National Health Care-Obama Plan

[MicroBalrog]

I'm sorry, I think you lost me. Are you saying we have about the same amount of government involvement/regulation in health care as the other OECD countries?

I.E. "too much"?

[Iain]

Ok, so I was over tired last night. What I ended up arguing was a more extreme version of what I was trying to say, perhaps we get more extreme in the face of what we regard as extremism, who knows. Anyway, it did point up the extremes of the debate. One is that healthcare is purely a financial proposition, the other is that healthcare is purely a humanitarian proposition.

Of course the reality lies somewhere in the middle, resources are not finite and people do die. By discussing Pandora's Box (which was bizarrely interpreted as regret over medical advances) I'm suggesting that, rightly or wrongly, the public are never going to accept healthcare as a purely financial matter. You can tell them that you will tax them less and they will cheer, tell them that there is a human cost they will stop cheering, tell them that their aunt, uncle, friend or they are the faces of that human cost and they will revolt. And everyone knows a Jessica.

The public want it both ways - to pay less and to get more. Yes it's never going to happen, but it is human nature. I'm regularly told that liberal ideas ignore human nature, I can't see the position being put forward here as being any different. You're trying to win a philosophical debate with people who in the end don't want to see their friends and family struggle to afford treatment. It's the same as the welfare debate that in essence ended a long time ago - people might rant about welfare and how much it costs, but they also don't want kids starving either. Welfare and public funding of healthcare aren't going anywhere; their form changes, their popularity waxes and wanes, but you are stuck with them.

Until something drastic and radical happens, which none of us should want because the human cost would be astronomical. Measured, realistic efforts at reform should be aiming to avoid that. Politicians recognise that, they are the people in power. Interpret their negotiations as compromise and weakness, but you are then guilty of the same thing those angry at Obama for failing to deliver are - failure to realise that the world looks different from DC, Whitehall etc. With some good reasons and one is that things are actually way more complicated than Obama supporters and guys on internet messageboards discussing healthcare want them to be.

Now the charity thing - sounds interesting. Unfortunately I regard the statement 'if I paid less tax I would give more to charity' as being very similar to the statement 'if I had more free time I'd go to the gym more' - true of some people, but a statement that sounds suspiciously like wishful thinking. Hard figures would be good though as I'd like to be wrong.

[De Selby]

Iain, you raise an interesting point.  The idea that people are entitled to medicine and food as birthrights did not "arise" in the 20th century.  It is the norm throughout human cultures for most of recorded history.  I don't know of a pre-industrial culture that wrote anything and didn't adopt, in some form or another, "feed the hungry" and "care for the sick" laws.

It is this idea that people are not entitled to medicine, and that society and individuals are under no obligation to provide for others that is new to humanity.  That idea can be traced directly to social darwinism, and it came as a package with eugenics laws.  Civilized countries have mainly discarded the eugenics element, but many maintain the social darwinists' rejection of the traditional norms on hunger and sickness.

The idea that people are not entitled to anything by virtue of birth is a recent experiment in human history.  I think it will be interesting to see whether in our culture, the biblical values that persisted for so long ultimately prevail, or whether the atheism of the social darwinists and positivists manages to supplant those deeply ingrained traditions.   

[LadySmith]

I think it will be interesting to see whether in our culture, the biblical values that persisted for so long ultimately prevail, or whether the atheism of the social darwinists and positivists manages to supplant those deeply ingrained traditions.   

I think that biblical values in our culture are still intact, and the main problem is that this culture is unhappy with the .gov for its pillaging and misuse of our money for its medical care schemes.

I've read that charitable giving goes up whenever the .gov relinquishes its grasps on our finances, so to me this speaks of a continuing desire to help others, only without too much .gov interference.

You've given me some things to think about.

[longeyes]

Iain, you raise an interesting point.  The idea that people are entitled to medicine and food as birthrights did not "arise" in the 20th century.  It is the norm throughout human cultures for most of recorded history.  I don't know of a pre-industrial culture that wrote anything and didn't adopt, in some form or another, "feed the hungry" and "care for the sick" laws.

It is this idea that people are not entitled to medicine, and that society and individuals are under no obligation to provide for others that is new to humanity.  That idea can be traced directly to social darwinism, and it came as a package with eugenics laws.  Civilized countries have mainly discarded the eugenics element, but many maintain the social darwinists' rejection of the traditional norms on hunger and sickness.

The idea that people are not entitled to anything by virtue of birth is a recent experiment in human history.  I think it will be interesting to see whether in our culture, the biblical values that persisted for so long ultimately prevail, or whether the atheism of the social darwinists and positivists manages to supplant those deeply ingrained traditions.

