If our US government can save money on health care why don't they do it first with Medicare? But without rationing. Hugh Hewitt explains.
Dick Morris has a succinct way to express the big problem of single-payer. Now when your insurance denies a benefit to you they say "we won't pay for it." You have to option of paying for it yourself. But when Big Government runs the whole show they will say "You can't have the treatment." Just plain "NO" and you will have no options.
The strategy is not to go straight to single-payer, but to allow private insurance to "compete" against the federal government. The government doesn't compete; it monopolizes. After it starts they will change the rules to drive out the privates. Then they will have complete control.
There will be a march against the government takeover of medical care - in response to a march in favor.
Saturday 1:00 pm across from Westlake Park
on the north side of Pine St. between 4th and 5th Avenues.
Yes, I would always protest an attempt by government to run health care. I would always protest an attempt by government when that same government can't even say where the stimulus money went.
I will always protest an 'incompetent' person or company or government body.
Bruce, you are halfway down the 'slippery' slope. At the bottom you get rationing, incompetent doctors (because what smart person will choose doctor as a profession when there is no 'profit') and euthanization (of the old people because it is cost-ineffective).
Bruce, that is waiting for you at the bottom.
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2009 09:57 AMReducing the cost of insurance only makes health care look less expensive to the individual, but somewhere, someone else is picking up the difference.
The actual costs - doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs/medicines, equipment, medical tools, administrators, procedures, tests, compliance paperwork, etc. are the base of all medical costs.
The only way to really keep down the insurance costs is to pay less for the services, or pay for fewer services - or both. Isn't this what Medicare is currently doing? Isn't this what people demonize insurance companies for?
None of this actually reduces the cost of medical equipment or tools. It doesn't make administrations more efficient. It could require fewer doctors or nurses or custodial staff, or the hiring of less experienced staff which could lead to overwork and burnout, thus giving you deteriorated healthcare.
What is the real reason insurance rates go up 20-40% annually? How do any of these plans address these reasons?
On a side note: If public health, safety, and well being is so critical, why are fire services not a priority to be funded from the general fund before other, less critical programs, but must rely on levies for their livlihood?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 29, 2009 10:05 AMAnd as for "what smart person will choose doctor as a profession when there is no profit":
1) What do you mean by "profit"? Doctors will still be paid quite well. Currently some doctors earn salary, some earn business profits, and some earn both. Depending on how Obamacare is implemented, those may all remain options. And even if all doctors are salaried, who cares? Many of the great doctors I've known, either as a patient or as a friend, were salaried and didn't own their practice.
2) Do you really believe that talented people become doctors because of the money? Do you want to go a doctor who chose his/her profession solely because of the money?
3) Are you saying that there are no smart doctors in any developed country besides the USA? Amazing that the stupid doctors in most of those countries manage to provide better healthcare outcomes than our smart doctors!
Yeah. Just ask the people who are stuck in those systems how much they like it. And now people like you want to expand it to everybody?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by: jimg on May 29, 2009 10:51 AMBruce, wake up. Socialists such as Rangel use the exact term 'single-payer' in describing their intended legislation, assured that Obama will sign on.
Those Canadians and Europeans that can afford to come to the U.S. for advanced and experimental care; when Obama and his ilk destroy the most advanced system in the world, where will we be able to go?
All those that do not want to die please go to Westlake Saturday, with the hope of a repeat of the 1994 repudiation of Hillarycare.
We're all frogs, in the slow boil of socialism.
Posted by: yaddacubed on May 29, 2009 11:05 AMBeyond that, you are right in your implication that society can't afford to cover every possible medical procedure that might be of value for everyone today, and will be even less able to afford that in the future.
The best solution IMHO is for taxes to fund basic healthcare consisting of the most cost-effective care. At the same time, we need to preserve the option for anyone to get any medical care they want, provided they can afford it either a la carte or through supplemental insurance.
