1. MsMcPhee | 09.22.09

The video is hilarious, so if you need a good laugh, watch it.

2. Julie Decker | 09.22.09

I agree - a hilarious video. It spotlights the insurance executives who are reportedly bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation each year (see http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_33/b4143034820260.htm ).

Does this sounds familiar (e.g. bank executives that brought the financial crisis and a trillion dollar bailout)?

The insurance executives are having their cake and eating it, too. And so far, they have convinced our politicians it has to be this way.

If the insurance companies don’t want a competing public option, then they should except regulations to cap executive pay and company profits. Where’s the balance?

Anyone else out there agree?

3. Cavetroll | 09.22.09

This sends the wrong message. We need reform without the government taking over. If you guys think the gov is compition you are fools. All actors on here are boycoted. Not that I ever watched them anyway.

4. BillInStl | 09.22.09

I don’t think you’ll get the American people to back health care by slamming companies that are making a profit - no matter how true it might be. It’s better to show how bad our health care system is while also being the most expensive in the world. For example:
- U.S. babies have the highest rate of death than in any developed country.
- U.S. mortality for children under 5 is tied for 151st along with Lithuania, Serbia and Slovakia.
- Western European countries, Canada and Australia all beat us out in longevity.
And for these pathetic results, we pay the most for our health care at 15% of gdp. Surely we can do better.

5. Marie Rehbein | 09.22.09

Those who cannot currently afford health insurance will not be able to afford the copays and deductibles, nor will they be able to afford to spend time pursuing why what they thought should be covered was rejected by their insurance company. The only way to help the people who currently do not have health insurance, either because they do not want the expense or because they simply do not want insurance, is to give them what we all want, which is to have what we pay for medical care match our income while having the medical care we receive match our need.

6. Laurie | 09.23.09

Will Ferrell probably makes more $$ per year than the insurance executives. He should voluntarily give over part of his own salary before demanding it of others. Coveting what others have, even by government officials, will NEVER bless. Even King David’s kingdom split in half over high taxes under the rule of his grandson. The parable of the talents in the Bible indicates that God gives out resources unequally according to His wisdom, and it is arrogant of human governments to think He needs their help in re-distributing it. He can bring kings to their knees, and lift up the lowly, but He does so according to His wisdom, not man’s. Just because it SOUNDS kind to take from the rich and give to the poor doesn’t mean that it is truly righteous to do so.

7. Roland Olsen | 09.23.09

BillInStl - The statistics that you site are fallacious. For example the definition used for infant mortality varies by country so the US uses a much wider definition (WHO definition)including premature births and and babies in the first 24 hours of life who die. Other countries do not count these deaths in their statistics so the so-called rankings are misleading. http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php

8. curious | 09.23.09

One correspondent (Laurie #6) writes “Just because it SOUNDS kind to take from the rich and give to the poor doesn’t mean that it is truly righteous to do so.” She is, of course, entitled to her opinion. But it should be pointed out that a fellow named Jesus of Nazareth disagrees with her. Cf many statements in — among other sources — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Btw — insurance company executives are not government officials, and the idea that “Will Ferrell probably makes more $$ per year than the insurance executives” is, frankly, utterly ludicrous.

9. Mark | 09.23.09

Yeah, love thy brother as thyself. And for cryin’ out loud, no abortion! But if you can’t afford health insurance and die, well too bad. They’re pro-life except for the insurance part. The Bible doesn’t talk about health insurance so feel free to make it up as you go. Go figure.

10. math nut | 09.23.09

I’m puzzled by Roland Olsen’s (#7) observation. Since, compared to Europe, we’re in the bottom quartile with respect to longevity and cancer survival, do those countries employ different “definitions” as to when people are dead?

11. John | 09.23.09

It must be time for Obama to bailout the insurance industry and fire those execs.

12. Brian | 09.23.09

@Laurie, the Market is God, then? Well, this confirms what everyone already suspected. Money is God’s currency? Is this a perversion?

13. RHarrisonScott | 09.23.09

I’m hard pressed to understand why the CSM waits with baited breath to report every word that comes out of a celebrity’s mouth. Really now. Why don’t you just report the ramblings of the common man on the street. They’re just as meaningful.

14. Liz | 09.23.09

This argument is not about how much money Will Farrel, or any of the actors makes. It is instead about exposing the profit motivation of companies that are, in effect, in charge of what health care we are allowed to receive.

