Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Beating the health care horse
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that health care is still the main topic of the week, and Majority Leader Harry Reid added that Americans cannot afford inaction on the subject.
Both party leaders used their Senate floor speeches and weekly policy lunch press conferences today to beat the health care horse in their own direction.
While McConnell agrees that health care reform is imperative, he said the current Democrat plan being discussed would cost too much and yet still leave 37 million citizens uninsured. Health care legislation is in a “chaotic state,” he said, and it would be irresponsible to move it forward too quickly.
Reid pointed out that Republicans accuse the Democrats of moving too fast on everything: climate change legislation, confirming Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and health care reform. “What are we moving just right on?” he asked. Reid said it is essential to pass reform this year to provide a “public choice” that holds private insurers accountable.
back to top30 Comments to “Beating the health care horse”
Off the point, but I wonder if somewhere there’s a drinking game where every time a politician claims that there are 37 million of anything, it’s bottoms up.
Seriously, I have heard this same term so many times. It’s the all-purpose Really Big Number That Doesn’t Sound Like You Just Made It Up, totally beating on obvious fabrications like “50 million”. And it’s never 36, or 38. Nope, 37. If memory serves, 37 million was the number of uninsured Americans back when Hillary wanted to fix healthcare! Amazing, isn’t it, that altho the population and demographics have changed a bit since the mid 1990s, those same 37 million are still uninsured.
OK, thanks for letting me vent, and now on with the actual debate.
Report comment to moderator
I’m all for “health care reform” right after social security reform, medicaid, and medicare reform…..
And NOT UNTIL.
Report comment to moderator
Read the rest http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm
This NEWS is ASTONISHING !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Baloney. Americans are not entitled to government-sponsored health care. They are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of private health care through the sweat of their brow.
Report comment to moderator
“Americans are not entitled to government-sponsored health care.”
Hopefully we will be soon.
More than 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in 2007 were related to medical expenses — up nearly 50 percent from 2001 — according to “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007.” Its authors, academics David U. Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne, Elizabeth Warren, and Steffie Woolhandler, said their work represented the first-ever national random survey of bankruptcy filers. The results were summarized in the American Journal of Medicine.
Report comment to moderator
The American health system is the most expensive in the world. That can easily be fixed by exposing HMOs as the massive heist by conmen they are and replacing them with major medical and medical savings accounts.
Obama’s plan is to undermine American health care by having the government take it over. Has the government ever successfully run anything? Ever get your license renewed? Health care will become waiting in line for hours to talk to a government zombie who not only doesn’t care, but delights in ruining your day.
Report comment to moderator
I tried to take my son down to get his first license today, and we ran into the same problem. The web site says you have to get there one hour before they close, but — when we got there — the sign says that you have to be there 1 1/2 before and we were 15 minutes late.
So, back we go tomorrow.
Why couldn’t I fight it?
I explained to my son that — if they were a private company that had other companies in competition with them — I could have. But, since they are the ONLY place you can go to get your license, they have a monopoly and no incentive to change or care that we drove 20 minutes to find out that their web site didn’t agree with their signs.
And, I want them in charge of my health care?????
Report comment to moderator
Perfect illustration TRS.
One difference is that licenses will never be rationed. Government run medicine around the world decides what they will pay for or not. If you are out of the norm, then your own death is the service you will have purchased.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want your local DOL in charge of my health care because their website is not up to date. Somehow, I doubt that’s a real possibility.
Report comment to moderator
“Ever get your license renewed?”
I did it online in about 5 minutes!
Report comment to moderator
RPN
When you are a young man of 16 or so, you go to the DMV – one can get their license renewed IF they have had few to no tickets or accidents – at least that’s the way it works in California. A good driving record allow one to skip the DMV experience.
Report comment to moderator
Obviously, I am a responsible individual over the age of 16, with excellent driving record. I just go clicky-clicky with my computer on the government website, and go walky-walky to my mailbox — and POOF — a friendly, reliable employee of another wonderful government agency brings the license right to my mailbox for mere pennies! It’s extremely efficient and reliable.
Report comment to moderator
Also belonging to the AAA helps with any matters relating to DMV.
Report comment to moderator
RPN – 12
TRS wasn’t talking about an adult receiving a renewal, LOL
Report comment to moderator
Xion-
Have you ever wondered whether the poor service you receive might have something to do with your lousy attitude. If you’re really anything close to how you present yourself here, I would probably be in no great hurry to help you either.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA 14-
XION was suggesting that getting one’s license renewed is some kind of ordeal. Slow down and read the words, and you might be able to keep up with more than one conversation at a time! LOL
Report comment to moderator
#15 Poor service has nothing to do with attitude since everyone in line waits quietly for hour after hour. Once Obama has “fixed” our health care system we should simply drop the word “care”, since no one will care.
As TRS pointed out, a government monopoly has no incentive to provide good service.
Report comment to moderator
RPN – I was talking about TRS LOL not Xion.
Report comment to moderator
whuteva
Report comment to moderator
That’s odd, Xion. The USPS comes to my home at the same time every day but Sunday. I always get what people send me, and people always get what I send them. Fed Ex, on the other hand, has lost some of our packages in recent years, and though they are private, they didn’t seem to care that they lost our stuff. Seems contrary to your statement.
Report comment to moderator
I think the solution is simple – make congress live with whatever they force upon the rest of us.
Of course, that is the theory. If we could somehow defund their suitably funded retirement accounts and live with Social Security, remove their cushy health plans and deal with Medicare, ensure equal treatment by authorities and laws that the rest of us deal with rather than avoid a wave-by after identifying themselves or dropping a bosses name, and cause them to actually pay for the own personal non-constituency related trips, MAYBE some of this might get cleared up.