Determining what is most cost-effective is challenging; there is some objective science involved but also some public policy decisions. But we need to recognize that these decisions are made today, just not rationally. No insurance policy covers everything, but they exclude broad categories of treatment rather than specific treatments that are extremely cost-ineffective. Hopefully society can handle these decisions more rationally. Fomenting fear of "rationing" and "the government getting between you and your doctor" does not promote such rationality.
Posted by: Bruce on May 29, 2009 11:07 AMA better solution to the problem is more likely to prevent a 'government takeover' than sign waving - no?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 29, 2009 11:07 AMGreat idea! In fact, a few people have come up with that idea over the years!
The studies I find by googling show that, in general, Medicare and VA clients are happier with their care than privately ensured people (not to mention the uninsured). I think Medicaid isn't as good.
People in other developed countries, all of which have some form of national health insurance, are generally happier with their healthcare than Americans, and with good reason -- they have better outcomes for lower cost.
Certainly none of these systems is perfect, and I hope Americans can come up with a better system that utilizes all our nation's strengths. But saying that all national healthcare is inferior to private care -- even if you say it on a big sign -- is clearly contradicted by the facts.
Posted by: Bruce on May 29, 2009 11:33 AM"Great. Obama just used the takeover of Chrysler to bankrupt Republicans owning Chrysler dealerships."
This is the kind of total BS that will keep so-called conservatives in the minority forever.
Did you happen to research this before you simply blurted out a Talking Point?
If so, please tell us how many Democrat owned Chrysler dealerships there are?
Would it really surprise you if the majority of auto dealerships in the USA are upper middle aged white men with incomes significantly higher than the median income and therefore predictably Republican?
Or maybe you are advocating that the bankruptcy court take in to consideration political affiliation in the adjudication of re-organization plans and financial claims?
Or maybe you can cite just ONE adjudicated case in the 45 year history of Medicare where health care was withheld from a 'political enemy'?
no, nevermind. go make a sign calling Obama a "SOCIALIST!!" and wave it around. That worked so well in November 2008.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 29, 2009 11:59 AMI would rather see some government oversight of the current healthcare system than to see the incompetents running the entire show. There are alot of things that could be addressed that would cause the cost of healthcare to go down, while still keeping quality high. I work in healthcare and see waste virtually every day.
Posted by: REBEL on May 29, 2009 12:46 PMJust wtf does this slogan mean?
Does it mean the Republican Party is the Socialist Party for leading and pushing through the expansion of Medicare in 2003?
Does it mean the health care professionals in the US Armed Forces are a COMMUNIST fifth column for participating in a government run health system?
Should we provide 'vouchers' to the injured men & women on the battlefield?
Name calling is juvenile and just plain silly - isn't it?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 29, 2009 01:09 PMI used slippery slope to illustrate the path socialized medicine (oops national health care) will take us. Sure, initially there will be several companies, but over time, it will be the government taking over things as it will be impossible to compute with Uncle Sam. As an employer, I'll pay into the national system instead of a drastically higher health care company.
Have you thought this all the way through, BTW?
It seems you haven't when you talk about doctors having to go to school for 8-10 years and then getting paid the same as an accountant or another employee? Why go through the effort? Sure, in your arbitrary and capricious 'all or none' statements, I can't disagree with you, but as a whole, there will be fewer doctors and when the care gets rationed, I wonder if my kid can become a neurologist when the coop says gps are needed? Will you let me have my heart surgery or bypass when I am 70 because I took care of my body and it finally needs a bypass? I doubt it since I won't be cost-effective then.
Now, you got me rambling like your first post.
Posted by: swatter on May 29, 2009 02:27 PMYeah, and like you were against the expansion of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. Yes, Republicans were stupid to pass that entitlement.
I like my healthcare. Don't #*&% it up!
