The American Spectator : Obama's False Choice

Text Size

Obama's False Choice

By Philip Klein on 4.10.09 @ 6:09AM

How the so-called "public option" for health insurance would deny consumers choice, prevent real competition, and usher in government-run health care.

In 2003, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama described himself to an approving AFL-CIO audience as a "proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan." Single-payer, the health care panacea for progressives, is a more academic way of describing a socialized system in which government is the sole purchaser of medical care.

At the time, Obama cautioned, "we may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."

Six years later, Democrats have taken over both chambers of Congress and Obama himself now resides in the White House. These days, he describes single-payer as the ideal model "if we were starting from scratch" but recognizes that too much is vested in the current system to scrap private insurance entirely.

The solution he proposed during the campaign, one which is likely to appear in some form in whatever health care proposal Democrats draw up in Congress, is to create a new government-run insurance plan.

Americans, who would be eligible for government subsidies, would theoretically be able to choose between the so-called public option and other private options in a national insurance exchange run by the federal government. President Obama said at last month's White House summit on health care that the presence of a government-run plan would "help keep the private sector honest." In reality, it is just a clever way of migrating more Americans to government-run health care so that liberals can realize over time a single-payer dream that they cannot get to immediately.

Proponents of creating a government-run plan have appropriated the language of conservatives to tout it as bringing more "choice" and "competition" to the market. It represents neither.

In an effort to convince Americans that they would have genuine options, President Obama has told them that his vision would allow those who are happy with their current plans to keep them. However, under the current employer-based insurance regime, less than 6 percent of individuals actually purchase their own health care, meaning that if employers are enticed to dump their workers into the government system, many Americans would have no choice but to change plans.

In fact, if the new government-run option is open to all employers, as many as 131 million people would enroll, according to a study by the Lewin Group. This would reduce the number of people on private insurance by two-thirds, or 119 million, and go most of the way toward a single-payer system. (If the option is limited to smaller employers, the shift would not be as dramatic, but still high at 32 million.)

Proponents of the government-run plan argue that if private enterprise is so superior, insurers shouldn’t have a problem competing against the government. But it would be hard to achieve a level playing field when the federal government would be running the national health care exchange, setting the rules of the game, and subjecting insurers to heavy regulation.

In true free market competition, private enterprises that lose money are forced to go out of business. But as Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation notes, it's unlikely that the government-run plan would be allowed to fail.

The Lewin analysis predicts that the if the government-run plan pays doctors and hospitals at the lower rates than currently prevail under Medicare, then it could achieve premiums 30 percent lower than similar private plans. If government can create a cheaper plan, some may ask, then what can be wrong?

For one thing, right now, doctors and hospitals make up for the lower reimbursements they receive for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients by jacking up prices on those with private insurance. The practice, known as cost shifting, has been estimated to cost consumers nearly $90 billion a year, according to a study by Milliman Inc. If the private sector shrinks substantially, however, it's not clear that it would still be able to subsidize government plans in this manner.

But assuming the new government plan is able to get away with paying lower rates, Lewin estimates it would reduce hospitals' revenues by $36 billion in 2010 and doctors' earnings by $33 billion. As it is, an increasing number of doctors are refusing to take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates -- it's likely that even more would opt out of the system if their earnings were shrunken further.

"If services cannot be paid for, eventually, services cannot be provided," Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians, told TAS.

Becoming a doctor requires at least 11 years of education and training (including college), and students graduated medical school with an average debt load of $139,517 in 2007, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment

P. Aaron| 4.10.09 @ 8:02AM

The main problem with healthcare is that few people actually pay its true cost. Consider that much of private health insurance is an employer benefit, fewer people deal with what it's real market value is.

Insurance was/is usually purchased to protect one against the "calamity" that might happen. One insures themselves against that. Consumers should be paying for their doctor visits, prescription, or standard walk-in medical care. That part of 'healthcare' has the most consumption, but little contact with its actual street value.
Let insurance specialize against the cancers and other more extensive care issues that Americans face.

There's a 'street value' for gasoline, milk, automobiles, housing etc. But healthcare is not included. Strangely enough, no one expects that auto insurance would include oil changes, a failed tranny, or worn drive belts. But some expect or demand 'health insurance' cover EVERYTHING related to the subject.

How in the hell can anyone in their right mind propose that government take over healthcare when they don't even have a realistic idea of what the product costs?

If you let the government have healthcare, make sure that you tell your congressman & senator: "you first".

Robert Rosencrans| 4.10.09 @ 8:47AM

A percentage of the health care premium goes to malpractice insurance. What will happen to all those left wing attorneys when they can no longer sue a free service? At least, I'm assuming that's how free government health care will work. The government won't be able to put the premium cost in their business model, so if you volunteer to use it, you will assume the liability. And what will that liability be?

