold on, I thought the supreme court said that corporations have the same rights as persons. Then Rob’s logic seems in line with the extension that those who have rights should also have responsibilities.

    But anyway, what all this boils down to is ‘do individuals have a right to a healthy environment in the country they live in?’

    How does your government treat you? Do you think they are looking out for you? Do government meat inspectors really improve the quality of our foot and reduce death from tainted meat and mad cow disease, or is everything government does just a waste of money?

    Seems like politicians are a waste of money.

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 2:21 am | Permalink
  36. Jonah wrote:

    IMO the two main reasons for high insurance are the following

    1) Peoples lifestyle – Obesity and smoking account for significant portions of health care costs. Health care spending for obesity was 147 billion or 6%. Spending for smoking is 96 billion.

    2) The high cost of drugs – Drug companies have to conduct a lengthy list of clinical trials before they are able to prove to the FDA that their drugs work. These trials cost a lot of money and therefore drug companies recoup these costs (and then some) by charging exorbitant amounts of money for their drugs. As an example a potential drug for Prostrate Cancer, which afflicts a significant number of men, called Provenge, will likely cost between 50 and 100 K if approved by the FDA.

    The solution may not be a public option. Even if there was one, premiums may not become cheaper as long as the above two problems are not solved.

    There are plenty of ways to solve the problems caused by our lifestyles. I’m not enough of a biotech expert to come up with ways to solve the second problem. Reducing the patent life to introduce generics into the market sooner will help reduce the cost of drugs. However this would mean that fewer Biotech companies and investors will spend the money to launch expensive clinical trials.

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 8:35 am | Permalink
  37. Scott Free wrote:

    The health care reform process needs ideas and input from all the major political parties . The everyman for himself idea “Free Market” that the R’s want works if you have money for health care insurance . Lets face it to many don’t have the money for whatever reason. We won’t be able to ignore this much longer . We need one set of facts and figures we can work from that’s how things are done in business and when there not the business suffers and usually fails . If we do the free market thing and it does not work what then ? I want to know ?
    We will be back here again and maybe in much worse economic shape believe me I’m a business owner we see the future we just work with it adjusting whatever we have to, to make a profit . If we do single payer or public option we can always tweak it in the future if we see it is dragging us in the ditch. The people who can’t afford insurance is surely going to grow this will swell all the forms of medicaid and we will have to rescue it anyway. I can here the no more taxes crowd now and hey I’m with you but I don’t think the tough love approach to those who cannot pay is going to work in the long run and they will drag us down. Lets be proactive I am disappointed with both parties now but I’m always going to side with the people willing to do something if you had to put up with this passive aggressive attidude from your employees that the R’s are doing to the debate on health care reform . All businesses would fail.
    We need one set of numbers and should demand them, scale back the rosy projections and brace for the worst if things go better well hey that will be great.

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 8:49 am | Permalink
  38. Amy wrote:

    I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.

    Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
  39. Iron Knee wrote:

    Thank you, Amy! It is comments from people like you that keep me going.

    And to Jonah, your points are valid, but your conclusion doesn’t make sense. Lifestyle and drug costs may contribute to high health care costs, but they are not the only problems. I’m currently working on a project involving EMR (electronic medical records) and believe me the current system is a mess. Most medical records are currently kept on paper. Sharing records between different doctors is difficult and often doesn’t happen, causing patients to repeat expensive and sometimes dangerous tests when they don’t need to. Each health insurance company requires different forms and has different reporting requirements, forcing doctors to hire administration staff just to deal with the paperwork required by dozens of insurance companies.

    “Increasing competition” will make this worse, not better, since doctors would have to deal with even more insurance companies. We could standardize reporting requirements, but that would require government regulation. No matter what, we are going to have to get the government involved to reduce costs.

    There are lots of problems that cause health care costs to be high in the US, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to solve any of the problems because we can’t solve all of them.

    And I should mention that most countries require clinical trials on drugs, but we in the US still pay far more for drugs than any other country. When I lived in New Zealand, I had to pay full price for drugs (I didn’t qualify for their national health insurance) and yet the full price there was less than what I pay for drugs here in the US, even though I have insurance that supposedly covers drugs (in other words, my “co-pay” was higher than the full cost of the drugs!). Our system is insane.

    Monday, March 1, 2010 at 11:15 am | Permalink
  40. steve francis wrote:

    Now I see why no one watches her on TV. Maybe she should tell her advertisers that she shows up on Digg… more people see her on Digg than MSNBC. Mindless, idealogical drivel.

    Monday, March 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
  41. Sammy wrote:


    How many people get their health insurance through their employer? What’s that, you say? Almost 100%? If I have a beef with my insurance company, I have three choices: (1) use the plan my employer has chosen; (2) go without; (3) buy another, personal plan, at 200% the cost of the group plan my employer has chosen.

