Perhaps had the Democrats not taken too seriously all those glowing editorials and books about the 2008 election ushered in a new era of liberalism, telling us how their party would rule the next generation — and beyond, how conservatism was dead and Republicans a dying breed, they might have developed a different strategy on health care. They saw the tea parties as either the products of corporate shenanigans or the last breath of the Reagan Revolution. Instead, they represented the first awkward steps of a reinvigorated Reagan coalition.
In short, had Democrats not been so condescending to their critics, they might have been better prepared to answer their challenges. So, when the president bemoaned today about the difficulty of passing health care reform, that he was “running headlong into special interests, and armies of lobbyists, and partisan politics that’s aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done“, you’ve gotta wonder why a candidate who ran so successfully against special interests in the fall of 2008 claims he was so ill-prepared to face an opposition that they supposedly ginned up.
That said, the president’s complaint just doesn’t wash. Yes, there’s been a vocal opposition, but he has had unprecedented access to the media from whom he has received unprecedented amounts of glowing coverage. He has had the means to get his message across and to answer his critics.
Can’t he recognize that that on health care at least, he’s lost. The people just aren’t buying what he’s selling?
I keep hearing that the Democrats may try to pass something in House-Senate reconciliation committee (bypassing the Senate 60-vote cloture rule)… BUT, all that they would be allowed to pass are the budget aspects: the Medicare cuts and the tax increases.
If all those points are true: I could live with it. The Medicare cuts have to happen. They’re the right thing to do. If some people are going to be angry, let them blame the Democrats, heh. The tax hikes are the wrong thing to do… and again, people will rightly blame the Democrats. So we would get subsidy cuts (good), tax increases (bad), and greater tax-fueled anger at the Democrats (good). 2 out of 3 good.
P.S. As for what real health care reform should look like: Free market reforms, of course. Abolish any restrictions on competition across state lines. Cut the demand-side subsidies (Medicare), which inflate costs on the demand side and which we as a nation can no longer afford so much of. Cut the tax loophole (implicit subsidy) that causes people to demand and receive Cadillac plans “free” (haha) from their employers. Encourage high-deductible, disaster-coverage plans where people get used to paying their own ‘ordinary’ costs. On the supply side i.e. the cost of supplying medical care: pass tort reform.
ILC,
There is a not so secret dirty little secret that must be addressed. The insurance companies are in league with medicare and medicaid. Doctors and hospitals get reimbursed at about the 40% level from the government. They also have to write off a certain amount of free treatment. The health insurance companies can not exist without doctors and hospitals to serve their policy holders. So the companies have built their actuarial tables to assume the loses to doctors and hospitals incurred by free treatment and medicare and medicaid.
The insurance policy costs the insured person significantly more than is necessary in order to cover all those losses. That is why a person paying cash at a hospital will get a cash discount off the bill of 35% (more or less.)
One way to lower health care costs is to return to a private system in which the insured person gets quality care for a much lower premium. The uninsured person could pay cash for quality care at no discount. Or, the uninsured person could go to the local federal health care facility and get health care ranging from free to 100% depending on his ability to pay. Whether that facility would be run like the DMV is another topic.
The socialized medicine countries are loathe to let private medicine exist, because their stripped down systems would be shown for what they are.
As a side note, I am on medicare and I pay for additional insurance that will cover me outside the country and plugs a few gaps. I would far prefer to have the ability to buy my own insurance and have the government send me some co-pay for it. But, in fact, I see no reason for medicare at all, if the government would allow the system to work for those who can pay their way.
Years ago, my son had some stitches in the emergency room and some gravel was left under the skin. The hospital agreed to do plastic surgery to remove the gravel and fix his face properly. We showed up for the examination and we walked into a room filled with people sitting on folding chairs. The nurse came over, looked at our paper and directed us to another place nearby. We walked through automatic doors onto carpet and upholstered furniture. A nurse greeted us by name and we were taken to see the plastic surgeon. That is the difference between a public clinic and private medicine. But, everyone on those folding chairs was being attended to. Had we needed to be in that location, we would have stayed and taken our number and received the service.