The idea that people are entiteld to something by "birth" goes hand in hand with the worship of DNA, on the contrary, and the universality of tribalism as the ruling principle in most places until The Enlightenment.  The idea that modern ideas of generosity, much less entitlement, extended far beyond one's own bloodline--except for the idea of hospitality to strangers, practiced here and there--is, well, ultra-romantic.  People helped "their own," and that was a tight circle indeed.

[roo_ster]

The IBD editorial is pure bs panic-mongering.

Uh, no.  

At only 500+ words, it is not going to examine in detail the exact gov't and market machinations and include citations to a baker's dozen scholarly journals that support IBD's contentions.  But, it pretty much nailed both the letter and the spirit of that provision.

[Jocassee]

If you love me, keep my commandments: To care for the widows and orphans, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world.

Parallel:

What is the greatest commandment? To love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love thy neighbor as thyself.

The part about not caring for widows and orphans is a thread found all through the prophecies about judgment in the OT. In many cases the religious and political leaders are prophecied against for not caring for the helpless.

But don't confuse that with Welfare.

[FTA84]

There is a distinct line between feeding those who CAN NOT feed themselves and those who WILL NOT.

There is a moral obligation to the former but not the later.  Knowing this, the latter usually tries to pawn themselves off as the former.

[Balog]

It is indeed a long tradition that the poor and needy are cared for, and that everyone has to be provided for by their rulers. Feudalism was so great, I'm glad to see it's still being defended. I agree, birthright slavery is a small price to pay for .gov provided food!

In any case, Iain makes the annoyingly true point that people are unlikely to let the logic of finite resources overrule emotionalism. Who was it that said democracies last until the voters realize they can use .gov as their own private bully to shake down the successful?

I'd also like to remind everyone that we already have socialized medicine, and it and illegal aliens are the root cause of most of the problem beings used to advance the expansion of socialized medicine.

[longeyes]

First health "reform," then wealth "reform."  All in the name of state control.  Health care and "cap & trade" have one real aim: to tell you, down to the last detail and last breath, how to live and, worse, whether you can live.  I said a week ago it was about the unholy triad of euthanasia, eugenics, and genocide.  I'll stand on that, radical as it sounds.  The agenda here is nothing less.

Helping the weak and the needy is a good thing, but not at the price of destroying the strong and productive.

[roo_ster]

Being unable to prevent her nomination is one thing....actually voting FOR her nomination is reprehensible and beneath contempt....something I will be notifying my senators about...esp. the one deluded enough to believe she'll ever be governor...

Sounds like our very own squish, Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

[roo_ster]

If you are sick or at risk of serious illness and possess an amount under the millions in cash, the odds are that the United States is absolutely the worst place in the developed world that you could be.

Oh, yeah, which is why we have American citizens 8.75 months pregnant illegally crossing the Rio Grande into Mexico to have their kids in Mexican hospitals...

Where I'm at now, even completely avoiding the government health system, I can see a doctor for about $35 USD.  If I need medicine, it generally costs about $15 USD.  Those are the prices I have to pay for not having access to the socialist medical system, which delivers equivalent service using general fund money. 

$35+$15=$50

Locally, there are cash-only docs that charge $50/visit and will prescribe one of a panoply of various treatments from least to most expensive, depending on patient choice and willingness to pay.  The least usually being the $4 Wal-mart Rx.

$50+$4=$54

Note: that $54 includes the hit Americans have to take in the face due to gov'ts like Australia insisting American drug companies sell them drugs at or below cost.  So, Bibagpharma Corp has to make all its money on the US consumer.

2. Health care cost is several orders of magnitude higher than anywhere else for the same or lower-quality services.

Yeah, others have clubbed you over the head for this one, but the mendacity shown in the quote deserves drubbings, early & often.

US health care spending per capita in 2004, according to your preferred data source: $6102

Several indicates two or more.  WRT orders of magnitude, that works out to be a factor of 100, at minimum, or $61.02.  The lowest health care spending per capita in 2004 included in your preferred data set is Turkey's $580.  Anyone reading this want to forego care in the USA for care in Turkey?

Anywhere else indicates all places on Earth save the USA.  Well, the very next entry under "United States" is Luxemboug ($5089), which clearly qualifies as elsewhere. 


Meh, I was going to further comment, but I will not waste any more keystrokes on a blatant source of disinformation.

[roo_ster]

So I get the same treatment as the super-rich - and I don't have to pay? I get access to the same surgeons, the same follow-ups, the same on-going care? Even though, as far as insurers are concerned, I am a Ferrari Enzo - expensive and a crash is inevitable?

