I'm disappointed to see that Frank Luntz is a guest on AirTalk today. I hope the show lives up to its very high standards and has an appropriate counterpoint expert on to dispute him. Mr. Luntz's "language of health care" is an Orwellian deliberate effort to distort the goals and methods of health care reform by demonizing ideas as "socialism" and worse.

Mr. Luntz portrays himself as a serious commentator on health care and an expert on language, but the entire purpose of his memo on health care language is to kill health care reform, in particular the public option.

I implore your interview with Mr. Luntz to not take his assertions as fact, recognizing that poll after poll shows that Americans want health care reform, support a public option and in fact support a single payer system in large numbers.

We want facts, not spin and "newspeak."

Thank you and thank you for your intelligent program.

why is the government constantly putting the budget burden on the backs of the poor? why has no one discussed a luxury tax? california is the 10th largest economy in the world, it doesn't make sense that the state always broke.

What types of questions were on the test for the firefighters?

I'd be interested to know what sort of questions, or elements of the test would be considered racially biased? Can your guests give an example of a racially biased test question? As you mentioned, the Armed Services, of which I'm a veteran, seems to operated fairly, and tests and oral board reviews are required for advancement.

Thanks, I enjoy your program.

The only thing that should matter on a firefighters exam is whether the applicant knows the job. I personally don't care if the firefighter has polka dots as long as he or she knows what to do to put the fire out. How sad that it has come to this.

Why did the New Haven officials believe that they would not be sued by the white fire fighters when they refused to promote them? It seems to me that they were going to be sued one way or the other.

Was this a new test that had never been used before so it has no past performance history?

I have never understood how a test can be racially sensitive if all the people taking it have studied for the same subject and go in knowing what the ultimate topic and goal is...and I agree, racial discriminiation reversed in this case...

Once again, the "expert" on health care has changed the debate to make it look like the Democrats want universal healthcare. NO ONE is suggesting the same type of healthcare as they have in the UK or Canada. If you throw enough cr-p at it then you can derail the whole thing, or so the Repulicans think. Let's hope not.

Ask Fred Luntz how many people in Canada have to declare bankruptcy because of healthcare related costs. How about how many people in Canada can't get healthcare insurance because of pre-existing conditions? The people in Canada and other industrialized countries have trade-offs to pay for healthcare for all its citizens. Do they want our system? I don't think so.

There is a waiting list in the UK but not in all areas - it's possible for people to travel to rural areas to get hip replacements etc; you may wait a couple of weeks for non-urgent results as opposed to 5 days here but the people without coverage here wait forever.
The survival rate for the over 60s in the UK is better than here - it was covered on your show before.
There are too many people here trying to talk us out of Universal Health Care when it's what we need and, by the way, the term socialized medicale care is an emotive phrase.
By the way - all doctors in all areas in the UK make house calls after their morning surgeries (office visits I suppose it's called here).

Mr. Luntz said something interesting: that because we don't know how this might turn out, we shouldn't change anything.

I'd argue that the opposite is true: we know the system is broken -- so let's try a substantive change and see what happens.

He argues it can only be worse, I'd argue it can only improve.

We do have a system that makes us wait for weeks and months- its called HMO.

I strongly support a public option. I have lived in France, in which I could get a friendly, helpful doctor to make a housecall for $25.
I have had a close family member with breast cancer in the U.S., and I found that our insurance company was constantly overcharging us. We would have paid at least an extra 10K in false charges if we weren't consistently vigilant.
I think few people with catastrophic illnesses think that care in U.S. is anywhere near acceptable.

I have yet to see specific evidence showing that the positive aspects of our healthcare system are due only to our multi-payer system, and not to independent factors, such as the quality of our medical schools, our expertise in new technologies, etc. I see no evidence that removing waste and overhead, eliminating rescission a "preexisting conditions" would necessarily hurt the good parts of our healthcare system..

Breast cancer survival rates are better here, but just about any other outcome measure that Mr Luntz could have found (but would not have) are superior in other parts of the industrialised world. Over-all mean age of death and infant mortality rates are noticeably better.

Will he poll people in Canada who've experienced both our medical systems, or will he only query those who've decided to stay in America? More generally: Whose created the poll that Mr Luntz is citing? Would Mr Luntz accept the results of a poll created and administered by the Democratic Socialists of America?

