Sick To Our Stomachs
Since more than a few readers have taken issue with our use of the term “socialized medicine” in reference to the ongoing national health care debate, we figured that we should explain what we mean a bit more succinctly.
First of all, it’s not something we heard parroted on FOX News because we don’t watch FOX News … or any cable news network for that matter.
Seriously, people. TV is scripted, sanitized babble. Watch it for too long and your head will explode.
We call President Barack Obama’s “public option” health care plan “socialized medicine” because that’s exactly what it is – a plan that does the exact opposite of everything Obama says it will do.
Create choices? Wrong. Obamacare is crafted around the notion of manipulating premiums to squeeze out low-cost private health care options, which will force millions of Americans into government-run programs.
Cut costs? Yeah, right. The plan’s initial cost is $1.5 trillion – and the last time we checked, government-run health care wasn’t exactly getting cheaper. Hell, that’s why we’re in this mess.
Improve coverage? Yeah … because government-run monopolies are breeding grounds for excellence and innovation (just look at South Carolina’s public school system).
Like Obama’s bureaucratic bailout, energy tax and deliberate undoing of welfare reform, the goal of his health care program is simple – to expand the reach of government into more Americans’ daily lives.
Seriously, people, we know that policy papers are inherently boring and often incomprehensibly dry, but if you really want to understand this debate do yourself a favor … cut the TV off for ten minutes and go read the Cato Institute’s forthcoming policy analyis of Obama’s plan.
It’s brilliant, unflinching and reveals the true nature of Obama’s health care vision, i.e. “not a market, but a prelude to a government takeover of the health care sector.”
“In the process, millions of Americans would be ousted from their existing health plans,” which as you may recall runs completely counter to Obama’s campaign promises.
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” candidate Obama claimed. “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
Yeah … they won’t take it away, they’ll just make it impossible for you to afford it.
Read the analysis below, people. We think you’ll agree that the term “socialized medicine” is really the only name that fits this full-frontal assault on the free market.
WEB EXTRA
Comments
By Pat Hendrix on July 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
The CATO Institute is conservative think tank, not a non-partisan organization. I’m not saying it is without merit, but it is best to keep that in mind when reading the report.
In any event, the Senate finance-com just stripped out the public option from the plan. Always a little slow on the news except when it comes to Megan Fox and the scandal du jour at the state house.
By Liberty for me on July 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
This has more about making us a facist country than about healthcare…If you dont understand this you really need to read what is in the bill..or you can just spout stupid liberal shit like some of you always do.
By Joker on July 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Why don’t the “free market” people come up with a solution that works better than what we have now? All I see are people throwing around “socialism” at every opportunity without putting forward any real, substantial ideas.
By The Baldmongoose on July 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Pat,
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank. Just because an organization disagrees with Obamacare doesn’t mean they are conservative. It just means they have common sense.
By Pat Hendrix on July 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Joker,
I’m not following. Look at the substantive comments by Liberty for Me. It’s about the “facism” and “liberal shit.”
Oh, and the CBO came to the opposite conclusions as CATO. Guess which one has a better track record on these matter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare
By Pat Hendrix on July 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Yes, with double digit inflation in the healthcare system and declining quality of care, the “Libertarian” answer is to do nothing. That strike you as a “common sense” approach? I’m still waiting for an alternative theory on how to hold down costs.
I supect I will be waiting a very long time.
By CNSYD on July 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The health insurance industry is reaping what they have sown. They are extremely efficient in collecting premiums but extremely slow in paying claims. Their first attempt at a claim is to deny it and hope you go away. I have had first hand experience with their tricks.
By dirtbogger on July 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The Libertarian point of view is that money should be tied to gold and not like the current system, this forces government to live within its means. We understand how the Federal Reserve has enslaved the intire nation, Democrate and Rebublican voters should research this privite organazation. There is a hidden tax called the inflation tax. When the government borrows money for their latest sunshine program from the Fed, the fed prints it out of thin air and then the government has to pay it back at intrest (TAX), and the extra money in the economy drives down the buying power of the dollar. This combind with all the current programs and it drives up every ones cost. Those of you arguing against free market medicine I will tell you that it has not existed in a few generations and nether has free market capatalizem. The libertarian philosiphy is not cold as the media would like you to think, it is deffinatly the most christian. You can not take a peice of it and think that defines being a Libertarian we are the party of freedom that god intended for us to be. Not like the 2 party hoax we do not believe in subsudizing everyone for everyone else but if you take out the government buracracy and not give them a cut their would be more for charity and we could take care of our own and our comunities. If You would not steel from your neighbor to give to charity you should not ask your government steel on your behaf. We are also the largest antiwar, anti big government, pro freedom party so give it a real in depth study and quit with the parroted talking points! This just scrapes the surfice on libertarianizem. Most people in this country do not understand what real liberty is, but I bet (Liberty for me) does!
By Charles on July 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
What are the facist parts of the bill, and what makes those parts facist?
By Eric on July 28th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Pat you are really brainwashed by the media to think that the Libertarian policy is to do nothing. Doing nothing assumes that they are content with the current structure which they are not. They are actively working to take away powers of the federal government so that it is less enticing for big business and other lobbyists to sway legislation and ultimately force those same lobbyists to spend more time making their product/services better for the market.
By Dusk McCoy on July 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I suggest that all you libs who are reflexively regurgitating the lines Rham feeds you consider reading Sen. DeMint’s health care plan.
Yes. He does have one.
And yes, defensive medicine is very costly.
Any health care plan that is truly directed at improving care and reducing cost will address tort reform.
I know, I know, all of Obama’s Harvard buddies are in the law profession as are most “congresspeople”. Obviously Obama has a conflict of interest in embracing the status quo in protecting his lawyer buddies…
Case in point…Intraoperative cholangiograms during cholecystecomy are now routine. Costly and unnecessary. However all surgeons perform them routinely to CYA’s in case of bile duct injury.
This medically unnecessary procedure is now routine thanks to trial lawyers.
Maybe Obama should look in the mirror before blaming ENT’s for unnecessary T and A’s
By Carolyn20 on July 29th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Everyone is a libertarian, conservative, anti-commie, non-socialist, free market medical insurance type until they come into the hospital for treatment. Then everything changes.
There are limits on what insurance will pay, and let’s face it-the current business models for insurance companies are ones based on risk. They’re betting you won’t get sick, won’t suffer trauma, that you will keep their risk pool nice and healthy. When you break that pattern of a previously healthy life, they start looking for ways to unload you. You’re bad for their business, which is designed to maintain profitability. It’s a business decision, nothing personal, unless you happen to be the patient.
Google “rescission of health insurance policies,” ie, insurers’ established practice of looking for ways to invalidate policies once it turns out that the insured actually needs significant medical care.
Getting a satisfactory overhaul of the current system is not going to be easy. But when it’s your family member whose life is at risk, the policy debate is viewed in a different context. Then you become grateful for anything that you can find that will help to subsidize care. With 47 million uninsured and many millions more falling through the insurance cracks each year, the government does have to step up to the plate. Obviously, the insurance industry won’t, or they would have done it already. It’s not part of their business model, and there is no incentive to do so.
When you have a heart attack at 27 from a previously unknown defect, or are diagnosed with a life threatening illness at age 32, you may not have all of the resources to continue with ongoing care once you have been dropped by your insurance company, or the policy rate is increased to $2500/month (true for the cardiac patient). Playing the risk game with insurance companies is like gambling against the house in Vegas. This is not a consumer friendly business.
I sincerely hope that the patient is given as much attention in these plans as the insurance lobbyists, who donated so generously to our members of congress, bless their little hearts, and are now busy designing health care for the masses. I’m ready to see some positive changes.
By liz on July 29th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Fidelity management and Research versus the government of the United State of America…. who do ya’ll want to insure you????
Fidelity isn’t a ” good ” insurer… They already own every company…
You don’t have choice yet.
Go look up who owns every company and see how you feel.
By Gene E. Nowak on July 29th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Any change that allows medical personnel to practice without the need for defensive medical procedures will begin the the process of ending the spiraling health care costs.
It will reduce the need to build in a large cash cushion to absorb any potential excessive tort costs. Just compensation for real negligent actions is always warranted. But the deep pocket approach is not productive, except for the legal eagles that profit from it.
A costs plus (x) percent fee system with the loser paying all costs would be a step in the right direction.
By Pat Hendrix on July 29th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Here is a pretty funny article detailing the logical incongruity of Demint’s Healthcare plan.
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/06/23/demint_health_care_plan/
Funny, after a decade and half of nothing to say on healthcare, Demint has now become an expert. Except he has no real interest in seeing reform of any kind pass. He wants to make this the president’s “Waterloo.” I bet you a thousand dollars that Demint doesn’t know what country Waterloo is in. He probably thinks it’s a theme ride at Six Flags.
By CNSYD on July 29th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Carolyn20, you are dead on. Having been put in the middle between providers and insurance companies a number of times I know who the winner is. It is not me. Insurance companies practice medicine without a license across state lines without ever visually seeing the patient.
By roofus on July 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I suppose Obama is now an expert at healthcare, especially since his wife was an architect of a patient dumping scheme were poor patients were shipped away from the presenting hospital (which paid Michelle Obama over $300 grand a year) amd sent to other facilities which had to eat the bill.
Pat, I betcha DeMint knows the location of Waterloo, though denigrating his knowledge of history and geography may bring you some fleeting mirth.
By Rick on July 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Yep Reuters and Yahoo news are impartial perveyors of unvarnished truth. The ultimate question that every American should be asking of the 3 branches of government is: Are you willing to remove yourself and family from all existing medical plans and forever more be a member of the care you are advocating. If not, then no American should buy into what these clowns are selling. If they show their commitment by being the first to enroll, then we can bet its pretty good. The disingenuousness of the legislative branch saying they cannot move to the proposed plan is a bold lie. They make the rules….They’re just smart enough to remove themselves and their families from a plan that would kill Kennedy since his return on investment quotient would be nonexistent. And this doesn’t address the cause of freedom and personal responsibility….something many liberals have no clue about except it makes them remove the blankets off their heads, crawl out from under the bed and realize there is no such thing as FAIR and mommy will not always make the bad man go away.
By Pat Hendrix on July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Rick,
That’s the irony. Demint is already on a government health insurance plan. I notice that he and his family don’t seem to complain.
Roofus, “fleeting mirth”? You’ve been reading too many of Mande’s posts.
By T4 on July 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Roofus,
1. Please tell us what the Honorable Demint offers in the way of healthcare, then give me 5 dems. that have studied the proposal beyond the first page. Afterall, we have to have a few ’socialist’ votes.
2.Obviously, very few of you, if any, work in healthcare. When was the last time you were released from a fee schedule to determine your own fees, which you knew were feasible for reimbursement. Socialized medicine, Obama’s plan…whatever. It’s already here!
3. And define libertarian, I guarantee you everyone has a different definition…
By roofus on July 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
T4,
Look at DeMin’ts web site, I mean “web number” according to VP Biden…his proposals are there…
By The Truth on July 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
This is going to be Obama’s Waterloo! It is truly interesting that Teddy “the swimmer” Kennedy would not qualify for his treatment for brain cancer under this new Obamacare plan. I wonder if people really understand what this means for them personally. No cardiac bypass at 50 yoa (just not worth it). If you apply cost analysis to making healthcare decisions (as Obama has suggested) the following would certainly be excluded:
1. AIDS / HIV care – not cost effective
2. Cancer treatment for most cancers (excludes basal cell, endometrial, and a few other curable cancers.
3. Heart bypass after 60 yoa
4. Cardiac stenting after 65 yoa
5. Premature infant care if born earlier than 32 weeks (not cost effective)
6. Any correction of heart defects on infants.
ect, ect, ect.