Sounds perfect. - http://www.cnbc.com/id/31099365

Many times, yes.  It helps to be an illegal alien.

Get shot, in a traumatic auto accident, or some such in Dallas county and the lowliest illegal alien gangbanger gets the same world-beating, life-saving trauma care as a multi-millionaire at Parkland or Baylor.

Nobody expects the wet to pay for his care.  The millionaire can pay outta pocket, if he so desires.  Middle class best have insurance or they will be hounded to the ends of the Earth.

'Bout the same for any major metro area in the USA.

[roo_ster]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who truly makes an effort to earn a real income, and who places their health care as a high priority in their finances, would be unable to afford a decent high deductible health insurance plan to cover major medical emergencies.



how many insurance policies have you bought?  i mean you bought personally  not ones that were a part of a social welfare program offered by an employer.
is it possible you over look those folks who can't work as a result of their illness?  it might not be a large enough number of folks to be important.... unless you end up one of them  or a family member does. then your perspective might change

I bought a large deductible "catastrophic" policy to cover me between jobs a few years back.  Essentially, if I would have been crunched by a bus and had millions in medical bills, I would have owed ~$10,000, counting deductible and my portion of the med bills before the cap.

Not really a bad deal.  I was healthy at the time, but I thought the policy as a rational form of risk mitigation.

All incidental med bills were out of pocket & went against the large deductible.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Of course the reality lies somewhere in the middle, resources are not finite and people do die. By discussing Pandora's Box (which was bizarrely interpreted as regret over medical advances) I'm suggesting that, rightly or wrongly, the public are never going to accept healthcare as a purely financial matter. You can tell them that you will tax them less and they will cheer, tell them that there is a human cost they will stop cheering, tell them that their aunt, uncle, friend or they are the faces of that human cost and they will revolt. And everyone knows a Jessica.

The electorate can demand limitless health care all they want.  It simply cannot exist.  The electorate may as well demand the moon turn purple, for all the good it will do them.

You Pandora's Box idea is the root of the problem.  We now know lots of miraculous new treatments, but we don't have the wealth to provide them for everyone who might want them.  It isn't a matter of caring enough, or wanting it enough, or being willing to make enough sacrifices, or having the right government program, or anything else.  These treatments simply require far more resources than we can possibly deliver.  

We also know how to fly men to the moon and back, but that doesn't mean we can afford to give everyone a lunar vacation.

We know how to build enormous skyscrapers, but that doesn't mean we can afford to build one for everyone to live in all by themselves.

Obviously none of this stops people from trying to vote themselves these treatments.  There will always be a golden-tongued demagogue promising to hand over that which does not exist in exchange for being elected into office.  It's up to us to recognize that a politician can promise to give us anything we want, but he cannot make those things exist to be given.

I know you don't like to hear it, but the problem is insufficient resources to cover all of our desires and the only viable long-term solution is to produce more resources.  Historically, it's clear that the best way to maximize a nation's resources is to allow the free market to work its magic.  Socialized medicine is a giant leap in the wrong direction.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I bought a large deductible "catastrophic" policy to cover me between jobs a few years back.  Essentially, if I would have been crunched by a bus and had millions in medical bills, I would have owed ~$10,000, counting deductible and my portion of the med bills before the cap.

Not really a bad deal.  I was healthy at the time, but I thought the policy as a rational form of risk mitigation.

All incidental med bills were out of pocket & went against the large deductible.

I've purchased high deductible plans in the past, and that's what I have now.  I like them.  They provide the coverage I need at an attractive price.  In fact, for many years this kind of plan was the only thing I could afford.

I also like have a Health Savings Account, which let's me save my money, tax free, to use however I see fit to advance my health.  Any doctor I want, any treatment I want, any time I want, so long as I'm willing to pay for it myself.

Naturally Obama's health care "reforms" will outlaw high deductible plans and HSAs, and force everyone into overpriced one-size-fits-all government-approved insurance plans.   

[seeker_two]

Sounds like our very own squish, Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

Your squish detector is spot on, jf.....but it could also apply to the junior squish who'll be eyeing the gov's seat if she loses....

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Great article from Fortune on the new health care "reform" bills. 

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Someone tell me again how government health care is supposed to save us money.

[roo_ster]

This is to be my last contribution in order to respect JJ's post.

HTG - meet 27 year old Jessica from Canada:


Get a job Jessica. Oh wait, she's dead.

That is what you are not comprehending. Your ideal world does not begin to deal with Jessica and the needs she had.

Insisting that people pay their own way, for the most part, and ruling the use of violence to extort money from A to give to B out of bounds / illegal / immoral is not an ideal world, just the very beginning steps of a civilized one.