Doctors are already preparing for a takeover of government health care. I received a letter from my physician several months ago offering me an opportunity to get on board her private health care plan. What I didn't realize was that if I didn't take the offer I was being dumped. She was no longer accepting any health care insurance. I predict more physicians will take their practices out of the insurance spectrum, offering their own private plans.

What will be left in the public domain will be the hacks or the altruists in the medical field. There will be too many hacks, and too few altruists.

They physicians who want to make money will never sign onto government health care, because all government services are rationed "by keeping costs down." In fact, keeping costs down never happens, as the government obtains more and more funds to follow their plans, inflation is caused, forcing prices ever higher.

The end result is that the trend to nurse practitioners at drug stores or other medical penny arcades will become widespread.

The phrase, "Take two aspirin and call me in the morning," will become the fodder of late night comedy, as it becomes the government health care response to every problem, sort of a cheap medical TARP.

Enjoy what you have because forces are at work to take what you have and give it to someone else. While pundits claim we are not close to socialism, that only leaves the question, what are we close to?

If we follow the failed nationalized health care models of other countries, you better get your political connections in order. That is, if you want to survive.

Liberty Lady| 4.10.09 @ 8:58AM

Our office hosted a foreign visitor from a country with socialized medicine and I asked her, "How well does socialized medicine do in your country?" to which she replied, "Ok, unless a person doesn't have money to supplement what the government offers"...an example she gave is if a person has cancer, the average wait on the government plan is 3 months for the FIRST chemotherapy treatment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that with cancer, the sooner you start treatment, the better the odds. I work in the medical field and we treat patients who have no insurance everyday who either go into a research study (where the treatment is free) or go on a payment plan...there are options! And no one here waits 3 months for their first cancer treatment. We begin aggressive treatment immediately.
I ask, is there no room for reformation of the existing system before we jump on the socialized medicine bandwagon?

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 10:15AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I'll take Gov health care, when I can get the same coverage as Ted Keneedy gets!

Which WE all know, won't happen.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.10.09 @ 10:32AM

Rationality: P. Aaron (1) - government health care (0).

Bill| 4.10.09 @ 10:41AM

The government has never demonstrated that they can run anything well. Look at the mess social security is in and who runs that program? By the way why are not our folks in Washington on the same social security program the rest of us are stuck with. I think it is time the folks representing us in Washington be on the same programs the rest of us are on. They get to own their money and we don't. We just send it off to ... what was that.. a lock box? Right.
So now the government wants to run health care. Time for a revolt.

trapper| 4.10.09 @ 11:57AM

Ms. Snowe, our system is not "totally dYsfunctional". Most of us manage fairly well. LET IT ALONE!! My wife, who is type 1 diabetic, and I do not want your socialism. Why in the hell do you people think you can do this differently that all the others who have tried and failed at 100% failure rate?

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:17PM

Jharp
Spoken like a true troglodytic knuckledragging wingnut neanderthal
+++++++++++++++++++++

Jezzz, do you take Blood pressure meds?

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:20PM

Just look how well Medicare is working...

March 12, 2008
Honorable Kent Conrad
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed estimate of the
direct spending and revenue effects of the Medicare Funding Warning
Response Act of 2008, as submitted by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on February 15, 2008, and introduced as S. 2662.
By statute, the issuance of a Medicare funding warning is based on projections
by the Medicare Trustees of when Medicare funding from general revenues
(that is, spending not covered by dedicated sources, such as the Hospital
Insurance payroll tax and Part B or Part D premiums) will exceed 45 percent.
In their most recent report (issued in March 2007), the trustees estimated that
funding from general revenues would reach 45 percent in 2013.
Under current law, CBO also projects that Medicare funding from general
revenues will exceed 45 percent in fiscal year 2013. CBO estimates that,
under S. 2662, the 45 percent threshold would first be crossed in fiscal year
2014. CBO’s projections do not determine whether or not there will be a
funding warning.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:24PM

Britains health care in real trouble.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.09affc88c9815310300a92378aed0564.2f1&show_article=1

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:26PM

Jharp
I see idiotic and moronic posts that say to hell with the American's who lack access to health insurance and proper health care.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

O-I see, so your posts are nothing but the truth "right"
Yet you talk about moronic posts!

Big Leo| 4.10.09 @ 12:27PM

I know Sen. Snowe as a former Maine resident very active in the party. She never met a government program she didn't like. And she is undefeatable, as she is Republican on personal liberties issues which are important in Maine and Democratic on everything else.

My wife is in the medical field, and we have many friends there. Our hospital in Maine (and many others) have lots of Canadian patients who come here for the medical services they would wait too long for in Canada. Some system! Fortunately, we have plenty of doctors, nurses, and technicians who come to Maine to work in our 'broken' system rather than in the rigid and bureaucracy ridden system that exists in Canada.
Canada has a great system-- if you never are sick, or never need care in a hurry.

Robert Rosencrans, your comment about what trial lawyers would do under a government system was brilliant! Great post!

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:28PM

Japans great health care.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/04/injured-man-dies-in-japan_n_163851.html

Marc Jeric| 4.10.09 @ 12:30PM

Annual cost of sick care (not health - healthy people require no care) in this coutry is about $1.3 trillion. About one half of that cost is unnecessary and caused by:
1) trial lawyers, about $300 million/year, mainly from exaggerated malpractice insurance rates caused by frivolous law suits and exaggerated jury awards, and by defensive medicine resulting in exaggerated tests;
2) by unnecessary demand for medical services by those who pay little or nothing for doctor's visits, especially people on Medicare and Medicaid (averaging 30 visits/year by any such individual); added annual cost estimated at $150 million; and
3) fraudulent charges by doctors and labs, especially to Medicare and Medicaid, estimated at another $100 million/year.
Trial lawyers and their clients should be charged automatically full costs of lost suits, just as they are in other civilized countries. Fraud should be vigorously pursued with heavy fines and removal of licences. Doctor's visits should be limited to actual need and frivolous ones denied reimbursement.
Countries with socialized medicine have one advantage - no trial lawyers chasing ambulances and filing frivolous class action suits against doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies since they all belong to the government. On the other hand everybody receives the same low quality care after inordinately long delays - giving rise to corruption, favoritism, under-the-table payments.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:30PM

Ambulance service in England.. yeah we really want this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/3752292.stm

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:33PM

As a medic myself... I find this hard to believe, but it's England. Gov health care. SICK!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1589198.ece

Marc Jeric| 4.10.09 @ 12:35PM

Hey, everybody - stop reading and responding to that marxist moron jdharp; let him masturbate to death when nobody responds to his name-calling and communist rantings. Let him go to Cuba!

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:35PM

Jharp
Get rid of Medicare? Just let the old folks go without health care? Just let them die?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Did I say that.. NO.
Your the jerk if you don't get the idea that Gov health care sucks. By the way. Look what happens to the old in EU when it comes to health care. Then get back to me.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:37PM

Jharp
Ms. Green had been waiting for a bed when she collapsed and then died.

+++++++++++++

Do you know anything about this this STATE hospital.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:39PM

Marc Jeric
__________________

Yeah your right...
JHarp is like talking to the wall. Must be a union thug who thinks only the Gov can save you.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 12:59PM

Jharp....

Again you've shown you know NOTHING about these areas or who runs them AZ was been over run by people from Mexico. Which flood the ER's.

As a medic myself I see this all the time. It's not the hospitals fault. Gov again!!!

Robert Rosencrans| 4.10.09 @ 12:59PM

To: Big Leo

Thank you for your kind comment.

rodan32| 4.10.09 @ 1:15PM

I do not want to be dependent on my government for my healthcare any more than I'd want to depend on the government for the news. While our government is still much better than many in the world, imagine a more tyrannical government making decisions about individual healthcare. This is now a power we should be giving to the government.

While I agree the current system is a mess, government is not the answer here. Government has already contributed to the problem with strange mandates (in vitro, sex re-assignment, homeopathy), bureaucracy, and mismanagement. I think opening the market by giving consumers the same tax advantages as employers does much more to solve the problem.

While there are many poor and helpless who need caring for, most of us are capable of providing for our own health, and should be expected to do so.

rodan32| 4.10.09 @ 1:18PM

@ jharp - tragic examples, no doubt, but how exactly does a federal bureaucracy solve the problem?

Robert Rosencrans| 4.10.09 @ 1:23PM

New York Times article from 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?ex=1317700800&en=5889b4819eaf787a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

The gains from medical innovations are high. For instance, increases in life expectancy resulting from better treatment of cardiovascular disease from 1970 to 1990 have been conservatively estimated as bringing benefits worth more than $500 billion a year. And that is just for the United States.

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 1:41PM

Some how Jharp thinks that if the Gov runs this. Everything well be find. As I have shown in EU and Japan where they control the Health care these SAME problems are still there.
So by having the gov run it. It's fixes what?
Other than your medical care go down hill.

Plus Jharp. If you wish to get into a posting contest. Your on bud.
Medical is what I do for a living and I'm the guy who takes you to the ER.

Stan Redmond| 4.10.09 @ 2:10PM

I am alsways dissapointed with those argueing for "free" government provided healthcare. First thing is we have provided free healthcare since the country's founding. Up until the 30s though, it was traditionally funded through private and church charities. Then with propoganda campaigns against personal responsibility people like jharp and michael moore now expect it to be a government provided free entitlement. Well, it's NOT an entitlement and people are responsible for their own needs. People manage to afford plasma TVs, cell phones, pizzas, cable TV, playstations, beer, new automobiles, and some manage quite well even while on government welfare. YET, their is a belief people shouldn't be responsible for their own healthcare. Talk about a divisive issue. We who pay our healthcare costs or have employers that pay for our care pay extra through taxes and medical costs to cover people who have nothing but disdain for the services they are GIVEN and aren't the least bit grateful to we who are FORCED to do the giving. Harping liberals will scream and cry that I want to push granny in to the snow because she can't afford her heart medication but that argument is not worth debating because it is so rediculous. Look where people ARE denied healthcare, emergency rooms over burdened paying for the healthcare of people who aren't paying for it. Liberals screamed for years that drugs cost too much. Wal-Mart comes out with a $4 a month drug list and smashes the universal drug benefit to smithereens. Let Wal-Mart and the free market in the business and control the lawyers' frivolous lawsuits of medical care and you will see a huge drop in the cost and innovations that would improve care for everyone.

JP| 4.10.09 @ 2:13PM

jharp,
Enough of the anecdotal stories, already. Where I live there are 4 major hospitals and virtually no wait in the ERs. But that doesn't mean the entire nation is the same as my semi-rural community.

You site under staffed ERs, lack of beds, etc... Has it occured to you that this problem has only occured during the last 25 years? Has it occured to you that during that time frame govermental involvement in areas such as Medicare, Medicaid, mandates, and the dwindling number of insurance carriers nationwide is the problem. Not to mention the huge surge in the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients? Doctors now must belong to large practices in order to survive nationally; thier offices now are staffed with more insurance administrators than doctors or nurses, and the goverment pays only a portion of the bill, and when it does pay, it pays months after the fact. When you see a sign that a doctor no longer takes Medicaid patients, it is because the goverment is usually in arrears to the point that the doctor can no longer financially to business with them.

Add on the costs of mal-practice insurance and you have the making of the Perfect Storm. A family MD will be lucky to receive $150,000 a year, of which $50,000 goes to mal-practice insurance. After taxes and other expense, said MD is making no more than a mid level manager. But said MD must sufffer through 10 years of school and internships. It is no wonder that every year less and less people are going into Med School. It simply isn't worth it.

The system is broke because:

a) A large portion of our citizens pay nothing for thier health care.
b)Goverment mandated bureaucracies in the health insurance and medical field make it impossible for a Doctor or hospital to make ends meet.
c)There is no cost incentive for customers to shop-around for the best coverage. The Federal goverment's WWII tax incentive for business to deduct health care premiums for thier bottom line had prevented the individual from getting the coverage that he really wants or needs. As a result people many times work just to get coverage for thier family (this is especially true when both spouses work).

In the end, we have a superb medical community that puts the rest of the world to shame (you don't read about Americans traveling to Paris, London, Toronto, or New Dehli for live saving procedures). But all of this medical care costs money. Americans are more than willing to pay out of pocket expenses for live saving procedures and drugs. The profit motive lies at the heart of our system; otherwise, firms like Merck, Pizer, GE, Siemans, and Honeywell would not be in business. In the end, someone has to pay.

In everycase where the goverment imposes itself into healthcare, healthcare is rationed.

1Freeman| 4.10.09 @ 2:41PM

Jharp, Jeremiah, Mathews... all of these leftist sudonems are the same guy. A paid shill trying to crash the system with name calling and misdirection. Dude, your writing style and endless posts have the same methodology, writing style and phrases.

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE FOOLING?

Beat it TROLL!

Independent thinker| 4.10.09 @ 3:18PM

Mellow out James. You're going to blow a head gasket.

Explain how an alternate system will work better rather than going on the warpath against complete strangers.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 3:19PM

Jfool
1Freeman has nothing to refute anything I post. And in typical wingnut fashion throws out false accusations.
+++++++++++++++

WOW, what proof have you brought fwd?
You spit out the same LIB talking points how the Gov can do it better.
Talk about false accusations.

Independent thinker| 4.10.09 @ 3:37PM

My mistake, Jason

Goldwater Girl| 4.10.09 @ 3:39PM

When you purchase auto or homeowners, do you ask for a policy that covers oil changes or window washing? That is essentially what has happened to health insurance. Thru public demand and government mandated benefits, we have created a model that covers all sorts of routine maintenance, and we've also taken the consumer out of the purchase process. When was the last time you asked your physician what he charged for a surgical procedure? Or a hospital? With any other large purchase in our lives, we shop for quality and price, as with the purchase of a home or a new car. The consumer does not think about price, since someone else pays the bill. Until we design a system that forces the consumer to treat this as if it's their own money, we will not make any progress towards controlling health care inflation. Nationalized health care will only make this problem worse, because the true cost of care is still hidden from the end consumer. The only reason countries with socialized medicine have lower costs is because they ration care.

stmichrick| 4.10.09 @ 3:39PM

I hate to feed the troll but since jharp has his Liberal Troll Manual open to the Healthcare Victim chapter, a couple of things are obvious.

One; the government guidelines regarding the care available to the elderly would be more harsh than the current private insurors. (they've lived their lives, don't you know)

Two; the inadequacy of available hospital beds would be more pronounced with government rationing! Want proof? In 2004 the Maryland Health Care Commission (state government) decreased the number of hospital beds available to be licensed in an effort to keep costs down! Wonder if that example you gave suffered as a result of that.

jharp; you are just advocating a something-for-nothing scheme that is the bread and butter for modern liberals to get votes.

I'll choose freedom over government run healthcare.

Goldwater Girl| 4.10.09 @ 3:44PM

The other argument against any govt run healthcare, is the cost estimates put out by the CBO. Don't forget how much they drastically under-estimated the cost of both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. All these programs reserves have been routinely robbed by politicians to pay for other programs, so why should we trust their estimates on the price of universal healthcare? Throw all the bums out, two term limit, no matter what the office, no benefits and no retirement. Maybe then, they will take a legitimate interest in solving all these issues.

Len| 4.10.09 @ 4:16PM

Jharp on what basis do you presume to obligate one person for the well being of another? Seriously is it a divine mandate, or something inherent in the universe. When the "government" provides any service it is doing so by taking from one person to give to another. Are you going to tell me that you somehow have the "right" to a portion of my life, that I or anyone is working for you.
Health care is a product that is provided. Yes the benefit it provides is greater, but who are you or anyone for that matter, to presume to obligate someone who has invested their life in attaining skills, or someone who has risked their capital in starting a business to do so for others. Is this how you live your life, in service to others?
Government is for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means military/police/judicial, freedom to move about, and freedom to conduct business, or earn a living, and own property.. When government goes against these principles, it is acting in tyranny. What you are espousing is a from of slavery under the guise of benevolence.

Len| 4.10.09 @ 4:40PM

Jharp nice evasion. It appears you don't want to answer. Will you still hold to your position without a substantive and definitve argument for what you are advocating?

Aindyin| 4.10.09 @ 4:49PM

Jharp, ah yes a true progressive, seams to think his/her's insults to those who disagree with him/her are somehow clever and insightful. In fact they are just a juvenile attempt to appear to be cool. Kind of like the comic who spouts nothing but 4 letter words and thinks he's funny. Jharp, if you think the government is so great at running things than why don't you go to one of the countries around the globe that are like that. Most of us came to this country to be free, not to recreate the failed policies of those other countries

Robert Rosencrans| 4.10.09 @ 4:59PM

Here's something that doesn't take much intelligence to understand. Obama is spending us into the poor house, and still they want more!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/federal_budget
The Treasury Department said Friday that the budget deficit increased by $192.3 billion in March, and is near $1 trillion just halfway through the budget year, as costs of the financial bailout and recession mount.

Last month's deficit, a record for March, was significantly higher than the $150 billion that economists expected.

The deficit already totals $956.8 billion for the first six months of the budget year, also a record for that period. The Obama administration projects the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.75 trillion.

A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous annual record of $454.8 billion set last year. The March deficit was nearly four times the size of the imbalance in the same month last year.

Nearly $300 billion provided to the nation's banks and other companies to cope with the most severe financial crisis in seven decades has pushed government spending higher.

Len| 4.10.09 @ 5:00PM

Jharp you fail to make a cogent argument,merely assertion that something should be so, do you truly think that this is effective? More importantly
you espouse tyranny and are disrespectful of others, you would do well to think on what kind of person you want to be, and if you would like to receive the same as you give. This kind of soul searching may help you to rise up and be a better man.

Goldwater Girl| 4.10.09 @ 5:06PM

JHarp,
Speaking of ignorance.... I guess now you're going to tell me that the Medicare Advantage plans are not govt run, just because they are sold by the private sector. Who do you think determines the benefit levels and how much to pay the Insurers per member to take them off the govt risk? Do you think those decisions don't impact the benefits, premium costs, etc? How is this not govt run? Further, if it's not govt run, why then, did Obama request billions of dollars in his budget as a "down payment" on universal health care? As the bailout companies are finding out, anytime you accept govt funds, you are govt run. I believe there is a fix required to the current healthcare system, but I do not believe the govt has a clue when it comes to a fix. I contend that it's been govt intervention into healthcare that has brought us to this crisis, with their incremental reforms, driving the costs higher. They created the crisis to accomplish what they wanted in 1994. Go back to namecalling and emotional anecdotes. Don't try to deal with facts, it will give you a headache and Mommy doesn't have time for you now.

Goldwater Girl| 4.10.09 @ 5:22PM

Harpy
Your internal alarm goes off when you see govt run healthcare, but you don't bother to respond to my comments regarding the CBO's abysmal record at estimating the cost of programs. Is it possible that is what thinking people are afraid of? By the way, has Acorn asked you to help out with the 2010 census, when you're not busy, posting your sad stories of the ER? Maybe you should approach Michael Moore about a movie..... oh wait, he already made that one.

Hank Rearden| 4.10.09 @ 9:16PM

Trying to keep and open mind I often ask doctors what they think about this issue.

100% of the time they're not only against it, but they fear it. Usually they point out how poorly veterans hospitals and medicare work and explain the pitfalls of applying that nation wide.

The best and brightest become doctors because they love their field and want to make money. I want the best and brightest opening my chest up; not an indentured servant.

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 9:42PM

Jfool
Well if that doesn't say it all. Mr Harpie.
+++++++++
I'm going to hang out with my educated liberal friends. I just hope none of the stupid has worn off onto me.

Peace. And I pray to God that you all can emerge from your ignorance.
+++++++++++++

You talk ED level, yet show so little of it.
Please. Go the KOS or some other website that meets you ED level.
I put forth facts.. you put up ZERO!

What a jerk!

Dustoff| 4.10.09 @ 9:47PM

Great words from Jharp
How about it Dustoff. Have you figured it out yet that no one is proposing government run health care?
++++++++++++

Obama has... or are you just a fool or blind?

The gov said the same thing about S/S... it wasn't a full retirement system. WELL what would you call it NOW!

Damn Harpie, your so easy to beat.
It's NO wonder everyone here laugh's at you.
LOL.. yep me too!

Curtis Rasmussen| 4.10.09 @ 11:42PM

For me, the argument comes down to trust.

Do I trust the government to keep my medical history private?

Government single payer systems would fail if all people wealthy enough were allowed to buy a private alternative. In the long run, do I believe that the government would allow private insurers to continue to exist? (Do I believe that government single payer healthcare will remain solvent without taxing the high achievers of this country to death?)

I believe in human nature. If people view a service as free, they will take advantage of it more often irregardless of a real medical problem. This will cause a significant spike in medical cost, leading to bureaucratic rationing to get costs back in line. Do I believe that the quality of all health care will remain high and readily available?

Do I believe that government collectively is competent enough to manage a single payer system effectively without playing the card shuffle game with funds a la social security?

Like it or not, private enterprise has made some incredible innovations in the hunt for profit. Do I believe that medical innovation will not suffer if the profit motive is restricted or removed?

The bureacracy for government healthcare would be a massive black hole sucking the life out of the GDP. Do I believe that a significant portion of my single point payer funds would end up in the hands of medical practitioners?

Do I believe the government will demand that I get periodic checkups wether I need them or not at the risk of losing coverage? Will they tell me that I must submit to treatment at the risk of losing coverage?

What am I, a slave?

Dustoff| 4.11.09 @ 1:21AM

Jfool

YOU still haven't posted ZIP.. NOT one single news site to back up YOUR claim.
I did... So who is the fool?

As I said before, you so easy to beat.

Peggy| 4.11.09 @ 2:05AM

I can't believe all this space and time were wasted by someone's bothering to reply to jharp, an obvious idiot. (Some of us check these comments to read informed opinions...Too bad for us, tonight!) If he wants to start shi***ng on me, fine, I'm signing off; other readers, don't bother reading this crap!

Glau Montgomery| 4.11.09 @ 5:22AM

The fact of the matter is that the private insurance industry cuts costs by cutting people out. About a third of Americans don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, so the system remains somewhat efficient by keeping only wealthy who can pay high premiums.

A government plan gives people a choice, and that pisses off businesses. Of course people will move to a better plan, and then poor private businesses will go under. If the great free market produces a better alternative, as is claimed, then there's nothing to worry about.

Besides, even now, doctors don't make decisions, insurance companies do, so stop complaining about "bureaucratic interference."

Terry| 4.11.09 @ 6:52AM

Even important or interesting threads become boring and repetitive when a single poster adds post after post to crowd out responses. Just like Dave Mathews on other stories, jharp floods the arena with anecdotal stories that all too often do not reflect the actual state of medical care in the U.S. Unfortunately, Dustoff then responds post by post. I've suggested many times that posters be limited to a single posting. In that scenario, both jharp and Dustoff (I'm much more inclined to follow your line of reasoning) will need to post thoughtful one-time responses to the article without the never ending dialogue.

Hank Rearden| 4.11.09 @ 7:12AM

Glau,

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is a gross exaggeration to say that 1/3 of people cannot afford health insurance.

Many of that 1/3 simply do not buy health coverage and can afford it and many more are eligible for gov assistance but do not apply. A scant minority of the "working poor" make too much to be eligible for services but not enough to buy their own. Nevertheless, aren't they responsible for the decisions that gave them their station in life? Why is it my obligation?

stmichrick| 4.11.09 @ 9:37AM

Last word:
Jharp the Troll;

Once again you make my point by not responding to my points; just calling names.

No one believes you or Dear Leader when you say that you are not proposing government-run healthcare.

Want proof? We are discussing this because the president says he is going to DO SOMETHING about healthcare. He IS the government; what is he going to DO?

You and he are guilty of misdirection: In order to DO SOMETHING about healthcare you advocate determining the rules of the game (definition of FASCIST, by the way), which will end whatever market-based elements exist. Private elements will 'compete' against government elements and that is no competition at all (force of law and all that).

If we are all 'wingnuts' and morons and uneducated, why are you here?

stmichrick| 4.11.09 @ 1:29PM

Nice try, jharp Troll;

They won't be able to compete because the government will writing (reforming?) the rules (more than they do now).

Robert Rosencrans| 4.11.09 @ 2:34PM

Jharp: Since Obama is a proven pathological liar, why should anyone trust what he states?

Example: No lobbyists in his administration. Four lobbyists at last count.

Example: Ethics. Obama promised the most ethical, yet it is staffed with tax cheats and compromised insiders like Larry Summers.

Example: Work for biparisanship. Quote: We won, so screw you.

Etc., etc., etc.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.11.09 @ 3:28PM

jharp: There you go with your intellectual dishonesty for all to see. Out of one side of your mouth you ask for understanding and claim you stand for everyone, out of the other side of your mouth you state, "Your guy lost," i.e., so screw you.

As far as having a say. We still do, and your facist underpinnings and belief haven't taken that away. It's called Freedom of Speech.

No, it's clear that you are the one annoyed, that anyone dare attack your Kool Aid source. To that I respond, drink all you want, but don't complain if others don't like the flavor.

Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 3:51PM

alrighty,
but those scores of trillions in unfunded liabilities did NOT get racked up since jan 20th of THIS year, and every contributor at AS who worked for those coldeyed hacks.
SCREW the Bush Rinos, too. And that Rove, he's as 'good' as Baker was.

see Some of us prefer liberal Dems to liberal Republicans.

Alan Brooks| 4.11.09 @ 3:54PM

let's see, what po' fessional guys doing their JOBS for the Bush Leagues since 1988 would like to 'fess up as to their responsibility in driving Reaganism right into the GROUND??

"we jus' didnt know.. yap yap yap yap...'

doctoraaron| 4.11.09 @ 4:49PM

Back to health care reform for a minute, guys:

It is certainly true that a "public option" will not fix our system, particularly because it will fail to reduce the tremendous costs that providers, like me, have imposed upon us by the need to interact with 1500 (a conservative estimate of the nationwide total; I personally deal with over 150) different insurers and their bureaucracies. Adding a "public option" only adds one more player, and one with a lot of juice to squeeze provider reimbursement.

What we really need is to clean up the bureaucratic playing field. We need to stop the waste of health insurance premiums on advertising, marketing, insurance "product" development, executive compensation, and the maintainence of a corporate bureaucracy which devotes itself to minimizing the percentage of revenues actually spent on health care.

In summary what we really need is an improved Medicare-for-All, a simplified system of universal health care, financed through our taxes and operating with a Medicare-like 3% overhead, and delivered through the existing network of private providers.

Dustoff| 4.11.09 @ 8:12PM

Jharp

Thanks GUYS & GALS... all of you prove my point about harpie.
He posts and post. But when you ask for proof.
Well he gives none.

Geoff | 4.12.09 @ 2:20AM

So now that we have talked about all the problems with paying for healthcare lets discuss the real problem with healthcare. Currently healthcare is not about healing and curing people, it has turned into disease and illness control. If you have high blood pressure instead of putting them on a diet and exercise program they put them on pills. This is true of many illnesses so now you have high blood pressure and next you get something else that they give you a pill for then another and another and you are much worse off than you were before and no where near healthy. The only one that wins is the pharma industries. If we actually dealt in healing and cures then most people would not need healthcare or meds and the hospitals would be better financed and better staffed to deal with people that have real problems. So before we deal with paying for healthcare lets deal with the most important reason our healthcare system is broken.... Healing!!

Robert Rosencrans| 4.12.09 @ 8:12AM

Someone made the comment that the business community is against government health care. In fact, corporate America and the business community would be the biggest beneficiaries, getting a huge cost off their balance ledgers and onto yours.

Curtis Rasmussen| 4.12.09 @ 12:33PM

To Jharp trollboy

Hey moron, one of the big pushers of universal healthcare, (Al Gore? Hillary Clinton?) stated that preventative checkups would be put in place to prevent problems from developing into costly treatments. Sounds good on the surface, but they take the decision making out of the individual's hands and into that of some random bureaucrat. Tow the line or see dire consequences, not necessarily in your health, but in the things that the government feels entitled to take from you.

Hey moron, this is my last post to you. These are rhetorical questions. Only a crybaby like you felt the need to answer. Rave on, young, naive, child. Don't mess up your drawers when you reach ecstacy on your next insult-fest.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.12.09 @ 12:36PM

Quote: All Americans will benefit.

No, in fact they won't. Health care will resemble most local DMV's at that point, and you will stand in endless Disney ques, only to stand in ever more sequences, eventually finding out the specialist you need is not available.

And all this will be at ever higher costs. Comm-medical care, run by bureaucrats will never be a satisfying experience, and when they make mistakes that kill you , they will have immunity from law suits.

Jim| 4.12.09 @ 6:50PM

jharp,
Retard, provide real proof or go back to servicing drunks at the local bus station. I live in a country with governemt health care, if you need something beyond aspirin people pay out of their own pocket to get the service they need. Your fantasy government health care is a scam to buy votes.

MT| 4.12.09 @ 7:43PM

Just remember the terribly unnecessary sad fate of Natasha Richardson when you think of socialized health care. That's enough for me!

Tailgunner| 4.12.09 @ 8:55PM

Obama's federal 'health insurance plan' will be priced so low that everyone will rush to it.

This will run every private health insurer out of business, leaving only Obama's single payer system.

Now you have nationalized healthcare.

Then watch the premiums skyrocket and the quality and availability of care plummet.

MT| 4.12.09 @ 10:23PM

The good doctors will leave their profession; I know I would. Who wants to go to school until they're 30 years old only to be paid as much as a janitor? Disgusting.

Curtis Rasmussen| 4.13.09 @ 1:09AM

Thank you, moderator.

Remember, the government system may set up periodic checks in an attempt to keep costs low, but if you unexpectedly injure yourself playing your favorite sport, crack a tooth, or perhaps catch a sudden illness, then get in line with all the other schmucks and wait your turn.

Mitty| 4.13.09 @ 5:01AM

Wait your turn unless you are an elite; just like communist countries.

hggh| 11.30.09 @ 4:10AM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

gfd| 11.30.09 @ 10:34PM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac

Toronto Condos| 3.12.10 @ 12:37AM

Well I guess this never went through.
Emerald City condos, World on Yonge condo

Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 9:00PM

First, kids create a character. After selecting whether to play as a boy or a girl Poptropica , they are assigned a name. Each character's appearance is randomly generated to start with; kids have the option to change almost all of their avatar's physical attributes, such as facial features and clothing. This character can be saved, via a password system, for use in future game-play sessions.

Then, kids enter Poptropica , a virtual world dotted with individual islands. Each island has its own theme, and its own adventure for players to complete. For example, "Time-Tangled Island" is a time-traveling adventure in which players must return objects and characters to their historically accurate periods, while "Spy Island" is a comical thriller with lots of futuristic gadgets. Each has a distinct storyline that is not related to those of the other islands.

Besides the single-player adventure, each island features common rooms, in which poptropica players can play standalone games against other people. These are primarily short, simple, reflex-based games, such as a skydiving competition in which the first person to touch the ground safely wins, or a basketball shooting competition in which the hoop is rising and falling. Players are given a star ranking based on their win-loss record.

Sean Ritter| 11.8.10 @ 5:38PM

Whenever there's only one party you can choose from, there's room for abuse, misconduct, bureaucracy and inefficiency. What's worse, this health insurance model would have not only affected million of people at once, it would have cost more at a time were every cent should be spared.
Sean Ritter
repossessed cars for sale insider tips
repossessed cars for sale basics