On Health Care (as on other issues):
Obama & Democrats Act as if Republican alternatives is to do nothing
Obama & Democrats Act as if Republican alternatives is to do nothing
There is much to fault in the President’s speech yesterday to the American Medical Association (AMA). But, to me, the most objectionable aspect was its tone. The President seemed to suggest that “if you’re not on board with the reforms I’m proposing, you’re against reform altogether.”
And yet, as clear as it is that our system badly needs reform, reform is not inevitable. There’s a sense out there among some that, as bad as our current system may be, the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t. There is a fear of change – a worry that we may lose what works about our health care system while trying to fix what doesn’t.
He all but ignored the free market reforms put forward by Republicans.
He, like his fellow partisan, the unhappy Barney Frank attempts to dismiss objections to Democratic plans by contending that the alternative would be doing nothing. This is where the President and the Democrats really beginning to irritate me. They act as if they’re the only one with ideas to reform various over-regulated sectors of the economy.
Couldn’t they at least be honest and have some intellectual courage to defend their policies by showing why their policies are better than the Republican altnernatives instead of suggesting, as they do, that their ideological adversaries have no alternatives whatsoever?
41 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Straw man tactics; something that I see used by advocates of weak/illegitimate positions in general, and by the hardcore Left in particular.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - June 16, 2009
Good book on Amazon: The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - June 16, 2009
That was the same trick he used when he was trying to sell his “stimulus” package to the public… insinuate that he and the Dems were the only ones who wanted to do *anything* to fix the economy. According to him, Republicans wanted to just sit around and “hope” things got better.
(Of course, as it turns out, even sitting around and doing nothhing would have been more successful than throwing billions of dollars down the rat hole… who knew?)
Comment by jana — June 16, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - June 16, 2009
Umm… umm… there is some kind of medical saying here… isn’t it the one that goes, “First, do no harm”…?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - June 16, 2009
We have public schools–and private schools.
We have public colleges–and private colleges.
We have a public military–and private militias (Blackwater, etc.)
We have a public police force–and private security services and private detectives.
We have public transportation–and private taxis.
I don’t see any reason why a public health care option is any more of a threat to capitalism than any of these other public programs. It seems to me that private insurance companies can do what private schools do–cover more things, be more effective, etc. They can even bank on the social status of having private insurance the way that Harvard has more status than the U of Idaho. I fully support public schools, the military, the police, buses, and a public option for health care. I am more than willing to pay more taxes to have it. And you all can spend the money you were going to spend on your employee’s health insurance on the taxes that will fund the public health option.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 16, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - June 16, 2009
In response to ICW’s next 3 posts where he innacurately quotes me and attacks what he hasn’t comprehended–yawn, yawn, and yawn.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 16, 2009 @ 7:46 pm - June 16, 2009
Feeling touchy, eh Ash? I’m glad; since you have such anti-life, immoral views in these areas, and seem routinely to confuse conservatism with totalitarian socialism, you probably ought to.
Um, it’s not a threat to capitalism. It is the *very destruction* of capitalism, in one-seventh of the economy.
Then do it now, Ash. Nothing is stopping you. The government gladly accepts tax payments in excess of the minimum they require of you. Spend *your* money, right now, putting your views into practice. Stop trying to rape the pocketbooks – which means: the lives – of everybody else.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 7:57 pm - June 16, 2009
P.S. Or if you don’t like what the government would spend it on, then give to the charity you find appropriate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - June 16, 2009
P.P.S. I should be clear about something else:
But we already have health care *options* that are funded by government force, today. As the book I mentioned at #2 makes clear, the use of government force in health care is the main thing messing it up. In past discussions, Ash has advocated steps beyond what we have today: namely, the national-socialization of health care. I assumed he meant that, by mentioning health-care-by-government-force “option” (Orwell-style) in this thread; because there would be no point in him mentioning anything in this thread, if he only meant the government health care that we already have (and that, in past discussions, has been nowhere near enough socialism for him).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - June 16, 2009
Or, and here’s a surprising one….buy a better health plan. After all, if you’re willing to cough up more to the government, why aren’t you willing to pay it to a private insurer?