Posted by: Boy Scouts are smarter on May 29, 2009 02:43 PMWell, once we get our socialized system in-place, I think we'll have a pretty good first aid system and some good primary care, but it's tough luck for those with serious conditions. Where do you suppose all the Canadians will go to get high-level care now versus waiting for months in their system? We'll soon be like them. Maybe we'll all be flying off to Mexico or India to see the docs over there versus waiting in our socialized systems.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on May 29, 2009 03:19 PMRe: #19. In the Canadian system you can not use your money to go outside the system. It is against the law BUT in a funny little twist, the political class can go where they want. Inside the system, outside the system, skip ahead in line or whatever. Just the plebeian tax payers must wait to use the rotten, untimely care.
Re: #20. You are right, we are getting single payer whether we want it of not. I imagine that after implementation it will progress much like the Canadian & British systems have. That is: It will be fine (tolerable like Medicare is now) for a few years, like maybe 10 or 15 and then the wheels will really start to come off. Also, we will be seeing a lot more regulation of what is eaten. The excuse for this will be that since the government is supplying the health care they have a vested interest in keeping you "healthy" and in turn that will save the system money. Like in the UK now they are going to be regulating lamb and beef under the dual banners of health and easing Global Warming™. In fact they will deny care if you have been excessive in your eating and drinking habits. This isn't made up, they are starting to do these things now for Medicare and whatever they call it in the UK.
I tell you this. The day we do single payer I am going in for every little hang nail and split end. I will burn it down . . . I will get even.
Posted by: G Jiggy on May 29, 2009 04:05 PM
I just made my sign for the rally:
Left Turn - Wrong Way
Posted by: ajday on May 29, 2009 04:44 PMIf you think so, fine then. Let's put a 100 dollar bet on the table after Obama's heath care passes.
Want to go for it. "chickens"
Posted by: Medic/Vet on May 29, 2009 05:30 PM2. If it's so bad in UK Canada Germany France Sweden Japan Australia NZ Norway etc. etc., all of which are stable democracies, why have the voters consistently kept their health care systems in place?
Are they stupid and beguiled, is that the explanation? Are the ballot boxes stuffed?
I believe that even the Conservative parties do not run on platforms of ending national health care.
If the "socialized medicine" systems failred as much as conservatives in the USA say, wouldn't you think that the Conservative or christian Democratic parties would run on a platform of "we are going to end socialized medicine" -- that they would win -- and they would eliminate socialized medicine.
But it doesn't seem like that has happened in those nations.
Why not?
3. What nation, in fact, has ever had a nationalized health care system that was changed back?
Any??????????
It would interesting to know. Because it would supoprt the contentions of the USA conservatives in a major, dramatic, and compelling way.
By the way, I didn't check if any conservatives are now willing to agree yes, we need torture therefore we have to denounce and reject the torture treaty that Reagan told us to ratify that our senate ratified and that most of the rest of the world is party to.
That treaty that in its clear worlds say no emergencies justify torture. Such that any nonactivist judge hearing someone argue "well in a post 9-11 world we need torture due to the severity of the threats," that he should just sit down because any such argument is out of order.
No is saying let's withdraw from this torture treaty? To make torture clearly legal??
Interesting.
You also didn't address the fact that all the nations I mentioned are stable democracies. People vote in elections there. why haven't the conservative and chistian democratic parties been able to rescind the nationalized health care programs over there? If they are such disasters.
You don't explain. You just say government always grows, but that's not true. Because over there they have had a fairly stable share of free market/govt. over the years, and the conservative parties and the christian democratic parties come in from time to time and will sell off, say, the railways, because the people vote when govt. gets too big, they vote for parties that reduce its size.
But there isn't one that I know of that has voted to eliminate its "socialized medicine" system.
You say "Get Real....Liberal!" I am trying to be real, by asking for your side to point to a real world example of the kind of system you want. And by asking other real world questions.
It sure would be interesting to hear real answers.
Do you think France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, NZ UK etc. are oppressive Stalinist dictatorships with no elections, gulags, etc.? Why does anyone need a revolution in those nations, when they have periodic elections, with voting rates far higher than ours, I might add?
It would be interesting to hear real answers:
1. what real world system can you point to as an example yoiu want to emulate?