Using the parable of the talents to justify a lack of compassion for others is simply wrong. In the parable of the talents, we are encouraged to make use of what we have and, indeed, the servant that simply buries his money and returns the same amount to his master without trying to improve his situation is punished. It has little to do with what God chooses to give us, but instead urges us to use fully what we are given. It is rather specious to twist this story to your own interpretation in order to justify your personal beliefs about not helping others rather than looking at the many instances where God tells us to help others.

I would urge you to think on the most basic of rules laid out, “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.” Further, the parable of the Good Samaritan urges us not only to not harm others, but to actively help those in need. God gives us free will, and we can choose to use it to help others, help ourselves, or, even further, fiercely protect our own ignorance.

15. Deb | 09.23.09

TO #6

“Just because it SOUNDS kind to take from the rich and give to the poor doesn’t mean that it is truly righteous to do so.”

What did King David have to say about taking from the middle class?????

Thank you.

16. Travis | 09.23.09

ROLAND~
Your statistical citation while correct are also skewed. You cite the OC but what the OC doesn’t tell you is that Switzerlan and Italy (both mentioned in the OC article) spend 1/5 more per capita per live birth for pre-natal care than does the U.S. These are WHO Numbers so you will probably disagree, nevertheless, there it is. Swiss and Italy’s numbers are high because they care about pre-natal care. Our government cares about ensuring corporate profits.

17. Roland Olsen | 09.23.09

Math Nut: As for longevity, not a difference in definition of a ‘death,’ but other factors go into the longevity issue, including the US’s role as world police (more deaths at younger ages due to military involvement and sacrifice of our young men and women), greater immigration populations from third-world countries coming to the US, and of course differences in lifestyle. Your argument is based on the health care system as the “causal” variable. Here’s more in depth discussion on both longevity and cancer rate comparisons: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/taking-on-myth-of-life-expectancy.html

TRAVIS - By your own logic, because US spends more per capita on health care means…….

18. Gail Murray | 09.23.09

I think the simple slogan MEDICARE FOR ALL would do much more good than the vague and unsavory sounding “Public Option”. Everyone knows someone they love on Medicare, and we retirees are glad for it indeed. So stick with a known name brand and just get everyone on board!

19. Nancy Blake | 09.23.09

One of the great things about coming to England was knowing that everyone in our village would get the same medical care, for themselves and for their children, as we would, on a much higher income. And one of the great things about a single payer method is that much more money for health care is spent on actual health care, not staffing the billing department. (In 1981, 24% of healthcare dollars spent in California were spent on the billing processes: in England, 4% was spent on administration in the NHS.) And by the way, in the tax-funded NHS, it is actually doctors, not administrators, who make the medical decisions. In the U.S. it is apparently profit-making insurance companies who decide who gets care and who doesn’t….

20. willified | 09.23.09

“Our goal is to raise money for charity, but also to put Coppertone out of business. You can be charitable, but still be a bloodthirsty capitalist.”

– Will Ferrell, on his Cancer for College sunscreen.

In 2005, Ferrell demands $20 million per film…gets it and more.
In 2007, Ferrell purchases a home for almost $10 million (9.9 mil), owns numerous other properties and is currently constructing another home.
In 2008, Ferrell earns more than $31 million.

Donald Hamm - Executive Vice President, Chief Executive Officer of Assurant Health and President of Assurant Health, Assurant Inc.
2008 Total Annual Compensation - $597,511 USD.

Hmmm…
Ferrell - maybe if I point the finger elswhere, nobody will notice me.

21. Roland Olsen | 09.23.09

Will Farrell, hollywood, television and admen make millions of dollars promoting unhealthy lifestyles, unsafe sexual relations, and sedentary lifestyles that have contributed more to poor health statistics in this country and around the world. Following the logic of the left Obama should cap the salaries of all those in these industries at $45K per year and then force them all to work for the Public Broadcasting System.

22. Rodney | 09.24.09

The government options are designed to remove your options.

Obama: My goal is now and will always be a single-payer option.

This means the government will be the only payer to the medical field. This will cut the pay to the employees and to the hospitals. The standards of care we all expect will diminish quickly. Companies will stop inventing new equipment because the hospital won’t be able to afford it. This legislation will affect many other industries too.