In the real world, needs & wants are infinite, while resources are finite.  In Jessica's case, clearly Canada's splendiferous health care system was unable to provide for her needs, the primary one being a cure / efficacious treatment for CF. 

Does anyone really think that that need (cure for CF) will be more likely met in the future in a less-free health care market rather than a more-free health care market?  We have seen the once-frequent Euro pharmaceutical innovations dry up to a trickle.  Should we expect any different after oing to the USA what has been done to Europe?

Now the charity thing - sounds interesting. Unfortunately I regard the statement 'if I paid less tax I would give more to charity' as being very similar to the statement 'if I had more free time I'd go to the gym more' - true of some people, but a statement that sounds suspiciously like wishful thinking. Hard figures would be good though as I'd like to be wrong.

Faith in apparatchiks, but not your neighbors, churches, or other local charitable orgs?  How Progressive of you.

"Wishful thinking" is thinking the gov't will care for one after one's use to gov't has ended.  Previous Progressive implementations have shown us what happens to "useless bread gobblers" when the Progressives get the power to make life & death decisions.  OTOH, charitable organizations have traditionally been much better in every regard: efficiency, outcomes, humanitarian motivation, etc.

There used to exist a network of fraternal organizations (like theses guys: http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Main/), most of which were crowded out by gov't over the decades.

They were voluntary, charitable organizations whose membership declined as gov't took more of their members' incomes.

Other charities are actively pushed out by gov't regulation and regulators. 

It is reasonable to assert that if those tax burdens were lessened that charitable giving would increase.

Welfare and public funding of healthcare aren't going anywhere; their form changes, their popularity waxes and wanes, but you are stuck with them.

Until something drastic and radical happens...

Well, when economies crater in a Wiemar-esque* fashion or the civilization comes apart at the seams a la the Ottoman Empire or Visigothic Spain**, formerly viable gov't functions do go somewhere: the dustbin.

Welfare & taxpayer-funded health care increase the likelihood of such "drastic" outcomes.





* Pick your economic collapse model: Wiemar, Argentina, Zimbabwe, etc....

** Again, there are numerous examples & models that show that the only thing more persistent than a gov't program is gov't collapse after internal decay.

[Monkeyleg]

There are some of us who are close enough to the age where we'd be rationed to death that there's simply no way government-run health care will ever be acceptable.

The federal government has yet to prove it can successfully run a large social program. Its two flagship programs--Social Security and Medicare--are near-insolvent disasters. Why should we expect any less from nationalized health care?

If this was as good as its supporters say it is, they would have no problem with the public knowing the details. The fact that Obama is pushing to have this passed as soon as possible--when even he doesn't know what's in it--speaks volumes about the intentions of the bill's backers.

This isn't New Zealand, a country with a population smaller than Wisconsin.

[Balog]

There are some of us who are close enough to the age where we'd be rationed to death that there's simply no way government-run health care will ever be acceptable.

The federal government has yet to prove it can successfully run a large social program. Its two flagship programs--Social Security and Medicare--are near-insolvent disasters. Why should we expect any less from nationalized health care?
If this was as good as its supporters say it is, they would have no problem with the public knowing the details. The fact that Obama is pushing to have this passed as soon as possible--when even he doesn't know what's in it--speaks volumes about the intentions of the bill's backers.

This isn't New Zealand, a country with a population smaller than Wisconsin.

Quoted for extreme truthiness.

[Ryan in Maine]

Government health care now covering abortion. This is going to be comedic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs. The dispute could come to a head with House and Senate floor votes on abortion this fall, a prospect that many lawmakers would like to avoid.

[makattak]

Government health care now covering abortion. This is going to be comedic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_abortion

Ahhhhhhhh.... the Democrats just can't help themselves. I'm now fairly certain their ineptitude will save us from this debacle, at least for this year.

Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, please!

[Boomhauer]

Ahhhhhhhh.... the Democrats just can't help themselves. I'm now fairly certain their ineptitude will save us from this debacle, at least for this year.

Keep shooting yourselves in the foot, please!

But, wait, it gets better! Facts are stubborn things...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, "facts are stubborn things."

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them.  He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

[makattak]

But, wait, it gets better! Facts are stubborn things...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

I'm DYING here! They're quite right, facts are stubborn things.

It's a shame for them that people are aware of what they plan to do. "BUT BUT BUT BUT, we didn't put that in the BILL! (We didn't right? Oh, crap, we did?) Ok, well, yes, that's in there, but that's not what it means, we just want to make sure people know their options."

Misinformation only works for a short time. Once people know you are a liar, it's over for you.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Obama, your time of duping the American public is FAST coming to an end.

I'm feeling quite optimistic today.