(We will not get single-payer as long as insurance companies have so much power and money; the insurance companies will retain their extreme power and money until we get single-payer.)

(My wife and I are being beggared by a premium private plan, and I'm still waiting weeks for appointments and months for some tests.)

(Note: there is no 'death' tax; there is a tax on the transfer of large estates, which doesn't happen nicely without a government, and so is fittingly a source of revenue therefor.)

Perhaps there are waiting times to get certain treatments in many single-payer healthcare systems, and maybe there is a higher survival rate in the US for breast cancer, etc.- FOR THOSE WHO HAVE HEALTH COVERAGE. Mr. Luntz is ignoring the millions of Americans who have no healthcare- what are the breast cancer survival rates of those who have no healthcare?

When he compares wait times in the UK to the US, I wonder if the period of "total denial of service" is included in the calculation. That is he says there was it think a 17 month waiting period in the UK. for h heart transplant (or some other kind of test).

So what if the HMO totally denies the test. Do the average wait times include only the people who eventually got treatment. What about those who never got treatment because they were denied by their provider?

...and Mr Luntz and his party would _encourage_ those anti-immigrant people to use the most foul and most brutal language possible; the modern Republican Party thrives on resentiment and the creation of a false identification of our working people with the top of our society.

I find that using heart transplant availability as a comparrison on how well different countries health care systems work is irrelevant. Numerous factors including total population directly affect the amount of heart that would be available. There is no reason that a Government plan would not operate just as efficiently as any other. I find that they are affraid that it would be better and force down health cost.This is just another republican who continually tries to divert the issue and use scare tactics. Their party has no control in either house for these reasons. All scare and no answers!!!

I admire Mr. Luntz because he recognizes the power of words. That said, his idea of 'communicating better' is really appealing to the base emotions of people (and people ARE emotional about health care). He tries to promote his own views by ensuring that the Republican party gets people emotional enough to side them. If he really wanted to ensure a balanced debate, he would send memos to both parties instead of just to the Republicans

Frank Luntz just said that we should not have a public option or single payer because "we don't know" what the results would be.

That is a lie. We do know how it would be with single payer because we can see how successful those plans are in other countries.

He is also lying when he says we have the best health care in the world. We do not. We are #1 in health care cost per person and #37 in quality. We are also behind other countries in life expectancy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/graphs.html

New England Journal of Medicine:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/348/26/2635

He says single payer or a public option will be "government run". That is also a lie. It will be paid for, in part, by taxpayer funds, but you will get to choose your doctor and your hospital.

Mr. Luntz says that it's far superior to have the gov't give money directly to the private insurance companies. In other words, CREATE MORE CORPORATE WELFARE. Rather that the gov't being the administrator as they are with Medicare, Mr. Luntz wants to give the taxpayer's money to the insurance companies and cut out the middleman---US!

How can I say this in a nice way to Mr. Luntz? Everything you know about health care in America is wrong.

One last point----if we sat around telling people toi be afraid because "we don't know" how things will work out, we never would have put a man on the moon, or discovered nuclear power, or defeated Germany in WWII, or created Social Security.

"We are afraid because we don't know" is a sissy response to any challenge Mr. Luntz.

this whole topic begs the issue, who is in whom financial pocket...there is nothing wrong with a public option, and if it does better than the private, I will switch...it's time the private companies got some serious competition, instead of this monopoly that is sanctioned by our government...let them put their money where their collective mouth is, and do better...how come people think that other programs are run well and all of a sudden health care will tank?

In 1996, I was a Visiting Scholar at Aston University, Birmingham, UK during the winter months. I caught a horrible flu/cold/something. The physician who "bought" the area including the University was a dermatologist from Hong Kong who fled the city before the hand back from the U.K. to China. He was much more interested in my basil cell scars than in my medical problem. But he was a nice guy and he prescribed a huge bottle of codene. I don't think his scrip helped me get better, but it wasn't long before I didn't much care.

Assuming Dr. Luntz's claim about heart transplant waits is accurate, could it have more to do with population size? The UK only has about 60 million residents, compared to about 300 million in the USA. That's a lot more donors regardless of the health care system, isn't it?

