Sunday, August 02, 2009
Public option = single payer
If you do not believe conservatives who say that the "public option" is a trojan horse for a single-payer health care system, you're always free to believe the liberals. Obviously that's the reason for it. There is no other even theoretical justification that makes sense.
17 Comments:
By 
VL, at
Sun Aug 02, 11:16:00 PM:
Really enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work.
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 07:16:00 AM:
... and the administration is starting to socialize what all us Wingnuts have said all along: your taxes are going up (including the 95% of working families, blah blah blah) ...
Suckers. And Obama still gets high marks? This is a case study in marketing, and the packaging of this man remains masterful ... for now.
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 08:58:00 AM:
....we'll all be Terry Schaivo now. Pretty soon.
Arlen Specter: " we mst pass this QUICKLY."
Congressman LLoyd Doggett, D. TX. when asked would you vote for this bill even if all his constituents are against it, said......."Yes."
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 09:24:00 AM:
In 1970, healthcare represented 7% of GDP and 16% in 2007. What changed? Well, Medicare passed in 1966 and was still young enough to be a very small part of our problem in 1970. Not so true now.
The Democrats have two huge, failed programs that weigh around our necks: Medicare and Social Security. Is the answer to the bankruptcy the Medicare program faces right now really to destroy every other American's health? Only in an alternate reality does that make any sense at all.
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 09:26:00 AM:
For those who wrongly think our healthcare outcomes aren't better than the rest of the socialized world's outcomes, you are wrong and we are healthier.
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 10:12:00 AM:
Anon - the NCPA article is cherry picking. Every health care system in the world has its share of success and failure, but I would keep my eyes on overall cost, longevity, and the health of children as we try to judge what's best.
I think single-payer, or something like it, is appropriate for preventative types of medicine, but fear it when it would be relied upon for more interventionist type of treatments. That said, universal coverage in some form, would be the best stimulant our economy has ever seen, as it would free up the labor force to improve its condition among other things.
By 
JPMcT, at
Mon Aug 03, 10:14:00 AM:
"Congressman LLoyd Doggett, D. TX. when asked would you vote for this bill even if all his constituents are against it, said......."Yes.""
Proving that we have probably exceeded the "critical mass" of electorate idiocy that will allow those in Congress to do whatever they please and only offend a minority of their constituents....the one's who know their name and how to vote!!!
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 11:08:00 AM:
Squealer, if you think "healthcare" is expensive now, just wait until it is "free".
1) those evil insurance companies have to operate at a "profit". Disgusting and evil, I'm sure, but also a guarantee of a modicum of efficiency, and some responsible use of capital.
2) when the years pass, and the "Public option" has driven out private plans and competition, how will the "public option" be financed? From a pool of money that is also invested in that other nemesis, the stock market, that earns money itself while the insurance company pays claims out of a pool of cash?
No. It will come straight from taxes, levied on you, me and everything else.
How about a progressive income tax AND a National Sales tax (aka_ VAT)?
More taxes will, of course, make everything better, because more taxes always do that.
Dental health. The quality is actually fairly easy to observe, even for the layman. I would put up US dentistry to that observed in Europe any day.
I'm always amused when reading articles written in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, praising their own system, and of course, disparaging the US system, about which they have read quite a bit (from UK publications, of course).
It is a self-serving rationalization for what they have, and the reasons they have it. They have to rationalize and justify what they have because otherwise there would be a great deal of discontent.
Always remember, that a growing market or demand in a free-market economy is an opportunity. In a socialized economy, it is a cause for raising taxes and rationing.
For all the real and imagined faults with the so-called US Health Care "system" (which it is not, it is a market, at least now), it still allows us a modicum of freedom.
Your choice: freedom or serfdom. Remember, you are being asked to choose NOW. You still have a choice, for now.
-David
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 12:34:00 PM:
"I think single-payer, or something like it, is appropriate for preventative types of medicine, but fear it when it would be relied upon for more interventionist type of treatments. That said, universal coverage in some form, would be the best stimulant our economy has ever seen, as it would free up the labor force to improve its condition among other things. "
I see comments like this, pie in the sky stuff offered with absolutely no evidence other than fairy dust, and I worry for our future.
Personal savings is the "best", ie only, way to pay for ongoing, annual, predicatable preventative care. Private insurance is the least cost way to buy true insurance, obviously. A "single payer" means there is literally zero price competition, you idiot. Centrally planned economies have destroyed country after country, and caused misery far beyond any disease ever has caused, and here you are actually advocating it! Hellooo....anyone home?
If people are this stupid, and this eager to give up their liberties to the government, our Republic is toast.
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 01:04:00 PM:
Squeeler, try to read this WaPo Samuelson article and imagine how his points apply to your dreamworld:
"Here's the national lesson. There's a collision between high and rising demands for government services and the capacity of the economy to produce the income and tax revenue to pay for those demands. That's true of California, where poor immigrants and their children have increased pressures for more government services. It's also true of the nation, where an aging population raises Social Security and Medicare spending. California is leading the transformation of politics into a form of collective torture: pay more (higher taxes), get less (lower services).