2. why would hundreds of millions of free voters in the nations mentioned keep those socialized medicine systems in place if those systems were such clear failures? Why wouldn't they just vote for change? They DO elect conservative parties fairly frequently, how come those conservative parties don't end socialized medicine? They never sem to even run on a platform of ending it. Why not?
Then come back and report your findings. You may then have an argument of why their system is superior. I hear airfares are down to Europe son, so do write and call when you can. Bon Voyage
Posted by: Tortured Lawyers Mother on May 29, 2009 07:22 PMPerhaps our lawyer friend can defend this action by the new black panther party who were standing menacingly in front of a designated voting station on election day 2008. Oh, by the way, the new attorney general, Eric Holder, who saw fit to send armed jackboots in to capture an unarmed 8 year old hiding in a closet back in Miami 10 years ago decided to drop charges against the 3 thugs with billy clubs in clear violation of the 'voting act of 1965' section 11 which reads:
SEC. 11. (a) No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of this Act or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person's vote. (b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
Yup, this transparency thing is working out just smashingly. Apparently, when the Bull Connors of the world are transposed into the new black panther party, the civil rights of voters may be infringed through threats and intimidation if and when a "minority" is on the ballot.
That Eric Holder sure has some balls doesn't he?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 29, 2009 08:28 PMSeems like a waste of time, but not surprising coming from folks who were last seen protesting non-existent tax increases when, for the vast majority, it was more likely their taxes would be falling.
So here's a question: If private healthcare insurers are so awesome at providing better coverage at lower prices, why are they so worried about potentially competing with a government-sponsored plan? I thought government ruined everything it touches. Shouldn't be hard to compete against that!
Posted by: scottd on May 30, 2009 06:32 AMWe have a public blog at the top of our main page where you can post material like this. And it will show on the main page for a while - the last 10.
#36, go ahead. Invest your own money in a business competing against the state or federal government. If you have any success they change the rules and put you out of business. Medicare started out that way, but the feds drove the private providers out.
Posted by: Ron Hebron on May 30, 2009 07:02 AMAt the top of your post, you asked:
If our US government can save money on health care why don't they do it first with Medicare?
How do you know they haven't already saved money on Medicare? Do you think private insurers would be able to provide nearly universal coverage to all Americans over 65 at a lower cost than what the government spends on Medicare? If that were possible, why do Medicare Advantage programs offered by private insurers require an additional subsidy and yet they still can't make it?
Posted by: scottd on May 30, 2009 08:45 AMI have lived in France 6 months and New Zealand 2 months, in fact. In France I burnt my wrist very badly with boiling water. I got immediate medical attention at 11 pm on Saturday night, no line, and no cost.
In New Zealand my girlfriend sliced into her thumb (the web betwen thumb and first finger) and it was bleeding very badly.
She got immediate medical attention -- stitches -- with no cost. Then we were told it was okay to continue on our tour, because we could go anywhere and get the stitches out.
But seriously, put aside your anger and answer the questions.
What nation in the real world has the system you desire? Why do the voters of democracies with socialized medicine keep it?
Those are fair and reasonable questions. Are you just trying to be a bully?
Dear Jim: trains are a good example. In some nations they are putting in high speed trains all over. They work very well. In other nations the trains were not well run by the govt. so the govt. sold them off, proving that "once you nationalize you can't go back" notion is wrong.
but again, why change the subject? Why not answer the questions, what nation has a health care system you would emulate, and why do voters in many democracies with socialized medicine, keep it in place?
Dear no. 32 Rick D:
your tone is hostile and angry. Why don't you answer the questions? What nation's health care system would you emulate? Why do hundreds of millions of voters in advanced ddemocracies around the world keep socialized medicine in place? I can't follow the question you asked and I don't know the facts, but in general I uphold the rule of law and people who break it should be prosecuted.
Dear no. 33:
you also don't have answers. I'm sure most people on this site would not agree with the tone and substance of your remarks and they are suggesting some kind of unAmerican dictatorship violating our constitution and bill of rights -- esp. 14 th amendment. No thank you! That kind of position lost the civil war! Sorry, can't support you at all.