Single payer is the only choice in countries like England and Canada. The standards of care are much lower. The taxes are very high. So high that it discourages innovation. 20% of men in England are on the “dole” for life (goverment unemploment). Entire generations have never seen their parents work. We cannot bring this mentality to America.

They know that if the government sets the prices, then insurance companies will fail and that is how they will achieve single-payer.

We have Medicare for the elderly and infirm. We have Chip for the children. We have Social Security for the less fortunate. The average healthy American can buy insurance around $100 and up. Google it, and see.

Lets get some common sense legislation in that protects the consumer like no more denial of coverage. Portability between states will help you compete across the entire U.S. not just in your own state. This will foster competion. Competion can only lower prices. It has for the car insurance industry. There are mamy, many other great ideas out there but neither side wants to give the other credit, so they defeat it in committees.

Single-payer will cost the average American $250 per month through taxes. Add on another $250 per month for cap and trade energy taxes and thats $500. I can’t afford that. I got kids to feed!

God Bless America.

This message approved by the U.S. Constitution.

23. Laurie | 09.24.09

First, thank you Willified #20.
#8 Curious - I am quoting Christ Jesus! Read Matthew chapter 25. It has the parable of the talents, where Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a wealthy man leaving his servants in charge of talents. He ends with the summary, “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Christ Jesus said that. That shows that poverty begins in the heart, and no one will be lifted out of financial poverty without putting to use the talents God has given them. The parable of the prodigal son shows the son became homeless disobeying his father. And he had to return to his father to get out of poverty. I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong, but there is still poverty in socialist, wealth re-distributing countries. In fact, I think the gap between wealth and poverty is greater. Good intentions won’t solve the problem of poverty.
This leads to my response to #12 Brian - A free economy is not God, but it does not INTERFERE with what God is actively doing in each life. A free economy is a field of reaping what YOU have sowed. Just as God could humble King Nebuchadnezzar, and the man who tore down his barns to build greater, he is active in the life of the wealthy, the poor and those comfortably in the middle. Judas wanted to use the government to seek social justice. Christ Jesus placed the responsibility on individuals.
#15 Deb- I don’t understand your question or point.

24. JR22 | 09.24.09

I have a problem with it for the simple reason that it is called CAPITALISM! Will Ferrell sure as **** doesn’t have a problem with making 25 million per movie, but he has a problem with companies making money? I call that hypocrisy. In a free market system, people are free to choose which companies the give their business to. I don’t understand why Will and his Hollywood buddies feel that socialism is the best thing for this country, when they have become very wealthy from living and working in a capitalist society.
Hey Will, I have an idea, why don’t you take a pay cut, so average Americans can take their families to the movies without having to take out a loan. I’m sure he doesn’t want to do that, but he wants people who work harder than him and make less than him take a pay cut or just go out of business.

25. KimK | 09.24.09

I’m not opposed to reforming the health care system. We need to make sure people are taken care of, and not tied to specific jobs just to get insurance, and not afraid of losing it all over one illness.

But do we really understand - all of us - that this will cost most of us more money than it does now? And that we won’t have as many choices? I heard something about being required to pay about 13% of my salary to pay for something I haven’t ever used, even though I have access to it. Sure, I won’t be homeless or starving if I pay that much, but I have to wonder what’s fair. I certainly would expect, too, that my share would only rise as costs keep going up.

As for government-run care, I’ve worked for the federal government for about 25 years. Anyone who thinks that government employees will take better care of them than someone else is bound to be disappointed. When someone works for the government, they are not necessarily more knowledgeable, more compassionate, or more free of processes and regulations. It will not give them more money to spend (until my premiums go even higher). They still will still come across as out of touch, and they will still have to deny people services they hope to receive. We need to understand that. Turning this over to the government will not solve all the problems, and will certainly make new ones.

As for a single-payer option, how quickly we forgot the phrase “too big to fail”. When the government system is out of control, over-spent, too inefficient, too expensive, too buried in regulations, too cumbersome in paperwork, who will bail it out? We can’t put one sixth of our economy into one basket. We need to be able to lop off parts that don’t work without bringing the whole system down, and enable new parts to grow in their place. Like it or not, it is our insurance companies that have given us the expectation that we should have it all. And when one fails, there is still insurance to be had and new systems grow all the time.

We need to be realistic about the systems being proposed. They won’t be less expensive, give us all more, and make us all healthy. If we’re smart, though, it might make us all a little less afraid. That wouldn’t be a bad thing.

