Sunday, April 15, 2007
Sicko: Setting back health care reform, one stunt at a time
I think that the Democrats are going to make a serious push to reform the country's health care system if they win the White House in 2008. I also think that the best ideas for doing so are coming out of progressive circles (with various footnotes and caveats that I will explore in a post some day). That said, I predict with some confidence that Michael Moore's theatrical approach to the subject will both coarsen the debate that this country desperately needs to have and tilt the leading Democratic proposals substantially toward the impractical.
Do any of our regular and thoughtful lefty commenters think I'm wrong?
14 Comments:
By 
SR, at
Sun Apr 15, 06:10:00 PM:
TH,
You think the best ideas are coming from the folks who think cell phones are wiping out bees? They only have one idea. Single payer!
Count on third world medical care for all. It's just pathetic.
By 
, at
Sun Apr 15, 06:53:00 PM:
Like any extremist, Michael Moore's value is as a lightning rod, not a formulator of effective policy. He can ignite issues for the left and draw attention to them in dramatic form, but serious candidates know that when it comes to hammering out planks in the platform, you need a steady hand on the hammer and a different coalition than the radical fringe.
By , at
Sun Apr 15, 08:19:00 PM:
The Pubs need to move toward Romney's Mass plan as quickly as possible. It WILL work, and it's something the country can live with.
Dub showed the way with the Pill Bill; get there first, and preempt the argument.
By , at
Sun Apr 15, 10:28:00 PM:
Rufus,
Dubs pill bill (i presume you mean medicare prescription drug coverage) is simply going to cause a fiscally unsustainable program to implode even faster.
Certainly not an example to follow.
TJIT
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Apr 15, 11:14:00 PM:
Romney's Mass plan as quickly as possible
Romney criminalized NOT signing up with his plan. You will be fined until you do sign up or move from the state.
Something about that really rubs me raw.
By , at
Mon Apr 16, 12:00:00 AM:
Cato Economist thinks Romney care will implode.
"three numbers stand out: $295, the annual penalty per worker a company must pay to the state if it does not provide health insurance; $0, the deductible on the typical state-subsidized health-insurance policy under the plan; and $6,000, the average annual expenditure on health care for a Massachusetts resident."
"What insurance company will provide coverage with $0 deductible, at an annual premium of $295, for someone whose health care costs on average $6,000 a year? The numbers imply losses of over $5,700, not counting administrative costs.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6341
By SR, at
Mon Apr 16, 12:39:00 AM:
I thought the $295 was a pretty small penalty for not providing insurance which would cost multiples of that. The individual would stil have to purchase insurance at market, no?
By , at
Mon Apr 16, 08:26:00 AM:
Look, I'm as conservative as they come (okay, almost,) but you've got to take the Cato Inst. with a Really, really big grain of salt.
I'm an ex-insurance man, and believe me when I tell you you've got to have forced participation. Otherwise, the "Adverse Selection" would be Staggering. Think of it like car insurance.
As for Medicare pard D, it's coming in at a Very Affordable $40 Billion, or so. The competition between free market providers is working very well.
The point is: by passing Part D, Dubya was able to head off a truly toxic government single payer mess that would have probably cost five times as much for comparable benefits.
By , at
Mon Apr 16, 09:24:00 AM:
I think Romney's healthcare plan is a con. I say this because it is my understanding that he moved a large number of his people over to Medicare.
Where are you going to move a large number of federal eligible people to - Canadian Health Care
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Apr 16, 09:56:00 AM:
When Michael Moore "coarsens the debate" it will finally mean that there is a debate to be coarsened.
The Republicans have avoided this issue entirely with coarse cries of "socialism!", "waiting lines!", and other fear tactics.
The Moore film may actually get our lawmakers focused on doing something. It takes lighting a fire to get people moving.
By , at
Mon Apr 16, 10:19:00 AM:
It looks like MICHEAL MOORE is determined to become the JOSEPH GOBBELS of hollywood just like OLIVER STONE,MARTIN SCORSE, and many others
By , at
Mon Apr 16, 11:40:00 AM:
Cuba for medical care? Tell me this is a hoax story, please. I remember being horribly sick in Brazil, calling my wife to say goodbye and telling her I would prefer to die in the hotel room to going to a Sao Paulo hospital - and that was Sao Paulo not Havana.
By , at
Mon Apr 16, 09:56:00 PM:
TH - I cannot stand the term "Progressives." One of the reasons I am no longer a Democrat is that they have not had a single new idea since LBJ. Last year Bill Bradley had a great Op-Ed in the NY Times stating this fact, that the entirety of the left was more based on the power of personality (e.g. think Clinton, Kennedy, etc.)while the real ideas were being generated by think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation. Most of this came about post Goldwater years, but it gave rise to the concepts of outspending the unsustainable Soviet Union or putting some real study behind the Laffer Curve concepts. Meanwhile the Left continues to back organized labor even though the EEOC and the many ERISA laws protect labor beyond anything Karl Marx ever dreamed. Last case in point, look at all of the states that are ardently left, (NY, CA, NJ, MA, MD, PA)every single one of them is in deep trouble structurally with little hope for recovery unless the Left comes up with something more "progressive" to save their collective bacon.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Apr 16, 10:38:00 PM:
Gee Screwy, you'll have reevaluate your view on Joe McCarthy, then.