But of course I am being truly naive. They would probably just turn around and reinstate it to themselves similarly to how they seem to vote themselves raises each year. Even if they didn’t, most of them are probably wealthy enough to cover all such needs even without the taxpayer’s help and not feel the pinch the rest of us surely will.
Report comment to moderator
#4 CCC
They are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of private health care through the sweat of their brow.
did I miss something or was the above line amended?
#6
Has the government ever successfully run anything?
So you don’t think the US military is doing a good job? Would Blackwater being a better way to achieve US policy?
#7 I got my license renewed in two minutes and I’m glad they are also in charge of my health care.
Its about good management and its about leadership that respect the institution of gov’t. If you elect leaders who respect gov’t institutions and manage it correctly, then you can expect good results. When you elect leaders who have no respect for gov’t you can expect a wrecking crew.
http://tcfrank.com/
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t as simple as Xion makes it in #6, but he’s definitely on the right track. The Healthcare As Entitlement folks, OTOH, are wrong on the details. They’re also wrong on the big picture. They’re wrong philosophically and in practice. They’re wrong about medical costs and wrong about access.
Are there problems in American medicine? Absolutely. Are government-mandated “reforms” going to be helpful? Of course! Having solved the problem of poverty, the government has earned the right to tackle sickness.
Report comment to moderator
“Its about good management and its about leadership that respect the institution of gov’t. If you elect leaders who respect gov’t institutions and manage it correctly, then you can expect good results. When you elect leaders who have no respect for gov’t you can expect a wrecking crew.”
Isn’t that the truth. Good to see you stopping in, HRW.
Report comment to moderator
#24 “When you elect leaders who have no respect for gov’t you can expect a wrecking crew.”
Exactly. And so what do we do then? You can’t fight city hall. You can’t go to a competitor. You could picket and protest for years, but government is inherently inefficient. Always has been. Always will be.
Power corrupts. Competition is a self regulating system. It isn’t perfect, but tends to force inherently corrupt people to provide good service. Remove the competition and corruption and bad service take its place.
Obama’s proposed system will be similar to the fascist systems of Hitler and Mussolini who mixed government and free market solutions. They weren’t regulated by the market, but by government. Companies who provide the best service will no longer be rewarded. Companies that grease the palms of politicians will be rewarded.
Private HMOs will continue to exist, but will be available only to the rich, similar to private schools. Most people will be forced into the gulag of the taxpayer funded system.
Report comment to moderator
But healthcare as it exists now is systemically flawed. No one, not the physicians or the patients or the insurance companies or the government, NO ONE knows the true cost or value of medical care. Because “someone else” pays for it, physicians order tests and treatments “to be complete,” or “just in case,” or to comply with poorly considered accreditation rules, or to avoid litigation. Because “someone else” pays for it, insured patients (who still comprise most of the people in the U.S.) go to the E.R. instead of their usual doctor, or ask for expensive special studies or treatment, or use the medical system for simple illnesses best treated at home. Any truly effective new system must reintroduce a real understanding of the value of medical care, and the recipients of that care must at least share in some of that cost. There is clearly a cost, every time, for every test or treatment or consultation. And there is no question that if a patient and his or her physician had to consider the cost of every test and treatment, overall expenditure would plummet.
Essential Part Two: bringing the real cost of tests, treatment, and consultations down.
Essential Part Three: Litigation reform.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly. And so what do we do then?
Elect gov’ts that respect the institutions and the abilities of gov’t and then support them. He’s been elected now he needs support — the wrecking crew is now collecting their gov’t supplied pension.
Competition is a self regulating system.
Only if competition remains but competition ensures that there will be winners and losers. And once there is one surviving winner, competition ceases and you have monopoly and oligopoly.
Obama’s proposed system will be similar to the fascist systems of Hitler and Mussolini who mixed government and free market solutions
Hyperbole — I just taught my students this technique perhaps I should use the above as an example. From what I know, Obama will be pushing a watered down version of the British model — dual systems ensuring everyone has some type of health insurance. Not the best model to pursue but given the situation he doesn’t have much of a choice. And hyperbole aside his solution isn’t a dramatic change as the HMO model the US has is a private-public partnership. Obama only proposes to tip the balance more to the public side.
Report comment to moderator
Senator Reid said: “to provide a “public choice” that holds private insurers accountable.”
If a public choice is necessary to hold private insurance companies accountable, is it also necessary to offer a public choice for gasoline, groceries, clothing, etc? Just think how much money we could save if we had government run alternatives to all the private businesses that are gouging us for everything that we must have for our daily comforts. And of course none of those private businesses would be forced out of business, they would just have to be more fair with us.
What is the fundamental difference between health insurance and other “necessary” services that makes it crucial for the government to compete in one and not the others.
Actually, I suspect that government control of the others will follow right on the heels of health care. Only for our welfare, of course.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a silly question. If government-sponsored health care becomes the norm, whether a single or dual system, why would any employer in their right mind offer health care any more? It seems to me that the only ones who got to keep their employer-sponsored insurance would be union employees who have a contract mandating this. And then would the employer be giving the amount they spend on health care coverage to the employee, as extra salary, or keeping it to line the CEO’s pockets, or putting it back into the business- ?
Report comment to moderator
29
I imagine gov’t health insurance would have premiums perhaps income based. Thus, employers could choose a plan, gov’t or private, and pay the premiums as they do now.
In a single payer system (Canada’s) employee health care benefits cover things not covered by the gov’t plan — dentist, drugs,etc.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!