The problem here, Ashpenaz, is that you don’t want to pay for what your health coverage actually costs, as you have to do with a private insurer. You want to compel the rest of us to pay it for you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - June 16, 2009
ILC,
What Ash doesn’t want to point out is more and more providers are opting out of medicare and medicaid, because its paperwork is onerous, payments are dropping, and time and labour are increasing.
Even with the government doing its damnest to sabotoge the Medicare Advantage Plans (by paying the private insurers less and less) we pay faster, more accurately and with higher satisfaction. And if the provider’s opted out of medicare for the reasons above, the government requires them to not take medicare advantage either.
Also, ‘public insurance’ can hide its losses in tax hikes and budget tricks, while private companies can’t (stock holders get a bit pissed about that).
Finally, Ash, if the state insurance is so damn good answer me this: Who handles the federal employees health plans?
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - June 16, 2009
You gays should be incredibly worried if universal healthcare passes.It will be healthcare rationing. And gays with AIDS, along with the eldrely and cancer victims will be one of the first waves to be hit with ” there is no cure and the treatment to extend your life is too expensive. sure you have healthcare, we are denying that procedure. Sorry Chalie, it’s not worth saving your life”.
Just asked those in Britian and Canada. This is exactly what will happen-healthcare rationing-that is certain. Oh he will disguise it as competition with the private insurers but they can’t compete and will quickly go out of business, leaving just government run healthcare.
We all know just what a wonderful job the governemnt has done with Medicare and medicaid
Comment by Don't get sick...ever — June 16, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - June 16, 2009
Again in recent conversations, Ash found that a reason to national-socialize the providers. Let me find the quote. Ah, yes: “Every part of my financial life which is run by the government works wonderfully and without hassle. While you are all in the streets because of your collapsed 401Ks and medical bankruptcies, I hope to be living on my SS and Medicare.” Though the “SS” reference is doubtless nothing he intended, at the time I nonetheless found it appropriate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - June 16, 2009
Oh God, it’s like K R Puff’n'Fluff here in Australia. Everything is put as a choice between what he proposes or doing nothing! Aaghh!
Comment by Garth Godsman — June 16, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - June 16, 2009
Wow–you used up all my yawns!
If there is rationing (which there won’t be), then that gives the insurance companies a way to stay in business–insure those things which the public option won’t.
I can’t pay for my health insurance at all–I have high blood pressure (which has been controlled for over 5 years on medication), and there isn’t a single company that will take me. Now that I’ve been rejected by several, it makes it worse. I have a small plan from my job which has an upper limit of $15, 000 per year. It doesn’t even cover my prescriptions any more. The state-run CHIP plan which is set up to cover people like me with pre-existing conditions costs about $800 per month. Without a public health option, I will never have health insurance.
Private schools survive in a world of public schools, and I think private insurance companies will survive if there’s a public health option.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 16, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - June 16, 2009
And yet… here you are, putting the lie to your pretense.
…Because the militarized, national-socialized doctors (again a reference to your previous proposal) will sing Kum Bay Yah as they work.
That’s the secret. You could get charity, or The_Livewire’s help in dealing with a part of your difficulties, or improve your life in some other way. But you want to use government force to rape other people’s pocketbooks instead. Mind you, have I nothing against having personal, selfish reasons for things. But I have an objection to using government force to compel others. It’s not capitalism, it’s not conservatism, it’s not moral, it’s not Christian, it’s not a lot of things.
Because, again, the United States has for the last 50 years been **preventing** free markets from operating in medical insurance. But that’s not an argument you want to hear.
You mean, you pay $800 a month? Whatever your State makes you pay, I doubt it’s but a fraction of the real costs.
