So Barack Hussein Obama just spoke about this healthcare reform that he is pushing. His comment was "The most significant driver of our debt is healthcare." Hmmmm. Could have fooled me because, the way "I" see it, the biggest single driver for our national debt is Barack Hussein Obama and his cronies spending like a teenager who just got their birthday money!
Spending more than any President in history, this guy is NOW proposing to provide healthcare coverage for everyone in an attempt to reduce the premiums that people like you and I have to pay. Hmmmm....okay, let me get this straight: So in order for EVERYONE to get 'affordable' healthcare coverage at a reasonable cost, you are going to spend MORE money (that, ironically, we do NOT have as a Nation) to ensure that. And where Pray tell is that money going to be coming from? I will tell You: You and Me. That is where the money is coming from.
What REALLY bugs the Leftists is the fact that, in order for everyone to receive the mandated healthcare that they are LEGALLY entitled to (since 1982), those of us that DO have healthcare insurance are required to pay higher premiums because the hospitals have to charge more for those of us that pay because there are people who receive healthcare and do not pay for it. Okay. Just so You know, contrary to Ted Henry's comments, I am not a heartless bastard. I can appreciate that EVERYONE deserves to be taken care of when sick. But: (and this is a BIG but) what really gripes the Lefties is the fact that THEY don't control that money! The hospitals and insurance companies control that money!
Let me say that one more time so it sinks in: The gripe of the Socialists (Obama, et. al) is that they do not CONTROL the money that constitutes those higher insurance premiums. The money that insured individuals have to pay in elevated premiums because hospitals have to charge more to recover the costs on people who are treated and do not pay. They want to make sure that if ANYONE charges more money for healthcare, that it is the Federal Government that is making those decisions. I dont know about You, but this TERRIFIES me. The Federal Government? Taking yet ANOTHER layer of the Free Market over?
"Spreading the Wealth?" Mr. President. It is counter productive to every single principle which has made us the greatest nation on earth and the last remaining Super Power.
It is VERY interesting to observe this administration's attempt to re-name this initiative from "Socialized Medicine" to something that sounds so much less 'socialist' and much more 'American." They are desperately trying to distance themselves from that terminology and made this recent comment: "It's hard to talk about socialized medicine when the hospitals, doctors, insurers, the private sector players are working with us at the White House," a top White House official said.
Really? Ask the folks at General Motors about government takeovers. Ask the former GM CEO what happens when the Obama Administration sticks its nose in your business. Socialism is coming folks. Obama says he 'expects' a bill on his desk by July 31st. Though, it's not like the healthcare industry has any choice in this 'Soft Tyrrany' that IS the Obama Administration.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When an uninsured person gets sick or injured now, who pays for their health care?
ReplyDeleteI addressed that Tony. I don't mind paying an elevated healthcare cost for the folks that leverage our system and do not pay.
ReplyDeleteMy GRIPE is that I don't want the same people that screwed up Social Security and myriad other programs to be controlling those healthcare deliverables. Simple.
But seriously Tony, thanks for posting that blog. As much as I disagree with you, it was at least a place where I could access some of the statistics from Levin's book (and, subsequently, the US Census reports).
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for reading the blog AND for commenting back from my comment. I appreciate it!
I did actually have another comment about one of the things you state in your blog: You state that if Medicare included the younger, healthier demographic, that the system would work more efficiently. I beg to differ. The prevailing evidence, particularly that leveraged by the left on this issue, illustrates that it would overwhelm the system with the younger, 'healthier' people leveraging that system precisely as they do now: for every phase of their healthcare EXCLUDING the preventative measures you advocate. 28 year olds believe they are invincible. I did, and I wager You did too at that age.
So people who would normally suck it up because they 1) don't have healthcare or 2) they do have it, but don't want to pay the co-pays, will now be going to the hospital/physician at the drop of a hat, thereby inundating a system not prepared to handle it.
Thereby, reducing the overall quality of care.
See? Therein lay my greatest single issue (apart from government bureaucracy screwing it up with massive infrastructure and the subsequent attending financial challenges) with the program: the reduction in standards and quality of care.
Oh, and you've got a typo:
"Ignoring the problem of access and cost worked okay when there was fat in the system that could be boiled off, but now hospitals' budgets are tighter, doctors' reimbursement is lower and overhead coats..." I believe you meant for 'coats' to be 'costs'.
Cheers and all the best!
Sean
Sean, you state, "I don't mind paying an elevated healthcare cost for the folks that leverage our system and do not pay."
ReplyDeleteI do. When I was 28y/o I paid premiums although I rarely had a health issue. I completely resent that a 28 y/o can make $40K per year, neglect to get health insurance, buy a truck, go to the Bahamas for vacation... then knock up his girlfriend who goes on Medicaid for prenatal care. Either they get insurance or we should tax his payroll wages. Simple. (And nobody will insure a woman who is already pregnant.)
Obama's health care plan is not an extension of Medicare, it is an extension of private insurance. How is this socialized medicine? Personally, I think Medicare for all would work better, but that's just me. Medicare has very reasonable practice guidelines based on outcomes for the various diagnoses. You can add co-pays and other market instruments. Insurance companies, in my experience, are not as rigorous at looking at outcome stats and are much more arbitrary in coverage for drugs and procedures. They tend to follow Medicare guidelines when pushed, so why not just institute these for all.
Just like the FAA and aircraft maintenance, there can be nationalized guidelines formulated by industry (doctors) and government. WE are the government.
I realize that I'll never change your mind, and there was a time when I was in lockstep with the libertarian get-the-govt-off-my-back sentiment, but after practicing medicine for nearly 20 years, I can tell you that following arbitrary guidelines from 20 different insurance companies that add no value to the product of health care, it's really become just a grind. Doctors went along with the ruse when we got paid better, but now everyone pays Medicare reimbursement anyway.
Medicine is like a utility: there is right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. Ask some old people on Medicare about their doctors. Compared to younger patients I bet seniors are more satisfied with the quality of care. Levin completely misinterpreted the Gallup survey.
Doctors are really just semi-skilled labor at the end of the day and the cost of the system in the US is unsustainable. Britain and Canada are very different than the US, but their outcome stats are better or equal to ours at much lower costs. France: probably the best health care in the world.
Thanks for the heads up on the typo.