No Wonder Republicans Love Our Failed Health Care System So Much
Michael F. Cannon at Cato (via kos) says…They are dead ducks if it gets fixed.(paraphrase)
I guess it is good news for rational people that wingnuts like Hube are all up in arms chasing ghosts in the form of the fairness doctrine and gun rights. While they fret about guns, we’ll be able to get some work done.
It’s very hard to get people to give up “free” stuff after its been given to them.
In fact, the Bushies should have been shouting from the rafters after Part D. They increased the entitlement load by trillions over the long term, but failed to tell the American people about the handout.
The idea espoused here is that if the government passes universal, government-run health care, limited government is nearly impossible to achieve.
UHC should be fought tooth and nail. Not because the future of the GOP is riding on it (it’s not), but because it’s a bad solution. We can’t continue to put our kids on the hook for more and more money just so we can give “free” stuff away today.
Repubs: Children dying from lack of “free” health care is OK since we’d rather run up trillions in debt on “free” wars and “free” money for Wall Street millionaires.
The repub way: Dollars over human welfare. Always.
Not so hasty anonone–right here in Delaware our children were not fully accessed and enrolled in the CHIPS program, because of shall I say non-challance of the current insurance commissioner. We are at least a decade behind surrounding states in the alerting and administering of that program. It was not until the SCHOOL NURSES mobilized to identify and access children to the program, did you see the increase healthcare provided to the kids that should have been provided here. Federal money was sent back, because of the prior low initiative in enrollment–and that’s a disgrace. As a private provider of healthcare, who sees many Medicaid children, the sidebar counsel given to “in between” parents of those I knew would qualify for CHIPS, could have just about been a social worker’s position. This “hidden” and “unannounced” program in Delaware prior to about 2 years ago certainly wasn’t a Repub operation.
I like the part that when Universal health care passed in England all those conservatives normal folks liked it and switch over to the labor party who gave it to them over the objections of the Tories. So if Obama gets it passed here most folks will switch to the Dem’s thus dooming the Repuk party.So the message here is screw the public lets not give them what will help them but deny them health care so we can stay in power. Keeping our buddies in the insurance business fat and happy denying coverage to those who bought into their shell game.
Joanne — Anonone’s world is entirely black and white. Logic and reality need not apply.
“Keeping our buddies in the insurance business fat and happy denying coverage to those who bought into their shell game.”
Insurance companies aren’t the solution, either. Insurance companies are just a private sector version of a government bureaucracy.
Putting choices in the hands of people and their doctors is the solution. The only way to force prices down is through competition, just like what’s going on right now with LASIK and cosmetic surgery.
Ross Douthat has a great idea whereby people are required to put 15% of their income into health savings accounts and only when those accounts run dry does the government get involved.
A year or so back, NPR did a great series of special reports talking about the health care coverage of some industrial nations. Here is a handy comparison of the countries they covered. The take away is that other countries spend less on health care and get better outcomes. And it all isn’t “socialized”, either. Some of these countries have insurance-based care. The companies can’t refuse anyone and (in the case of Germany) non-profit insurance is the first line, with for-profit being available to those who want it.
What is crazy about the Cato article is that the author wants to posit that politicians giving citizens a solution they actually want is a problem. Or, the other side of this article is a warning that the Republican Party is pretty far off the public will on this issue.
“What is crazy about the Cato article is that the author wants to posit that politicians giving citizens a solution they actually want is a problem.”
Therein lies the problem. What do people really want? How much of the situation do they really understand? Isn’t it really a “I don’t really care how you do it, so long as I can get insurance from the government for free” situation?
So this is what you’re going with? That Americans don’t know the scale of their health care problems or even what might be the right solution for them?
How very nanny state of you.
There has been a very great deal of polling over the past year or two the pretty consistently show Americans very concerned about making health care and health insurance more affordable.
And I don’t think that insurance as “free” is on the table except for very low income households.
Does everyone remember Reagan saying “There you go again” to Carter?
Republicans remember that as a smackdown moment. But immediately before Reagan’s smartass comment, Carter had correctly called Reagan out on his lifetime of opposition to Medicare, to which Reagan replied “There you go again.”
Reagan had some convoluted excuse about why he didn’t really oppose Medicare, but it was all bullshit. Reagan did in fact sign the CA Medicare bill. But in that debate, Carter was right, and Reagan was wrong.
The point of this story is, despite Reagan’s opposition to Medicare, he could not afford to acknowledge it. At that moment, in that debate, he had to claim to be on the side of public health care, even if he had to lie and distract to create that impression.
That is where today’s Republicans will be if Democrats successfully pass universal health care.
“That Americans don’t know the scale of their health care problems or even what might be the right solution for them?”
I think they know exactly what they need. The question is this: who knows exactly what will be offered here and how it’s going to be paid for?
It appears that FSP has drank the kool ade. I have a friend with cancer (god love her) however every time she goes for treatment the next day she has to spend hours on the phone with her insurance company trying to get them to honor the coverage she has paid for.
There is one argument that the repuks can’t use against universal health care and that is those countries that have it their citizens live longer than us.
“I have a friend with cancer (god love her) however every time she goes for treatment the next day she has to spend hours on the phone with her insurance company trying to get them to honor the coverage she has paid for.”
I’ll refer you to this in comment #6.
“Insurance companies aren’t the solution, either. Insurance companies are just a private sector version of a government bureaucracy.”
Until the relationship is direct from consumer to provider, things will not improve.
