Our medical care problems created by politicians
Dionysus
HEAD: Whose Medical Decisions?: Part III
by Thomas Sowell
Amid all the controversies over medical care, no one seems to be asking a
very basic question: Why does it take more than 1,000 pages of legislation
to insure people who lack medical insurance?
Despite incessant repetition of the fact that millions of Americans do not
have medical insurance, hardy souls who have actually read the mammoth
medical care legislation being rushed through Congress have discovered all
sorts of things there that have nothing whatever to do with insuring the
uninsured-- and everything to do with taking medical decisions out of the
hands of doctors and their patients, and transferring those decisions to
Washington bureaucrats.
That's called "bait and switch" when an unscrupulous business advertises one
thing and tries to sell you something else. When politicians do it, it is
far more dangerous to far more people.
Deception is not an incidental aspect of this medical care legislation, but
is at the very heart of it.
That such a massive change of the entire medical care system, from top to
bottom, was attempted to be rushed through Congress before the August
recess-- before anybody in or out of Congress had time to read it all--
should have told us from the outset that we were being played for fools.
Despite President Obama's statements that he is not advocating a "single
payer" system for medical care-- which is to say, a government monopoly of
power over life and death decisions-- just a few years ago, he was telling a
union audience that he was in favor of a "single payer" system. At that
time, he pointed out that it was unlikely that such a system could be put in
place all at once, that it might take a number of years to advance, step by
step, to that goal.
In other words, Barack Obama fully understood the "entering wedge" political
strategy that has allowed so many government programs to start off small,
and apparently innocuous-- and then grow to gigantic size and scope over the
years.
If telling us that he is not for a single payer system will soothe us into
going along, then it is perfectly understandable why he said it. But that is
no reason for us to believe him.
As for those uninsured Americans who are supposedly the reason for all this
sound and fury, there is remarkably little interest in why they are
uninsured, despite the incessant repetition of the fact that they are.
The endless repetition serves a political purpose but digging into the
underlying facts might undermine that purpose. Many find it sufficient to
say that the uninsured cannot "afford" medical insurance. But what you can
afford depends not only on how much money you have but also on what your
priorities are.
Many people who are uninsured have incomes from which medical insurance
premiums could readily be paid without any undue strain. But they choose to
spend their money on other things. Many young people, especially, don't buy
medical insurance and elderly people already have Medicare. The poor have
Medicaid available, even though many do not bother to sign up for it, until
they are already in the hospital-- which they can do then.
Throwing numbers around about how many people are uninsured may create the
impression that the uninsured cannot get medical treatment, when it fact
they can get medical treatment at any hospital emergency room.
Is this ideal? Of course not. But nothing is going to be ideal, whether the
current medical care legislation passes or not. The relevant question is:
Are the problems created by the current situation worse than the problems
that will be created by the pending legislation? That question never seems
to get asked, much less answered.
No small part of our current medical care problems have been created by
politicians who drive up the cost of medical insurance by mandating that
insurance cover things that many people are unwilling to pay for.
Many of us are willing to pay for treatment of a sprained ankle ourselves,
if we can get less expensive insurance to cover us just for catastrophic
illnesses. But that is one of many decisions that politicians have taken out
of our hands. There will be many more decisions taken out of our hands if
Obamacare passes.
******************
Knowing that, either all you bedazzled bro-zos and ho-zos are stupendously
stupid dupes, twisted but willing rope sellers, or bribers of your
executioner.
"Accidental socialism is the Obama way -- all of the government, none of the
guilt."-- Christopher Stirewalt
"There is no right to health care-any more than there is a right to chicken
Kiev every second Thursday of the month."-- Anthony Daniels (British
physician)
"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in
human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." --James Madison
Dionysus
Sid9
"Dionysus" <no.sur...@never.net> wrote in message
news:ZLudnWtB29wHxxDX...@giganews.com...
Our problems are cause by insurance companies skimming
billions off medical care, rationing medical care, and
allowing their clients to die after paying premiums for
years.
Sowell is wrong...as usual....
He's right it doesn't take a 1000 pages to fix the
problem....1,000 pages are 994 pages of protection for
insurance companies.
Four pages would do the job.
Page 1 Medicare for all.
Page 2 Set the premiums
Page 3 If you refuse to join you pay a tax equal to the
premium...and get the benefits.
Page 4 Cover those Americans too poor to pay with a sliding
scale of premiums.
Then tell the insurance companies the gravy train is over.
Oh, they can keep a little of the gravy train....let them
continue to sell supplementary insurance as they do now
quite profitably
Lamont Cranston
> FROM TOWNHALL
>
> HEAD: Whose Medical Decisions?: Part III
> by Thomas Sowell
Sowell? ROTFL!