Dear Michele:
why don't you answer my questions? They are pretty simple. what nation's health care ssytem would you emulate? Why do hundreds of millions of voters around the world have socialized medicine and keep it in place?
You theory that having socialized medicine leads to total state control is disproven with the reality of France Germany Sweden Noway UK Australia Canada NZ etc. For your information, these are stable democracies with a healthy private sector, investment, markets, etc., and are not Stalinist dictatorships. They also frequently reduce the size of govt. when the voters vote for that!
No. 35: no comment.
No. 37: there are private schools and public schools. There are private bus companies and public busses. There are private campgrounds and public campgrounds. Tennis courts. Pools. There are public libraries and a healthy amount of private book stores. There are public food stampt,s and private grocery stores.
Haven't you noticed?
There are public cops and private security guards. State universities, and SU.
And charter school folks want to have private regulated charter schools competing against govt. schools and the whole theory is they will win that competition. So in general your theory is disproven.
I heard on the radio the other day that Germany does have private health insurers as well as public, too. I didn't know that. Maybe you could look into that real world situation and let us know if your theory (which we already disproved in a general way) is borne out in practice there?
But in any event, let's say the Obama intent is to ultimately go to single payer. It's certainly the intent of many people, no doubt about that.
You guys have never explained how that's so bad when we have many real world examples of stable democracies with socialized medicine that even have CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS COMING TO POWER FROM TIME TO TIME that leave in place the socialized medicine.
I mean come on, these are not communist dictatorships! These are (a) our allies from WW2 and (b) the vainquished Japan and Germany where we, the USA, restored or set up democracy! And all these nations supported us in NATO and against the USSR etc.
I am starting to think you all aren't answering, because you don't have an answer.
Because the answer would be "the people in those democracies with socialized medicine have come to like it" which would indicate it works pretty good. If at the same time not one of you can point to a real world free market system you are in favor of, then you really are just making some kind of abstract argument and your whole position is pretty much undermined.
One more time:
1. What nation's health care system do you think we should emulate?
2. Why do hundreds of millions of free voters in free and stable democracies keep socialized medicine in place, even when they elect conservative and more right wing parties they keep socialized medicine in place, why is that?
The thing conservative leaders fear most about a national healthcare option is that, once they see it, Americans will like it. That tells you everything you need to know...
Posted by: scottd on May 30, 2009 09:08 AMIn answer to your question of what nation's system would I wish to emulate, I thought by stating: The health care we would like to emulate is the free market system that will give the most competitive and leading edge care for the dollar, would be enough of an answer. So let me clarify it more. I am not interested in emulating any Country on their Health Services. What I am interested in is the Best Health Services than be can be provided. Naturally, that would be based the the Free Market System as stated above. The Free Market System has always provided the best overall results for the lifestyle of any Citizenry wherever it is applied. A Socialist System has always proved, many times to be the far lesser choice to the point of being a disaster for it's Citizenry. Show me any Socialist State that provides a superior lifestyle over a State based on Capitalism. You can't!
The reasons that the nations that you mention have not rescinded their nationalized health care programs is: The multitudes within Government will always vote for their own larges, which means, they will vote for more Government growth and control and that includes Government health care. Add to that, the multitudes of Easy Believing Liberals outside of Government who will fall for any Government Scam in it's takeover of Society. Plus, those who are dependent on Government handouts aka welfare etc and you will have the superior numbers of Votes for Government health service to remain in place.
Your statement that I said that government always grows is False. What I said was, Government "WANTS" to Grow. But then, your a Liberal and Liberals typically will take a statement and twist it so that the meaning is somewhat different than originally intended and can be attacked as being wrong. However, I do need to make amends to my question: "Do you know of any Government that has reduced it size and control without War or a Revolution?" I should have include in the statement: " The Threat of Economic Collapse and or Economic Collapse".
Another reason is that their mindset is different. I've known Europeans who really do feel it is their obligation to die once they have passed their productive years. Socialism has been ingrained in them for generations now.