Joanne,
I was responding to “UHC should be fought tooth and nail.” from FSP.
The issues of education and benefit delivery that you raised are important but a different discussion from whether or not health care is a right or a privilege. I believe it is a right. FSP apparently thinks it is only for consumers who can afford it. Poor people and their children can just die.
“FSP apparently thinks it is only for consumers who can afford it. Poor people and their children can just die.”
Go to hell. “Poor people and their children” are already covered under Medicaid. Take that weak garbage somewhere else. Or we can talk about it face-to-face whenever you like.
Go to hell. “Poor people and their children” are already covered under Medicaid.
Really? Then there are no uninsured children in America? Medicaid covers every child that can’t afford health insurance?
Talk about weak. Of course, you can’t stand facts that show the callousness of your position, but here you are (from U.S. Census data):
“The number of uninsured Americans rose for the sixth consecutive year in 2006, to 47.0 million, and the number of uninsured children rose for the second straight year, to 8.7 million, according to Census data released on August 28. Between 1998, the year the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was implemented, and 2004, the number of uninsured children fell every year. But since 2004, as the availability of funding for SCHIP expansion has tightened and as a restrictive Medicaid policy enacted in early 2006 has taken effect, progress in enrolling uninsured children in SCHIP and Medicaid has stalled. (Other factors very likely contributed to this outcome, as well.) With employer-based coverage continuing to erode, the number of uninsured children under 18 has jumped by 1 million over the past two years — from 7.7 million uninsured children in 2004 to 8.7 million in 2006.”
Sure, FSP, you fight insuring these kids and their families “tooth and nail”. Heartless.
You said “poor people and THEIR children.” Poor people and their children are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP.
Poor people and their children are covered. Everyone over 65 is covered. The answer to getting everyone else covered is choice and competition driving down prices. That I will fight for, because it’s the way to help the most people over the long haul.
The reason more people join the ranks of the uninsured every year is because the system is broken. Government control of health care decisions is not the solution.
You can try to paint me any way you want from behind the veil of anonymity, but you’ve been pretty well exposed on this blog by Mike Matthews and others, so I’m not too concerned about your opinion. Unless, of course, you’d like to discuss it over a cup of coffee.
“But since 2004, as the availability of funding for SCHIP expansion has tightened and as a restrictive Medicaid policy enacted in early 2006 has taken effect, progress in enrolling uninsured children in SCHIP and Medicaid has stalled.”
What part of that don’t you understand, FSP? You really hate facts, don’t you?
Universal health care would fund everybody. Get that? E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y. Including all the children that you want to fight “tooth and nail” to keep uninsured.
You say the system is broken, but your solution is every consumer for his/her self. Yeah, that would work.
People like you only seem to have problems with anonymity when the anonymous person disagrees with you and has facts to show your callousness.
“You say the system is broken, but your solution is every consumer for his/her self. ”
That’s not what I said. Those who can not pay need help from the government. But the money should be controlled by the consumer.
You can keep trying to put words in my mouth if you want, but it doesn’t make you right.
“Universal health care would fund everybody.”
Wrong. Universal health care would mandate insurance for everyone. It gets funded by Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
“People like you only seem to have problems with anonymity when the anonymous person disagrees with you and has facts to show your callousness.”
No. People tend to have a problem with anonymous cowards when they make random (and usually contrived) character judgments while not allowing the same scrutiny on themselves.
And anybody with two eyes, a functioning brain and intellectual integrity can see that I want everyone to have health care. Which one of those do you lack, anonymous coward?
Those who can not pay need help from the government. But the money should be controlled by the consumer.
So, in your plan, somehow the consumer controls the government money. Uh huh. In your plan, some money still comes from the government, at least to those “who can not pay.” (As determined by who? The government?) But in UHC, it comes from “Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy”. Uh huh, again.
No wonder conservatives can’t govern.
You tell me who pays for it.
There’s only one big problem with health care in this country. The insurance companies. The minute we made health care a for-profit industry (outside of the doctor’s practicing their craft) is when everything went to hell.
Insurance companies are evil. As someone who worked for one for six years, I can tell you they don’t give a damn about quality of care for their customers. Insurance companies must be removed from the picture.
FSP,
I support a single-payer system like Denmark, Sweden, and Canada (and Medicare in the U.S.) where the government controls the financing of health care (not the delivery) and it is paid for by taxes collected from individuals and businesses.
I’m with you A1. We need a “Medicare for all” kind of system. FSP, who’s paying for it now? Who is paying for the uninsured? We are, with our bills for $100 aspirins.
Mike Matthews you are so dead on. Not only the inclusion of for-profits, but the ridiculous over-sell, and utopia promised by HMOs. But for a person like me who does want to see everyone have access to QUALITY healthcare, I am panicked by the provider/overseer being Uncle Sam. If you just look at some of the clinics operating under federal funds, you may get some intelligent, targeted care; but the delivery is rote, contractual, and often just fire fighting. You are diminished to a file, and seen when there is a problem. You become faceless. Your solution needs to fall between options that have been contracted. An advocate for an alternative solution just ain’t gonna happen, because the government worker works within the parameters as designated. The bright light now, is someone private who holds some government accounts, can and will advocate for a solution that may not be subscribed fully by the government, but has a HUGE impact on securing the necessary care out of a government algorhithim. Most importantly, never,ever, forget–our government will forever go with the lowest bidder–whether it’s protective gear for the troops, or your mother’s pacemaker. Involving the feds to an even greater degree in healthcare, will only assure that.