You democrats might get what you are asking for. We expect you to agree with the damn plan too! I will fight it until then. When Obama was asked during his pitiful press conference if he would live with the same guidelines, he avoided the answer. What a pompous SOB!
By Rick on July 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Pat, and if you had his plan you wouldn’t complain either. The point I’m trying to make is these guys know what you’re going to get and want no part of it. Until they’re forced to live by the laws they write, all the complaining won’t change a thing. This isn’t a party issue, it’s your parents and grandparents that pay the price for our not standing up and refusing to be herded like animals to the slaughter. Look Pat, these guys think they’re not only smarter than you, their heros in their mind trying to convince you of their worthiness so you’ll vote for them. Ultimetly these clowns couldn’t care less about you and thats across party lines. They have only one interest, getting re-elected. As long as enough noise is made about reform and the need for it, like a teenager trying to get his first taste, they’ll try anything to convince you they love you and wouldn’t think less of you in the morning. You want reform in the health system….look first to tort reform and the costs associated with defensive medicine, but being lawyers, why would they cut their own opportunities to feed at the trough.
By Pat Hendrix on July 29th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Rick,
On the larger point, we couldn’t agree more. If you want to see real change in this country, start with a constitutional amendment to have term limits. Both parties are beholden to special interest groups. Note that both parties, and Bush and Obama, supported TARP. Enough said.
As for tort reform, I don’t know if that would be enough to substantively change the cost equation. I suspect not. But I agree that it should be on the table.
Pat
By Richard on July 29th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Hey Pat Hendrix,
“I bet you a thousand dollars that Demint doesn’t know what country Waterloo is in. He probably thinks it’s a theme ride at Six Flags.”
=
You are a condescending, liberal douchebag. If you love socialized medicine so damn much, then move to Canada…
By Dusk McCoy on July 29th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
The Truth,
Let’s not forget dialysis patients, as pt with ESRD on dialysis therapy have a 90% mortality rate over 5 years. I’m sure the neonatologists, nephrologists, geriatricians, pulmonologists, and oncologists are pissed.
At least the trial lawyers will fat and happy with their man calling the shots.
By Charles on July 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Tort Reform is a red herring. We already have tort “reform” in South Carolina, and it has not materially reduced the cost of care. At first we were told frivolous law suites were the cause of the health care crisis. Then we found out that the total awards for of all malpractice actions nation wide, legitimate and “frivolous”, made up less than 1.00% of medical costs, and significantly less than the drug industry spends on advertising to the public for ed medication each year. Nonetheless we enacted non-economic damages caps in SC and as predicted by the opponents of that bill, it has not materially reduced the cost of insurance or medical care in SC, or increased the percentage of people insured.
Now they have abandoned the frivolous law suit argument, and say it is defensive medicine caused by frivolous law suits that is the real problem. So let me get this straight. You are a doctor. A guy comes into your office and says I am having difficulty breathing and my chest hurts. You can listen to his heart, have him breath and say sounds like a chest cold to me, charge him $50 and send him on his way (90% of the time you will be right); or you can say, “Let’s do an EKG,” rule out heart attack and charge him $300. Is the very small possibility of being sued really the motivating factor in your decision here, and what is the right decision? If the doc goes with the chest cold option, you have a heart attack, lose your job, lose your family’s health care coverage, lose your home, are forced into bankruptcy, and the response of the doc is, oops I guess you are in that unlucky 10%, but at least we saved you $300, how will you feel?
Regardless of which of the three major groups you are in on this issue (i.e government health care (Democrats), do nothing material (Republicans), or everyone should be responsible for their own health care and let the sick people who can’t afford health insurance die (Libertarians)) we need to stop letting the insurance industry, the drug industry and the medical profession shift the blame for the cost of health care in the country. Small Businesses, like mine, can no longer afford the current health care system. It has to change in some way, and soon. Otherwise more and more people will be without health insurance as small businesses are forced to drop employee coverage. While I am willing to listen to all options, so far the Republican response to small business can be boiled down to, stop insuring your employees their health care is their problem not yours. The problem is that is not true. Sick employees are my problem.