I now have to protest about having this guy Frank Luntz on the show - this is a public radio station and he belongs on Talk Radio.

I did agree with Luntz's last comment: Larry is a great host. Who else could have put up with that baloney so graciously?

Accidentally lopped off part of my prior comment on heart transplants. The numbers would of course depend on knowing the percentage of the population needing transplants in each country, not merely the population size. Do the number of donors and number of those in need rise at the same rate as population rises? Are there significantly different health factors in each country, and significantly different attitudes about donating organs? Not sure.

There's a medical or health benefit just to knowing that you will not be rendered homeless if you become ill. Socialized medicine has many flaws, (I lived in England for 17 years), but it provides a source of assurance that benefits the entire nation, (plus the resident members of its commonwealth and former empire), so that they can go about their lives without the ludicrous degree of stress that we endure daily, simply because of an inhumane medical insurance system.

Also, we really should stop pretending that our middle class lifestyle isn't built on the backs of undocumented laborers, who work at least as hard as those people complaining of paying their taxes, simply so that we can have two wage earners per family, while a nanny raises our children. Those members of our undeclared empire have every right to benefit from a form of medical service that should be supplied nationally, in order that we as a country can finally declare ourselves humane, and even civilized. (Let alone members of the 21st century.)

Jennifer's disapointment with seeing Frank Luntz as a guest on AirTalk today was well founded. But her 'hope the show lives up to its very high standards and has an appropriate counterpoint expert on to dispute him' was not fulfilled. I hoped we might hear an interview with a professional propagandist on the role of language manipulation in the shaping of public opinion and voter behavior. Instead, he was merely given a venue for spinning a position on an important complex issue. Is KPCC going to receive a percentage of the fee he will charge his clients for being on the show today? As Jennifer said, 'We want facts, not spin and "newspeak."' Today Airtalk failed to deliver--worse, it didn't even try.

Mr. Lutz needs to check his information. He said 'No one had done national surveys on satisfaction with health care." Yet FOX News, no less, quoted such a survey, <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html> in 2004. Anyone can check <WebMD.com> for unbiased (truthful) information on medical news. Mr. Lutz seemed to get a free pass, unchallenged, on some pretty outrageous affirmations. He also seemed pretty expert at deflecting serious discussion by changing the topic from medical care to immigration. I guess when your opinions are so off base, it's better to change the subject. Is there any wonder there is no serious debate on what Americans really want?

On the issue of healthcare: I am a German national, and you can not effectively be without healthcare here.

There is a strange mix in that there is private and public insurance. Private is the fancier version, requires making a certain amount per year to get in if you are employed or being self-employed. Essentially, you get better and faster treatment, as doctors may charge more than they can to the public insurance. It is typically cheaper in rates, while you will have a deductible of 1-2k per year on average. Public insurance has to take anyone, no matter what pre-existing conditions are. If you are employed, it costs 15% of your gross, with a cap so that those with large income are not paying above a certain amount per month. If you are unemployed, a senior or a student, the government covers it for you or there is a minimum to pay. If you are self-employed, it is based on what you make, again with a cap. The money is taken out before taxes, and before you get your paycheck. While it's a lot, medical costs are much more reasonable in the U.S., as are wait times. You can chosse doctors and hospitals,and while you will have small co-pays, for quarterly doctors visits, prescriptions, dental, eyes and hospitalization,but we are talking smallish amounts - it will not lead to bankruptcy.

Our system has been covering less and less over the years because its apparently not funding itself, on the flipside rates have gone up, which is upsetting in the face of hundreds to the insurance company every month and less income for many people, but on the whole, there is safety net.

I recently took someone to the ER at cedars Sinai, and they charged the insurance 3.5k for 5 hours of waiting, a blood test and holding a stethoscope to his chest. Clearly the system is out of control, and that paired with a basic coverage for all would be a place to start. In Germany, you may wait 30mins or an hour at the ER and walk out with 20$ in costs - and that's because you would have gotten treatment when you needed it because you are covered as opposed to waiting until it's an ER case.

I hope to see the U.S. devise an implement a solution that is bost cost effective and will serve human dignity,

I strongly disagree with Mr. Luntz on almost every point. He really does know how to use language, though - oh yes he does. He may be able to snow the ninnies in the Republican Party leadership and his skewed focus groups, but he's not able to fool people who are ACTUALLY suffering under our current health care system. Nice try, though. Contrary to your belief (You really must get out more, Frank.), I'm adamantly in favor of a single-payer system. I am, most definitely, not alone! (Hey Frank, I'm a college graduate AND tutor kids in the No Child Left Behind Program - in - yes - South Los Angeles! How about having me in one of your focus groups? Chicken? Too afraid it would change the outcome you desire?)

Luntz knows how innately paranoid Americans are and is cynically using that knowledge to form the policies he and his über-rich friends want!! People like Frank Luntz have been very effective at convincing people in this country to think and vote against their own interests. (With the flip side of it being IN Frank's/the über-rich's interest. They've been getting richer while we've all been getting poorer. This isn't about hard work or bootstraps - they've been rigging the system.) The private health insurers have screwed up the system so completely, I can't see government doing anywhere near as badly! It's worth a try, at least. (Could people are fearing the wrong side? I ask all who fear this to consider it.)

Also, why has Sheila Kuehl's research not been utilized in these discussions on Capitol Hill? State Senator Kuehl has looked at the flaws in the Canadian, UK and other single-payer systems - in order to AVOID them! Her bill has passed a BI-PARTISAN state congress TWICE only to be VETOED by Governor Shwarzenegger! (Pays to have friends in high places, yes it does.)
Read it and weep: http://www.healthcareforall.org/kuehl.html

Continuation of previous post:

Private health insurers use 30% of health care monies for "administrative costs." That's why the system is so broken - and of course, why the private insurers don't want to change it. It's extraordinarily good for them...and dreadful for anyone who isn't exceptionally wealthy! Even the upper-middle class isn't rich enough to be safe if something catastrophic happens. Just ask many of those forced into medical-bill induced bankruptcy! Eliminating the private insurers frees-up something like $7 BILLION, at least here in California, to cover everyone - for not only medical, but also dental and visual!

I'm self-employed, currently unemployed, and going into severe debt because of the usurious monthly payment I make to Anthem! My monthly payments went from $192 to $403 per month in the space of two years - and, thank goodness, I'm in extremely good health! I'd drop it if I wasn't so afraid I'd never get it back or that just after I drop it, I'd get into a terrible accident. (I wonder what Suze Orman would advise?)

The system is so broken, it must be replaced with a not-for-profit model. Being at the back of this train gives us the enviable ability to look at what didn't work in those systems we might want to emulate - and avoid them!

I don't think Americans expect "perfection" as Mr. Luntz asserts. Everyone, everywhere might want perfection, but reasonable, sane human beings -Americans included - don't expect it. Using such language betrays Mr. Luntz' disingenuousness. When he speaks of tests that take longer in Canada or Britian, he doesn't say if the tests are vital or just routine. Some tests can wait, some can't. We don't know based on Mr Luntz' reporting. This sort of vague language usage serves Mr. Luntz' agenda to whip up anxiety - warranted or not - among those not paying attention to how he's couching his arguments.

I pray all KPCC listeners ARE paying attention!

BTW, In 2000, I spent 5 months studying in Israel. Their bugs and I didn't get along and I was sick a lot. The system there works beautifully. I was treated immediately and well. Doctors and clinics were top-notch. My health insurance cost $1 per day. I had no other expenses. (It probably costs more today but I'm sure it's still very affordable. With all our ingenuity, I'm certain we can have a system as good or better than theirs!)

Oops:

Proofreading, I see I forgot to edit one of my cut-and-pastes.

Second paragraph end says: (Could people are fearing the wrong side? I ask all who fear this to consider it.) It should say: (Could people be fearing the wrong side? I ask all who fear this to consider it.)

I was very diappointed to hear the likes of Frank Luntz on you program today. While it is important to hear all sides of an argument Mrs. Luntz's fear-mongering should not be allowed without some counterpoint. I was surprised that you did not point out even his most obvious of self-contradictory comments.

For instance, Mr. Luntz argued that breast cancer treatment in the United States was superior to the rest of the world and why would Americans settle for less. This is such an artificial argument since at that same time he is arguing that we settle for being 34th in overall health care in the world.
I hope in the future you raise the level of discussion on the issue of health care.

I hope in future discussion you raise the level of conversation.