Michael Coburn
> FROM TOWNHALL
>
> HEAD: Whose Medical Decisions?: Part III by Thomas Sowell
>
> Amid all the controversies over medical care, no one seems to be asking
> a very basic question: Why does it take more than 1,000 pages of
> legislation to insure people who lack medical insurance?
That is because the legislation does more than that and most rational and
reasonable people actually understand this FACT.
> Despite incessant repetition of the fact that millions of Americans do
> not have medical insurance, hardy souls who have actually read the
> mammoth medical care legislation being rushed through Congress have
> discovered all sorts of things there that have nothing whatever to do
> with insuring the uninsured--
Well, uh, NO. What they have found is new regulations that specify what
a MINIMUM health insurance policy must provide if it is to label itself
as "health insurance" while it "grandfathers in" the current rip off
policies for the morons who want to keep them. And in addressing the
problem created by "if you like your current insurance you can keep it"
there is a penalty to be paid by FREE RIDERS on the system that have FAKE
insurance.
> and everything to do with taking medical
> decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients, and
> transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.
Where such decisions amount to FREE RIDING on the rest of the community
that is an accurate statement. If you currently pay for a policy that
does not cover timely check ups and screenings that PREVENT much more
costly treatment from becoming necessary then you will have to pay a
SMALL penalty for that FREE RIDE. The current legislation reduces
medical costs by ENCOURAGING preventive care. The system will INCREASE
near term costs but dramatically REDUCE costs in the longer term. I will
expect the Republicans to take full advantage of this reality to hoot and
screech about how this mandated liability insurance immediately increases
costs. Republicans have the foresight of a mole.
> That's called "bait and switch" when an unscrupulous business advertises
> one thing and tries to sell you something else. When politicians do it,
> it is far more dangerous to far more people.
No "bait and switch" at all. The Democrats have never limited health
care reform to providing more affordable insurance to the poor. They
have repeatedly and continually proposed that which is rational to
address the overall COSTS of health care.
> Deception is not an incidental aspect of this medical care legislation,
> but is at the very heart of it.
Actually, deception, is the heart and soul of the current opposition.
The opposition invents one lie after another in a never ending steam of
distortion.
> That such a massive change of the entire medical care system, from top
> to bottom, was attempted to be rushed through Congress before the August
> recess-- before anybody in or out of Congress had time to read it all--
> should have told us from the outset that we were being played for fools.
Take, for instance, this particular lie. The representatives of the
people are (or should be) much more concerned with organizing the
presentation of the bill to the constituents than with the "legalese"
language of the bill. The staffs of the congress people will present the
PLAIN ENGLISH version of the bill to the representatives and the
representatives _SHOULD_ present a condensed version of THAT to the
people. The responsibility of the representatives is to insure that they
understand what is in the bill and communicate what is in the bill. Thus,
each congressperson MUST INSURE THE INTEGRITY OF HIS/HER STAFF. The bill
has been placed on line such that all persons can "read the bill". There
is currently no _RUSH_ at all and as the bill is now available to all
persons including the non partisan press we are finding that Republicans
have been and continue to be shown as a pack of liars.
> Despite President Obama's statements that he is not advocating a "single
> payer" system for medical care-- which is to say, a government monopoly
> of power over life and death decisions-- just a few years ago, he was
> telling a union audience that he was in favor of a "single payer"
> system.
This, side show crap has NOTHING to do with what is in the actual
legislation. Obama could have wanted a subsidy to Santa and a stimulus
initiative to create The Big Rock Candy Mountain and it would not be
relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is covered by HR 3200
which is _NOT_ a SINGLE PAYER bill by any stretch.
> At that time, he pointed out that it was unlikely that such a
> system could be put in place all at once, that it might take a number of
> years to advance, step by step, to that goal.
That is actually true. But throughout his campaign for the presidency,
Obama maintained a completely different stance toward health car reform
that included employers and private insurance in the loop. And _IF_ a
public option proves that such a system is a good way to go then perhaps
the American people will want to go there. That is a sane approach to the
problem. HR 3200 retains the private insurance system and offers a NON-
SUBSIDIZED public OPTION like the Swiss system that is totally financed
by insurance premiums (no tax subsidies at all for the public option).
> In other words, Barack Obama fully understood the "entering wedge"
> political strategy that has allowed so many government programs to start
> off small, and apparently innocuous-- and then grow to gigantic size and
> scope over the years.
>
> If telling us that he is not for a single payer system will soothe us
> into going along, then it is perfectly understandable why he said it.
> But that is no reason for us to believe him.
Yes. There is every reason to believe him on this. That reason to
believe is HR 3200 as put in front of your lying face. It merely sets up
a TEST program to PROVE or DISPROVE most of the CLAIMS concerning a
single payer system. Most rational people believe that such a heavy
handed system is undesirable but that a public option that allows some
control over the costs of private health insurance.
> As for those uninsured Americans who are supposedly the reason for all
> this sound and fury, there is remarkably little interest in why they are
> uninsured, despite the incessant repetition of the fact that they are.