    Not to mention, I live in a state (Washington) with about four insurers from which to choose.

    Monday, March 1, 2010 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
  42. Rene wrote:

    Rachel Maddow Rocks!!

    Monday, March 1, 2010 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
  43. Rene wrote:

    During the summit all the repubtards kept repeating was “The American People Do Not Want HealthCare Reform” further proving how out of touch their party is with the american people! Repubtards keep talking about entitlements they have been living with entitlements for years and benefitting from them. Healthcare reform is not another entitlement it is a necessity that is needed now! Look at all the free healthcare that have been set up in many states across this country for those who have no healthcare coverage. Thousands were able to partake of this free service. So what part of america are the repubtards referring to that don’t want this healthcare reform bill.

    Monday, March 1, 2010 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
  44. Iron Knee wrote:

    Rene, I believe what they were referring to was a survey that showed a majority of Americans were against *this* health care reform bill. But if you dig deeper, you find that they are against it because they think it is a handout to the insurance companies (by making health insurance mandatory), just like the Medicare Part D bill passed by the Republicans. Or they are against it because they don’t think it goes far enough (a majority are still in favor of single-payer health insurance). So the Republicans are (at best) taking these statistics out of context and using them to oppose the *idea* of health care reform.

    There was a follow-up survey that again found that a majority said they were against the current health care reform bill, but then asked them if they were for or against individual health care reform provisions. The same people who thought they were against the bill were nevertheless for all of the provisions that are in the current bill. So I guess all this proves that propaganda can be used to get people to think they are against something that they are actually in favor of.

    And you could have made your point without the name calling. Not only is the term “tard” (as in retard) offensive, but clearly the massive amount of propaganda that the Republicans are creating in order to block health care reform takes a lot of intelligence and cunning. After all, it is easier to tell the truth than to lie.

    Monday, March 1, 2010 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
  45. Doug holland wrote:

    It is difficult here in the UK. As I Brit. of 81 yr’s I have no worries. Treatment just comes along when/if I fall ill.
    Hay!! I did pay my ‘National Insurance ‘ all during my life. “No Worry” re:- health. (That alone helps my health) Get wiser; your religion tells you guys to share Yes.

    Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 3:21 am | Permalink
  46. Jonah wrote:

    Hello Iron Knee, my conclusion was that peoples lifestyle and drug pricing were two of the main reasons for high health care costs. I agree that excessive testing is also to blame. I recently went to an orthopedic surgeon because I thought I had torn a cartilage. He wanted multiple xrays taken despite it being obvious that nothing was broken. Sharing xrays and MRI’s and blood tests would also significantly reduce healthcare costs.

    My other conclusion, though I probably didn’t make it clear” was that too much attention is being paid to the public option. Unless all the inefficiencies of health care are cleared up a public option will not significantly reduce health care costs IMO. I think people more liberal than I am are making it difficult for the white house to get a health care bill done because they are adamant that a public option is required. So the white house has to fight two sides, one thats opposed to any kind of reform and another that thinks that the reform doesn’t go far enough.

    My opinion is this. Lets help the white house get something done that would help people get coverage. If the WH has to fight on multiple fronts nothing will get done.


    Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 10:32 am | Permalink
  47. Milly wrote:

    WELL, Miss smartypants, you failed to tell what the DemoRATS own. What about Wall ST? They have a VERY close hold on them. SO, why not leave the Republicans alone with the insurance companies. However, you did fail to note that there are many, many DemoRats that own insurance companies, but then you wouldn’t tell that would you?

    Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
  48. erie_angel wrote:

    The problem with this health care debate is that 1. democrats believe quality affordable health care is a RIGHT of every man, woman and child in the US

    2. republicans believe that health care–any health care is a PRIVILEDGE that should be reserved for those who can afford it. If you can’t afford it, you are simply out of luck.

    I often cross party lines when I vote and I’m with democrats on this one. And the only way to get there would be to have a public option. My worry is that a public option would be too much medicaid–which many doctors hate and don’t even accept because medicaid doesn’t pay enough and is often extremely slow in reimbursment practices.

    Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
  49. anno wrote:

    Check out who paid what to the political campaigns… democrats received much more money from drug and insurance companies than the republicans… do your research!

    Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 9:38 am | Permalink
  50. Iron Knee wrote:

    And you provide a reference for this information, or did you just pull it out of thin air? Plus, what does this have to do with the current post?

    Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 12:21 am | Permalink
  51. Joe A wrote:

    Here is an idea of a great health care system. Check it out. It’s a fun video.

    Monday, March 22, 2010 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
  52. Iron Knee wrote:

    Joe, if you believe propaganda like that video from Pajamas Media, you are a tool. I am a US citizen, but I have lived in Canada, the UK, and New Zealand and have experienced the health care systems in all three. I also have enough money to afford whatever health care I need, and I have waited far longer for health care in the US than I have in those “socialist” countries.