26. gettyleigh | 09.26.09

I’ve two points to make: first, and foremost, how is it that a multimillionaire, who has a degree in sportscasting, can walk a mile in my shoes? Ferrell did not exactly grow up poor, his dad was the keyboard player for the righteous brothers. I only wish some of that righteousness would have rubbed off on him, as his video is not exactly righteus for the many reasons listed above. The other point i wanted to make is that in general, if you make more than ten grand a year, you pay taxes, the amount varies, however 30% of a year’s earnings is a pretty common. That 30% does not include property taxes and sales tax. Making healthcare mandatory and/or implementing fines for not having healthcare is essentially adding more taxes. So if we need to pay out another 10% of earnings, whether you’re 20 years old and fit as a fiddle or not, you will only be keeping 60% of your earnings. Add in another $1500 in property taxes and we then keep 55%. This is unacceptable. As for ferrell, i advise him to look around at his surroundings; arguably, Oprah is losing her fan base, because of her political pandering, this should be an eyeopener for hollywood types. We, the people who make or break celebrities, don’t want to hear your manurish ramblings. I’m like a freaking ewlephant, and I do not forget, my list of movie and tv personalities that i will not support, ad vehemently oppose in public circles when they are introduced in conversation. Mr Ferrell, and company, welcome to my black list!

27. Dr. Gary | 09.27.09

The “debate” needs to address this issue:

RESOLVED: HEALTH CARE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

28. Robert | 09.27.09

The cost of health insurance is out of sight! Googling for the cheapest insurance for a male born 1982, living in New Jersey, was $134 per month - $1608 per year. For a family of 4 people, father, mother and 2 young kids (age 6 and 4) was $572 a month - $6864 per year, Both plans require one to use the insurance companies approved doctors. Use another doctor outside the insurance company is not covered. That is a lot of money and if you are unemployed, insurance becomes too expensive. Other than cost the main problem is that you never know how good or bad your insurance is until you need it. BTW, my neighbor aged 82 was traveling to England when he had a slight heart attack. He went to an English hospital and after 5 days of excellent care ( his words) he walked out and paid nothing.

29. Dr. Robert | 09.27.09

RESOLVED: ENTERTAINMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

If you think about, Hollywood may well be responsible for many of today’s societal ills. They drive up the price of most everything in our lives, including health care. Advertising on television is an expense that is factored into the cost of almost everything we buy. It’s very expensive to advertise on TV–but why? Part of the reason is the rich greedy actors with their obscene salaries. Talk about greed–these guys make multimillion dollar salaries and where does that money come from–the people. The poor of this country have to pay much more for most everything they buy just so these actors can continue to draw their absurd salaries. Next time you see a commercial for pharmaceuticals or a health care plan or a medical service provider on TV, ask yourself how much more you have to pay for healthcare so we can line the pockets of rich, greedy actors in Hollywood flying around in their private jets and living in mansions and driving up the cost of advertising, while the poor have to pay for it. Why is it that we pay actors millions of dollars every year but we pay doctors who perform open heart surgery and save lives only a few hundred thousand and there’re many other people can’t even earn a living wage? And imagine how better off the poor people in this country would be if they didn’t have to pay $15 to see a movie, or $20 to buy a DVD, not to mention the cost of cable TV. It’s time to end the greed in Hollywood!

30. Jerry McIntire | 09.29.09

Single payer healthcare would keep healthcare private, it would simply pay more money to health care workers than private insurance companies do. Medicare pays private healthcare providers with much less overhead than private insurers do. Nearly every industrialized nation except the US has a single payer system, and, no matter which statistics you cite, the US has much worse health outcomes. How can it cost us more if we eliminate the private insurance industry, which is sucking billions of dollars away from health care to administration, billing, marketing, sales, and executive compensation? The thousands of physicians who unselfishly support the organization, Physicians for a National Health Program, have their hearts in the right place. If everyone was covered, no one would be denied coverage! No one would pay a fine for not purchasing insurance! Think of all the bureaucracy and legislation that wouldn’t be needed with a single payer system. Think of all the bankruptcies that would be avoided. Think about the fact that single payer does not mean the government runs health care– the providers would all remain private, in business for themselves. Only the unnecessary insurance middlemen would go away. That’s not socialism, it’s rational, least-cost economics.