And War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. Again: There is nothing *optional*, Ash, about government-force health care, whether you allow grudgingly allow extra private payments or not. Or if there is, then how about letting others opt out of having to pay for it? When the government comes for payment, it’s mandatory. You, Ashpenaz, want to use force to rape other people’s pocketbooks / lives.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 10:45 pm - June 16, 2009
(To be precise: You want government intervention which, whether or not you care to admit it, is in fact a massive rape of other people’s pocketbooks / lives. You may not want the rape directly… but most Communists don’t directly want to kill their citizenry either; yet they end up doing it. It’s what their program is; what their methods do.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 10:51 pm - June 16, 2009
Why are liberals keeping the failures of the Canadian and UK natl health plans secret? There is rationing in both countries. A board is now forced to limit certain procedures in order to control spiraling costs. If you are a 58 year old woman diagnosed with breast cancer it is now likely that a govt board wil DENY you treatment to save or prolong your life. Americans are use to a positive, can do anything society. It will be a stunner when a natl heath system evolves to the Canadian and UK level after probably 10 years. If we do national health care, at least let’s have our eyes wide open. And yes, people in the UK have “supplemental” private health insurance. Out of fear it was created. Only the rich can pay though. How is that more fair? Imagine your are 62 and have a pain in your side…..you are deemed too old to warrant an MRI. “here’s two aspirin, go home, good luck”. In the USA there is an MRI every 5 miles. In Canada recently, Natasha Richardson probably died due to a lack of a nearby MRI. Life and death. Conservatives are for life.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 16, 2009 @ 11:07 pm - June 16, 2009
And Gene, free markets can create efficiency and innovation and solve medical problems… but a variety of government interventions have been effectively blocking them for decades.
Speaking of the Canadian system… I don’t know if you saw me quoting this in the other thread, but in 2005, Canada’s Supreme Court (not sure if that is the real title) declared that Canada’s single-tier and rationed system was, in itself, a human rights violation. For a link, click here. From the introduction:
Emphasis added.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 11:24 pm - June 16, 2009
(sorry, I meant “free markets can create efficiency and innovation and solve *insurance* problems”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - June 16, 2009
No, I don’t pay $800 a month–I can’t afford it. Hence, the need for affordable health insurance.
For every Canadian health care horror story, there are at least 10 uninsured in America horror stories. Health care is too important to trust to the profit motive. The reason I can’t get health insurance is because I am, according to the companies, more likely to get sick. Companies don’t want to insure people who might get sick–they want to insure people who won’t get sick. So, the people who actually need health care can’t get it.
And you will say, “It’s your fault if you get sick. You should eat less and exercise.” Gee, and when I say gays should stop taking meth and spreading STDs, I’m a self-loathing homophobe. Some people are just not as healthy. The American free market system weeds those people out more consistently than the Canadian system supposedly weeds out old people. Since potentially unhealthy people can’t get preventative care, they/we wind up in emergency rooms and going bankrupt. And dying. Exactly why that is better than maybe, once in awhile, having to wait in line is beyond me.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 17, 2009 @ 1:03 am - June 17, 2009
YAWN!!!!!
Your incessant whining is tiresome. Insurance companies cover sick people all the time. What they won’t pay for are moochers. There are plenty out there who cover pre-existing conditions. They can be found if you bother to look.
Won’t find them whining and moaning on here though.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 17, 2009 @ 5:44 am - June 17, 2009
Whatever you do, Ash, I want you to promise me that you’ll keep telling everybody that Socialist Obamacare is just as good public schools. And always remember that your beloved messiah kicked poor kids out of his daughters’s school so they wouldn’t have to look at them.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 17, 2009 @ 6:00 am - June 17, 2009
Ash again misses the point, and the boat.
No, I don’t pay $800 a month–I can’t afford it. Hence, the need for affordable health insurance.
Because changing jobs is never an option…
And you’re on CHIP? How old are you?
No one will take me because I have high blood pressure
No one will take you at a price you’re willing to pay If you have insurance now (by your own admission you do) Then pre-existing conditions can’t bar you from coverage. Msot plans that have pre-existing have run-off periods where the pre-existing condition isn’t coveredm but again that wouldn’t apply.
So your options are:
a) Get another job to get better coverage through the employer.
b) Budget better to get more affordable heath care.
c) Get a job that pays more to buy the more expensive plan
d) Whine, suck your thumb, and steal someone else’s labour to make up for you not wanting a, b, or c.
Comment by The Livewire — June 17, 2009 @ 6:44 am - June 17, 2009
Gee, and when I say gays should stop taking meth and spreading STDs, I’m a self-loathing homophobe.
Really, who has told you that?