    Let him march into an emergency room in the US obviously not needing any care and being an obnoxious jerk, and see how long he has to wait.

    And finally, the health care bill just passed by Congress has pretty much nothing in common with the Canadian system. So what point are you trying to make?

    Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 11:13 am | Permalink
  53. Sylentwolf wrote:


    Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow: These Socialist-supporting, Communist-committed, Marxist-Loving, Nontransparent-Cheating, False-Hope Preaching, Progressive-idiots want the U.S. Constitution Abolished, and/or at least heading in that direction. When Socialist-Dictators from 3rd-World countries praise your economic achievements, you better “MEASURE TWICE, and CUT ONCE” your understanding of your countries future.

    MSNBC is BAD for the U.S.A.!

    This is not CANADA! This is not a “HATE” speech from a ‘Right-Wing Nut,’ or even a ‘Right-Winger,’ this is an opinion from an AMERICAN who doesn’t need to think but UNDERSTAND that there is hate everywhere, against anyone, at anytime, about anything, from everywhere (there are BUSH haters on the left & OBAMA haters on the right).

    Anyone who agrees with the reigning Administration must want to know WHEN to piss, WHO to kiss, WHEN to play, WHERE to work, and WHERE to lay (live). Anyone who agrees with the reigning Administration must have bought, what they couldn’t afford; have trespassed, where they didn’t live; have barrowed, what they couldn’t pay back; listened, to what they didn’t understand, and are now preaching, what they know nothing of.

    MSNBC, CNN, and the Obama Administration worry more about the well-being and opinions of Domestic/Islomic Terrorist then they do about the well-being and majority, that represent the AMERICAN PEOPLE. They must be more worried about the well-being of 20% of the country, then they are about the well-being of the majority, 80% of the country.

    You can blame (President) Clinton for pushing away our ECONOMY’S past , (President) Bush for ignoring our ECONOMY’s Present, and (President) Obama for throwing away our ECONOMY’s Future.

    If you can’t read or understand the Constitution, then get out of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, quickly!

    So we just passed a Health Care Law in order to know what is in it; written by a committee whose chairman says he didn’t understand it; passed by a congress that didn’t read it and exempts themselves from it; Signed by a hypocritical-president who is a smoker; from funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes; all to be overseen by a sergeon general who by military standards is obese; all to be financed by a country that is broke.



    Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
  54. DioXfre wrote:


    I think a good way to get your point across would not be over-using adjectives and CAPITALIZING everything to attract attention the same way a toddler throws a temper tantrum in Wal-Mart. Calling people “idiots” (oh, wait, you called them “IDIOTS” as I recall) does not make people respect you. In fact, your over-the-top anger is making it hard to understand what your point actually is.

    Put your tinfoil hat back on and go back to watching Glenn Beck.

    Saturday, April 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
  55. Magic Jack wrote:

    REally – Rachael really did this?

    Friday, July 2, 2010 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
  56. Real reform is something we may never see. Sure spotty reform may be here or there but not what is actually needed.

    It’s like the stinkin tax code. Nothing truly ever gets done.

    Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
  57. Magic Jack wrote:

    Calling people “idiots” (oh, wait, you called them “IDIOTS” as I recall) does not make people respect you. In fact, your over-the-top anger is making it hard to understand what your point actually is. – I totally support that, ten-fold!

    Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
  58. ouadamantite wrote:

    The health care is a mess. We all know this and sometimes pouring more money in a bad system means only one thing: losing money. We need a change and it’s not from Obama or Hillary… We need people to act. Just look at how many sick people exist. Look at how many people are addicted to alcohol, meths, cocaine and other drugs.

    Narconon helps people who are in need of drug rehab and drug treatment in general. We want to cure this mass addiction which can be seen on a daily basis.

    Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 8:25 am | Permalink
  59. No Teletrack Payday wrote:

    Health system and services should be changed.

    Monday, August 23, 2010 at 12:15 am | Permalink
  60. Dell Desktop wrote:

    She’s so right. The crying in the Olympics is the best!

    Sunday, December 26, 2010 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
  61. Mazda Cx7 Reviews wrote:

    Haha. This guy can’t get anything across. Censored, haha.

    Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
  62. Magic Jack wrote:

    I cannot believe that Rachel did this!! Wow!

    Friday, October 14, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. » links for 2010-02-27 on Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    […] Rachel Maddow Explains our Health Care System (Political Irony) blog comments powered by Disqus var disqus_url = ' '; var disqus_container_id = 'disqus_thread'; var facebookXdReceiverPath = ''; var DsqLocal = { 'trackbacks': [ ], 'trackback_url': '' }; […]