Posted by: PeggyU on May 30, 2009 11:23 AMUm, sure. That's your cookie cutter answer for anyone challenging your posts. Maybe you can point out the angry and hostile parts for me.
What nation's health care system would you emulate?
Ours is just fine. We have other foreign nationals coming here for their healthcare and most of them from the countries you listed. Is that your idea of a well run healthcare system? Name us one U.S. government run program that is a success and we buy into your asinine argument torture lawyer. Barring that, I suggest you take your mothers advice and put your money where your mouth is and live under the system you're so quick to advocate.
Why do hundreds of millions of voters in advanced ddemocracies around the world keep socialized medicine in place?
The simple answer is, those democracies are hundreds of years older than we are as a nation and have succombed to mother government holding their hand from birth to death. Shall we just accept genital mutilation as well because, afterall, it is practiced by about a billion people in the world. Your logic is almost as confused as your posts here, torture lawyer.
I can't follow the question you asked and I don't know the facts, but in general I uphold the rule of law and people who break it should be prosecuted.
I linked you to the pertinet details, so what are you confused about? Mr. Holder dropped charges on 3 people wielding a bill club outside a Philadelphia polling place on election day clearly violating the Civil rights act of 1965, section 11.
Playing stupid doesn't help make either of your arguments any more convincing.
When the political pendulum swings back the other way (and it absolutely will), imagine what the next anti-abortion President will do to the national healthcare system...On inauguration day, they'll issue an executive order that eliminates all abortion procedures from the national healthcare system. It will effectively ban all abortion in the United States without running afoul of Roe v. Wade. If you think this will never happen, just look at what Bush did to federal funding for stem cell research. Banning abortion will be well within the President's power if we have a national healthcare system.
Try this argument out on your liberal friends and smile as the blood drains from their face. None of them have ever considered the possibility and when you point it out to them, they will look like you just ran over their kitten with your Hummer.
Expansion of federal power is always bad for everybody. Like all expansions of government power, you have to image how that new power will be used in the hands of your political enemies.
Posted by: blindman on May 30, 2009 03:11 PMIf they like something, isn't it possible that it's good? Especially when the main argument against it is fear of all sorts of disasters that will ensue?
Posted by: Bruce on May 30, 2009 05:12 PMIs is ludicrous because you can't come up with evidence to refute it?
If they like something, isn't it possible that it's good? Especially when the main argument against it is fear of all sorts of disasters that will ensue?
The same statement can be said of Jonestown, Bruce.
You still have yet to explain why they eschew their healthcare system and come here to the U.S. in droves to pay for ours.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 30, 2009 05:39 PMSingle payer system will completely destroy this country. The cost will make the bank bailouts look like chump change.
Oh yah, the feds ARE gonna get their way. The means of the takeover will occur as a reesult of the private delivery systems going bankrupt as a direct result of the feds sabbotage. Its happening now, it will happen very very soon. Your hospitals, clinics, etc will all say..."Thats it, we're done, we're closed, we're bankrupt". And in an act of salvation the gov will swoop in and "prevent the failure" of the delivery system. Private failure caused by gov regulations and cost fixing, "restributing power" back to the gov in the form of economic support.
Sound familiar?
If you cant see this, then you're not looking.
People the game is over. and we are dead.
A single payer system will completely destroy this country. The costs to even try to get the behemouth off the ground will make the bank bailouts look like chump change.
Oh yah, the feds ARE gonna get their way. The means of the takeover will occur because the private delivery systems are going to go bankrupt as a direct result of the feds economic sabbotage. Its happening now, it will happen very very soon. Your hospitals, clinics, etc will all say..."Thats it, we're done, we're closed, we're bankrupt". And in an act of 'salvation' the gov will swoop in and "prevent the total failure" of the delivery system. Private failure caused by gov regulations and cost fixing, "restributing power" back to the gov in the form of economic support.
Sound familiar?
If you cant see this, then you're not looking.
People the game is over. and we are dead.
Im dead serious.