Anyway, Ashpenaz, I am sympathetic to your plight, and wish that there was something that can help you. I just wonder if part of the problem is because there is government intervention in health care as it is. Even with increased funding for health care, employer subsidizing costs of health insurance, etc., health care costs are continuing to spiral out of control. So it’s no wonder you are not able to afford the health care you need for you and your mother.
I would be for nationalized health care if I thought it would help. But I just don’t see it working. I don’t think it would be even as “good” as Canada’s or Britain’s with all of its flaws.
A big part of the problem is that there are a lot of self-interests that are poisoning the political process here. Any reform is going to be a half-assed effort that will end up helping those more in direct proportion to their ability to poison the process. In other words, I see two possibilities. Either you will be worse off than you are now. Or it may help your situation temporarily, but someone else in the same boat will be worse off.
Comment by Pat — June 17, 2009 @ 8:32 am - June 17, 2009
Translation: I was right to surmise that you don’t pay but a fraction of your costs, and that you expect to rape other people’s pocketbooks and lives to make up the difference. Ash, you may get a laugh as Obama passes your plan, but you simply aren’t going to get me to tell you that it is anything but *morally* *wrong*. OK?
And when has the government ever made anything “affordable”? Decades of government intervention in medical markets are precisely what has made medicine less affordable. In effect, you offer poison as food and poison as antidote – the method of the Left. If you want “affordable” care in truth (rather than just to bitch, say), then reverse course. Now!
I call bullsh*t. First, note that America happens to have just about 10 times the population of Canada; so you yourself are saying, perhaps without realizing it, that America is no worse than Canada. Second, many American “uninsured” want it that way: because they’re young and healthy and the government interferes with the insurance market, making it an unnecessarily bad deal for them, as there’s no morally valid reason why they should want to pay and pay to meet Ash’s expectations. Third, no American “uninsured” person is turned away from health care when they really need it, as you admit elsewhere.
Again I call bullsh*t. Ever heard of high-deductible policies, Ash? How about HSAs? (Usually they’re offered in combination) Companies insure sick people all the time… when they’re allowed to, and when the sick people in question have reasonable expectations.
Really? Is there a single discussion where I have said that to you, ever? Sounds like someone might have a guilty conscience.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2009 @ 8:58 am - June 17, 2009
Again: Who has said that to you, on this blog? Who wasn’t a leftist. Ever?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2009 @ 9:02 am - June 17, 2009
Pat,
I openly offered my assistance to him since I work in the industry. He’s yet to even comment on the offer, much less accept. You can’t help someone who refuses.
Comment by The Livewire — June 17, 2009 @ 9:09 am - June 17, 2009
I had lunch with a returned missionary from Canada on Saturday. (A great guy who left for BYU yesterday.) He told me that when people in the city he was serving in (Winnipeg) got sick, they made a run for the border, because they knew their Canadian Health Care was useless. What will Canadians do if the USA adopts their same crappy system? Think of the Canadians!
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 9:26 am - June 17, 2009
Who wasn’t a leftist.
ILC, honestly, I haven’t even heard a leftist say that.
I openly offered my assistance to him since I work in the industry.
Kudos for trying.
Comment by Pat — June 17, 2009 @ 10:02 am - June 17, 2009
Sorry if I was painting with too broad a brush, but I have heard some commentors on this blog say it, commentors whom I consider leftists. I haven’t heard them say it to Ash specifically. I have a vague, generalized memory of NDT and others (possibly even me) saying things on the general lines of “gays should stop taking meth and spreading STDs”, and being called homophobic, self-loathing, yadda yadda, for taking the trouble.
What I came to say – A link on the myth of America’s uninsured:
http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/2303/
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2009 @ 10:50 am - June 17, 2009
A couple comments regarding Canada: First, there are only about 25 million people in Canada, so the numbers and the costs are vastly different than for the US. Someone above commented that for every Canadian complaint about health care problems there were ten for the US, and that’s about right given the population difference. Second, my partner is an architect specializing in health care projects. He worked in North Dakota and most of his big projects were to accommodate Canadians coming across the border for care…and paying on their own. Finally, we live in Phoenix, and in the winter there is a huge influx of Canadians escaping the cold…and filling up the hospitals and doctors offices. That is not a sign of a system to emulate.
Comment by Hunter — June 17, 2009 @ 11:40 am - June 17, 2009
And finally, what should make everyone stop and look is that the Obama Party was forced to admit yesterday that their income redistribution — sorry, “health plan” — will cost over $1 trillion dollars and will only reduce their theoretical number of “uninsured” by one-third.
Exactly how much more proof do we need that this is nothing more than an attempt by the Obama Party to force us to give them more money in exchange for nothing?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2009 @ 11:59 am - June 17, 2009
I have a vague, generalized memory of NDT and others (possibly even me) saying things on the general lines of “gays should stop taking meth and spreading STDs”, and being called homophobic, self-loathing, yadda yadda, for taking the trouble.
ILC, I recall similar things vaguely as well. I do recall the some persons, mostly lefties, say “homophobic” and “self-loathing” when one has suggested something along the lines that “gays persons should stop taking meth” or “gay persons should stop spreading STDs.” But usually there was more thrown in with it, like overgeneralizations, broad brushes, etc., that accompanied it and, it seemed to me lead to the charge of homophobe or self-loathing. The charge was still false and inappropriate in those cases, but it didn’t seem to me to be because one said that gays should stop taking meth and stop spreading STDs.
In other words, it’s similar to someone saying, “Gee, someone just punched me in the face just because I said, ‘hello, how are you?’,” while neglecting to mention that he also called the person a no-good, lying, scum-sucking, boot licking piece of dirt. Sure, the respondent was wrong to throw the punch, but it more likely happened because of something other than saying “hello, how are you?”.
Anyway, I realize I’m putting a fine point on this, especially since my recollection is vague at this point. And there certainly could have been occasions where I missed the “homophobe” comments when it clearly followed, and was directly because of a “gays should stop taking meth and stop spreading STDs” comment.
Comment by Pat — June 17, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - June 17, 2009
Just to toss this out–one of the reasons I voted for McCain was because I thought his idea of forcing companies to sell across state lines (and cover pre-existing conditions) would probably be the fastest way to lower costs. Some enterprising state would come up some cheap health insurance plan and make more money than sponsoring a lottery. I like the public option idea better, but I’m beginning to sense that Obama doesn’t have the backbone to push it through the filibuster-proof Democratic congress!?!? I like what Bill Maher said (and I hate Maher): “I wish Obama was more like Bush. I’d love him to come out and say ‘Jesus told me to fix health care.’”
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 17, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - June 17, 2009
obama is doing exactly what he should be doing–making a case for health care reform. he’s charged congress with writing the bill, and last time i checked, republicans were still part of congress. that means it’s the responsibility of republicans in congress to sell their plan to the american public. so grow up, and stop faulting obama for not doing your work for you. as long as conservatives have a good-faith interest in reform, they shouldn’t have a problem communicating their proposal to the public. though “free market reforms”, which sounds a whole lot like the status quo, might be a tough sale.
and stop being paranoid. nothing in the excerpt you cite from obama’s speech indicates that he was addressing conservatives or republicans. how do you know he wasn’t talking about insurance or pharamaceutical companies?
Comment by Chad — June 17, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - June 17, 2009
#36: “though “free market reforms”, which sounds a whole lot like the status quo, might be a tough sale.”
Personal responsibility is always a “tough sell” to leftist freeloaders.
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - June 17, 2009
lol Oh Chad, that was too funny. Republicans part of the process. Even the MSM can’t sell that one. Oh boy, your really asking people to suspend their disbelief beyond comprehension with your logic.
But thanks for the laugh, it was really funny in a totally absurd way
Comment by Racer — June 18, 2009 @ 12:16 am - June 18, 2009
Except when it comes to deficit busting, economy destroying pork barrel spending that’s supposed to save us all.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2009 @ 2:43 am - June 18, 2009
#36: “as long as conservatives have a good-faith interest in reform, they shouldn’t have a problem communicating their proposal to the public”
Unless they want to try communicating their proposal to the public on ABC.
Comment by Sean A — June 18, 2009 @ 2:51 am - June 18, 2009
no substantive responses to my comment…my work here is done!
Comment by Chad — June 19, 2009 @ 2:52 am - June 19, 2009