The state's liberal establishment is in mourning. "Reversing 40 years of progress" is how Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, a liberal research and advocacy group, put it in one blog. Some welfare benefits will be cut by half. California's student-teacher ratio, now about a third above the national average, will probably go even higher. The University of California system lost 20 percent of its state payments. It's raising tuition and student fees 9.3 percent, imposing salary reductions of 4 to 10 percent on more than 100,000 workers, and delaying faculty hires."
Let me clarify for you:
* Higher taxes every year.
* Lower levels of health care services, every year.
We will reap a harvest of illness and pain, and ultimately the government will have to make it illegal for individuals try to do anything about it outside the scope of the national system. Equality of outcome, after all, is the goal here.
The inevitable results? Fewer new drugs or procedures will occur. Very little worldwide innovation in new medicine.
Who will pay the money for this stupid fantasy? No one will. Already, foreign countries have clearly indicated they are less interested in our bond auctions. Foreign demand has been at record lows for the last three auctions. China is rightly complaining about our already overstretched budgets.
The demographic time bomb also works against a "single payer", making it even harder to pay for (fewer workers, and more old people needing care).
By Sam Ditmer, at
Mon Aug 03, 01:09:00 PM:
"If people are this stupid, and this eager to give up their liberties to the government, our Republic is toast."
Bingo!
The average American really *is* that stupid, and couldn't care less about liberty as long as he or she can watch sports and American Idol on their plasma TV.
Face it folks, we're outnumbered now, and voting isn't going to solve anything.
By JPMcT, at
Mon Aug 03, 02:06:00 PM:
"Face it folks, we're outnumbered now, and voting isn't going to solve anything"
I certainly agree. As I've noted, they aren't worried about our votes. There are probably two morons who can be dug up by ACORN and bussed to the polls (in return for a bottle of wine)for every tax-paying citizen. God forbid we actually check their identities...that would be a violation of their civil "rights".
Nawww....either go Galt or organize a taxpayer revolt. Most smart bartenders know when to cut people off!
By , at
Mon Aug 03, 06:59:00 PM:
Nate Silver, my favorite smart lefty, has built an analysis that concludes only two House Republicans are likely to vote for the end of liberty, ie the Waxman Energy and Commerce committee Health bill. While he can't say which two are the evil twins, obviously, Nate says he expects Leonard Lance and Frank LoBiondo are two of the possible candidates for evildom. Both of them are New Jersey Republicans. To Nate's list I would add Chris Smith, also a Republican from New Jersey (Hamilton). Those terrible three voted for kneecap-and-trade, and the corrupt LoBiondo was a primary co-sponsor of Card Check.
All of them should get calls from everyone here and from Chris Christie notifying them that their careers are over if they vote for the bill. Please call them. Let them hear from you!
Time to choose sides, Congressmen.
By Neil Sinhababu, at
Tue Aug 04, 03:25:00 PM:
There's another justification -- given that Medicare has lower administrative costs and has had a lower rate of cost growth than private insurance, a public option would save money.
The arguments that a public option lead to single-payer actually depend on this. What liberals are envisioning is a situation where people choose the public option over more expensive private care. As a majority of the public chooses the public option of their own free will, we get closer and closer to single payer.
By , at
Wed Aug 05, 12:06:00 AM:
Anon - I do agree with you about the quality of US dental care, which is better than a lot of places.
Anon - No, government money is the best way to pay for preventative care such as vaccines and pre-natal care, because otherwise many people won't choose to pay for such care, then get sick, and we end up paying for them later in the emergency room. Think about it. Tell me the cost difference between getting a healthy, just-born baby out of the hospital compared with a preemie.
Anon - The WaPo article, and just about every other free market critic, make the mistake of thinking health care consumption is like any other consumer behavior. It's a completely different animal.
Sam - I don't have the liberty of going to see any doctor I want, regardless of price or coverage. They simply will not make an appointment for me, because they're too busy, or because I don't have a chronic condition which can make them a lot of money.
All I'm saying: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
By , at
Wed Aug 05, 04:38:00 PM:
@Squealer: "No, government money is the best way to pay for preventative care such as vaccines and pre-natal care, because otherwise many people won't choose to pay for such care, then get sick, and we end up paying for them later in the emergency room. Think about it. Tell me the cost difference between getting a healthy, just-born baby out of the hospital compared with a preemie."
That's a good point, but I'm not exactly convinced yet. Part of the problem is that not all people who receive preventative care will have got sick without it. I don't know the numbers, but it's incorrect to conclude savings based on the individual case of the person who would have got sick without factoring in the cost for all the others.
And as for child-care, this is another difficult matter considering the degree to which a child's home culture is one of the main determinants for his or her life-long health and well-being. Likewise, the behavior of the pregnant mother is often a significant factor in problem births. It's one thing to say that childbirth should be covered, but quite another to say that preventative action should be taken regarding problem births, since that encompasses much, much more than just the couple of months before and after birth.
By , at
Fri Aug 07, 01:57:00 PM:
If you're sick, this is ludicrous:
In Boston, the average wait time for an appointment with a family physician is 63 days -- the highest among 15 metropolitan markets surveyed by the national physician recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates in Irving, Texas. The 15-city average was 20.3 days.
(mentioned here)
My experience in a national health care system agrees completely with this woman, where there was no wait time.