That is because such a discussion is rather irrelevant in light of cost
control and personal responsibility. People who _CHOOSE_ to be uninsured
are like low life assholes driving unsafe cars without any liability
insurance.
> The endless repetition serves a political purpose but digging into the
> underlying facts might undermine that purpose. Many find it sufficient
> to say that the uninsured cannot "afford" medical insurance. But what
> you can afford depends not only on how much money you have but also on
> what your priorities are.
True.. And low life free riding assholes are irresponsible self centered
lying pigs that KNOW that the moral certitudes of this country will
provide them with free health care should the need arise.
> Many people who are uninsured have incomes from which medical insurance
> premiums could readily be paid without any undue strain. But they choose
> to spend their money on other things. Many young people, especially,
> don't buy medical insurance and elderly people already have Medicare.
Do the young have the "right" to drive through life with no liability
insurance? They WILL BE a liability on all of us when they crack up on
the freeway because their PRIORITY was more booze, more speed, and the
constant search for sex. And the people who are forced to retire early
due to the current trends in employer paid health insurance are having
their savings destroyed by high health insurance premiums before they
ever qualify for Medicare. My brother-in-law had 4 months to go until
retirement at HP, which would have entitled him to health insurance
subsidies. They fired him after 20 years with the company and he is
looking for a job. Fortunately, he was still covered until the end of
August. He had surgery for a heart problem 2 weeks ago. He is 50 years
old and will probably lose all he has managed to save just paying the
huge cost of health insurance he will now have to pay in this totally
fucked up system.
HR 3200 is quite large because it has to address a lot of problems WHILE
MAINTAINING THE CURRENT EMPLOYER SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM. HR
676 (the single payer bill) is less than 10 pages. It is very small
because it does not attempt to preserve private insurance companies nor
choices as to whether or what kind of health insurance each person can
have. When you legislate reform while PRESERVING choices and options
things get complicated.
> The poor have Medicaid available, even though many do not bother to sign
> up for it, until they are already in the hospital-- which they can do
> then.
HR 3200 will have no real effect on that but for the fact that it will
REQUIRE the poor to pay a very, very small monthly premium amount for
access to preventive care. MOST Medicaid plans do not currently include
non copay, non deductible preventive exams and screenings.
> Throwing numbers around about how many people are uninsured may create
> the impression that the uninsured cannot get medical treatment, when it
> fact they can get medical treatment at any hospital emergency room.
True. The poor will get care. Unfortunately, we seem to be adding to the
ranks of the poor with the current bankruptcy rates that occur due to
INADEQUATE insurance. And WE ALL PAY for this care through higher fees
to providers and higher insurance premiums. There is no free lunch.
> Is this ideal? Of course not. But nothing is going to be ideal, whether
> the current medical care legislation passes or not. The relevant
> question is: Are the problems created by the current situation worse
> than the problems that will be created by the pending legislation? That
> question never seems to get asked, much less answered.
Part of the reason it does not get answered is because predictions of the
future are ideologically based and actually unknowable. HR 3200 provides
solutions that can be tracked and analyzed without total destruction of
the current system. If Single Payer is the wrong thing to do HR 3200 will
show that at minimum cost and disruption to the current system. The
"public option" will not survive. But we can't just "throw money" at the
uninsured without having the "Public Option" to control costs through
competitive forces.
> No small part of our current medical care problems have been created by
> politicians who drive up the cost of medical insurance by mandating that
> insurance cover things that many people are unwilling to pay for.
This is an out and out lie. SOME FEW regulations are in place to prevent
outright snake oil salesmen from selling group policies that don't
actually cover anything. But this is no different than any other
operations of government that prevent outright fraud. But such
legislation DOES NOT increase the cost of health care. It seemingly
increases the cost of health insurance because the insurance companies
cannot sell FAKE insurance and unscrupulous employers cannot claim to be
providing offering health insurance that isn't to employees.
Many people would not CHOOSE to have LIABILITY INSURANCE either. But
SHIT HAPPENS and when it does WE ALL PAY.
> Many of us are willing to pay for treatment of a sprained ankle
> ourselves, if we can get less expensive insurance to cover us just for
> catastrophic illnesses.
And HR 3200 does not prevent that sort of insurance from being called
health insurance so long as preventive exams and screenings are covered
with no "cost sharing".
> But that is one of many decisions that
> politicians have taken out of our hands. There will be many more
> decisions taken out of our hands if Obamacare passes.
AND this claim is a lie but to the extent that you will no longer be
allowed to drive your body through the public thoroughfares of life
without "body inspections" (like vehicle inspections (brakes) and exhaust
emissions testing) and without maintaining a minimum of liability
insurance that protects _MY_ wallet from your FREE RIDING.
> ******************
It's on line. READ it and WEEP, you lying pigs.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson