-
Mike Pence’s Hillsdale College Speech on the Presidency
September 20, 2010 | 108 comments
-
The Evening Keynote
November 23, 2009 | 52 comments
Freedom Watch
Freedom Can’t Be Rationed
The truth is, government-run health insurance takes away citizens’ freedom. From our June issue.
“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!”
As Congress prepares to consider health reform, P. J. O’Rourke’s famous quip provides an important context to the debate. President Obama and Democrats in Congress have proposed a government-run health care plan that would “compete” against private health coverage. Estimates have suggested that such “competition” would encourage employers to reduce costs by eliminating their health benefits for employees. As a result, as many as 119 million Americans will lose their coverage, forcing most of them into the government-run plan. In his budget, the president proposed nearly $1 trillion in new spending as a mere “down payment” to fund this “free” health care gimmick.
The truth is, government-run health insurance takes away citizens’ freedom, forcing them to accept a government decree about intensely personal health decisions. At a time when Medicare faces unfunded obligations of nearly $86 trillion, dumping more than half of all Americans with private coverage into a government program will dramatically jeopardize our fiscal future. To make matters worse, it will take away citizens’ freedom to choose their doctors—and the freedom to choose, with their doctors, the treatment option that best meets their health needs.
Democrats have admitted both their desire for government to control health carew and the effect of such control on ordinary Americans. A provision in the recent “stimulus” bill will spend $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. While few would dispute the wisdom of scientific research comparing the medical benefits of various treatment options for a given ailment, Democrats have shown a strong desire to use such research to examine the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments—as a precursor to government rationing of care. In fact, a draft committee report produced by the Democratic majority noted that “more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed” as a result of rationing sparked by effectiveness research.
Peter Orszag, President Obama’s new budget director, was candid about the impact of government control on health care when he cited studies in a 2007 report noting that “patients who might benefit from more expensive treatments might be made worse off” if the government rations access to costly—but potentially life saving—care. In other words, the true cost of “free” government-run health insurance will be a loss of freedom for millions of Americans who will be forced to give up their freedom to choose medical treatments that will actually work for them.
Here’s how one Michigan mother expressed her exasperation with the government-run Medicaid program: “You feel so helpless thinking, something’s wrong with this child and I can’t even get her into a doctor….When we had real insurance, we would call and come in at the drop of a hat.” This mother’s helplessness in a vast government bureaucracy is the antithesis of freedom—lack of freedom to choose one’s doctor resulting in a lack of access to care.
Our nation needs health reforms that expand Americans’ freedom. Removing the current inequities in the tax code that force individuals whose employers don’t offer health coverage to use after-tax dollars to buy insurance—and pay 30 to 50 percent more as a result—would put coverage within reach for millions of Americans. Allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines would increase consumer choice while expanding insurance coverage for as many as 12 million individuals. Just as important, these options would ensure that doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats, make important health care decisions.
While Democrats argue that a government-run plan is more “efficient,” I strongly believe that the nationalized plan would look a lot like Medicaid does today—cheap, broken, and government-rationed coverage that most Americans do not want. The American people want to keep their health care freedom—and Republicans need to respond to their call.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (73) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Rep. Mike Pence
More Articles From Freedom Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/18/freedom-cant-be-rationed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- The Thatcher Legacy
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sean| 6.18.09 @ 7:07AM
Name one country that has walked back from single-payer.
Melvin| 6.18.09 @ 7:40AM
Obama care is allot like living in a neighborhood that keeps getting robbed and non of the residents don't want to get involved as long as its not there house that is getting robbed.
Obama care is pretty much along the lines of the same thing. Americans will die needlessly because they will be denied health care based on their remaining usefulness to the state.
But no one is willing to stand up and say anything because they are not the ones being denied treatment.
The premise is, "It doesn't effect me, so I don't care."
Husband's will lose wife's, wife's will lose husband's, children will lose parents, brothers will lose sister's, sisters will lose brothers.
Obama care is like a big roulette wheel and when the faceless human being in the Department of comparative effectiveness research spins the circle of life and death that will decide whether or not you get the treatment will be the death sentence for many of our loved ones who have worked hard their whole lives.
Will Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, or Chris Dodd ever have to walk out of the hospital in a state of shock with tears streaming down their faces because treatment was denied to their husband or wife because they outlived their usefulness to the state and it was more cost effective to let them die?
Americans are already faceless automatons to the politicians and we are identified by a number instead of by name, so I guess it does become easy for the politician to pass legislation to euthanize fellow Americans much the same way the County animal control euthanizes dogs and cats. It's not my family member why should I care?
Just faceless beings in a cage or hospital bed waiting to go to the chamber.
Pingback| 6.18.09 @ 7:42AM
Today's News | FortPatriot.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Robert Rosencrans| 6.18.09 @ 8:07AM
Cramming individual pigs through sausage machines always makes sausage, not more individual pigs.
If this plan had any positive aspects I would say go for it. However, it's the same as all government plans: conceptualize, plan using standard government management models, then fail using standard government practices. Efficiency is never needed by the government because they can print fiat currency to cover up their inefficiencies which devalues the assets of every American. How long can they get away with it?
A perfect example is the Department of Energy, who with a current budget of 30 billion or so, has never caused to be created or created one drop of energy.
As Americans become accustomed to long waits and that exasperation that comes over you every time you have to visit the DMV (Which isn't often but you face it with dread every time), their health won't become better, but perhaps, their outrage against government takeovers will finally have an effect at the ballot box.
According to the CBO, this is a huge boondoggle. But that isn't stopping the Obama White House. They want to cut the CBO out and use OMB figures. OMB figures have been acknowledged as being prepared with all the financial acumen of Enron, WorldCom and Bernie Madoff rolled into one.
That brings up another government failure, the S.E.C. They will tell you they have protected investors in the country from losing billions. They appear to miss the point that they have missed many of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American public, including the recent Madoff scandal. The S.E.C. has promised a probe but government probes have the same effect as all government planning, inefficiency.
With these two shining examples of government bureaucracies to guide us, garnering faith in a government health care system would appear to be difficult.
In the meantime here's an analysis of how the government has screwed up health care already. That's right, the government has already created a disaster and the current plan being peddled around is a response to government mandates. A slippery slope which will only get more slippery.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp
The current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is a catastrophe, and it is a result of government intervention in the free market. Such intervention violates the rights of insurance companies, employers, and consumers by granting special government favors to certain insurance companies or plans, by forcibly eliminating options that would exist in a free market, and by forcibly seizing money from insurers and the insured. It artificially places employers and insurers between doctors and patients and leads to innumerable economic distortions. Employers and insurers dictate everything from which doctors and specialists employees will be permitted to visit under the plan, to the kinds of benefits that will and will not be provided, to the co-payments and deductibles that will be paid. Because third parties are paying for both insurance and health care, the employee-patient-customer has little choice in what kind of insurance or who provides the health care he receives—and plenty of incentive to visit a doctor anytime he has a runny nose. The fact that third parties pay for all health care increases the administrative costs for doctors as well as insurers, and those costs are passed on to consumers.
These problems were further exacerbated in the mid-1960s with the creation of two federal insurance programs: Medicare (for the aged) and Medicaid (for the poor). Both had major effects on the private insurance market. When Medicare was proposed, advocates claimed that it would not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or patient choice—it would merely pay the bills. In fact, however, it has drastically changed the doctor-patient relationship and sharply limited patient choice. Medicare determines what procedures and treatments are “appropriate” and “medically necessary.” It also determines the monetary “value” of a diagnosis, treatment, or procedure. Both patient and doctor must abide by Medicare’s decision; and, despite low Medicare reimbursements, doctors cannot accept any money from a patient beyond what Medicare pays, even if the patient so desires.21
Doctors are paid so poorly by Medicare and burdened by so much paperwork that about 28 percent are turning away some or all new Medicare patients.22 Hence, newer Medicare patients often cannot find a doctor in their area who will treat them at all. Such “insurance” does these patients no good. Nor do they have any private insurance alternative. With the insignificant exception of Medigap policies, Medicare has eliminated the private insurance market for the elderly, and many elderly patients are left with no way to seek medical treatment except through hospital emergency rooms or charity. (A person who purchases a private policy prior to turning sixty-five may be able to retain it after turning sixty-five, but such a policy will then only supplement Medicare.)
Mike| 6.18.09 @ 9:00AM
Mr. Pence,
We have noted how eager the GOP is to protect the "freedom" of the 40 million + Americans who cannot afford health care. But, the GOP claims to have an alternative with an accounting of the cost of the reform. We are waiting
Old Texican| 6.18.09 @ 9:16AM
Rep. Pence
Thank you for your column.
People forget, (or never knew), that group insurance was purchased by employers to express appreciation for valued employees. It was meant as an incentive, and a morale builder.
It was bought to take advantage of "economies of scale" on behalf of the employees.
Finally, it was bought by employers to compete for talent and hard work.
All that aside, we must...must...stop this government monopoly over the lives and health of our citizens...and each other.
Indiana Alex| 6.18.09 @ 9:45AM
Mike,
Do these 40 million Americans that can't afford "health care" own cars, flat screen TVs, cell phones, and computers?
Of course there is always Medicaid for those that are impoverished. Or are you talking about a different group of people that could afford health insurance, but chose not to for various reasons?
KyMouse| 6.18.09 @ 9:56AM
I hope commentors here will read the two comments I made at the end of the previous article, "Obama's Senior Moment."
Ray| 6.18.09 @ 10:18AM
"Name one country that has walked back from single-payer." Canada, who's Supreme Court has ruled that Canadians may use private health insurance to pay their medical bills. Next question, please.
Ray| 6.18.09 @ 10:22AM
Mike, those 4 million people can get all the necessary health care required to keep them healthy and happy. It's against federal law for any hospital to refuse medical treatment to any patient due to lack of health insurance or the inability to afford treatment. So, those 40 million people who "can't afford" health care? They don't exist.
Sean| 6.18.09 @ 10:40AM
Ray, Canadians don't get billed. How can you pay for what you aren't charged for?
Michael Tomlinson| 6.18.09 @ 11:04AM
Representative Pence thank you for the timely article. Wouldn't bundling allow small businesses to provide health care to their employees at a lower price too?
Ray could you please elaborate on Canadian's ability to use private health insurance to pay their medical bills since the Obama administration at times seems to be saying the same thing, but predictions are their plan is geared to undercutting private insuarnce and compell the majority of Americans into rationed government care. Thanks.
Ron Schoenberg| 6.18.09 @ 11:43AM
A public option is necessary because the private insurance companies are allowed to arbitrarily refuse treatment. People need somewhere to go. Here is testimony before Congress yesterday:
A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.
The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.
....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."
The answer from all three executives: "No."
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them. "This is precisely why we need a public option," Dingell said.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.18.09 @ 11:59AM
Ron do we need to reform private health insurance to protect consumers or another failed bureaucracy drowning in red ink and bureaucratic indifference to the needs of real people? How will a public system make things better when patients in some socialized systems have to wait years for care or are even denied care, because of age, prognosis, lifestyle, etc.?
Since there seems to be an antagonism in the Obama administration to technolgical breakthrough in the medical community could it be possible life saving health care will be denied by retarding advances in expensive technology?
I'm just not sure we should trust the health of Americans to unelected bureaucrats and potentially unscrupulous politicians. We know President says one thing and then consistently does another so how can we trust anything he or his administration says about health care.
Steve in Ohio| 6.18.09 @ 1:10PM
Michael, you are right that we can't trust the Obama administration. However, the current system is broke as Ron points our. The GOP needs a new Contract with America that includes universal coverage. Not everything the government does fails. Even though I home school my own kids, the public schools in most parts of the country accomplish the education of our young. Can't we offer the country reform? We stopped the Clintons in 94, but didn't reform the system. Let's not make the same mistake again.
Pingback| 6.18.09 @ 1:27PM
Government-Run Health Care Denies You the Freedom to Choose « The Practical Philosoph links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Philosopher | 6.18.09 @ 1:36PM
I think too many people are debating this topic as a false choice between the current health care system and collectivised Obama care.
The Solution? Reset our healthcare system back to a free-market, patient-driven system. Every other successful part of our society runs this way. We need:
1. Market-based pricing of healthcare. We need medical Care/Service/Procedures priced up front like everything else in our society- not the price/cost black-boxes of today’s employer and government-subsidized healthcare.
2. Minute-clinics and like no-appointment clinics are going in the right direction of delivering this concept:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2006/01/23_zdechlikm_coninfo/
3. Just like with the fair, portability of pre-tax 401k’s, we need fair, portable pre-tax health savings accounts for everyone to save their own money over time, make their own decisions on health care, and pay it with their own money.
4. Make health care ‘insurance’ back into actual insurance. Couple health savings accounts with high-deductible catastrophic health insurance policies.
The above gives everyone the access, proper control, and choice over their health- not the opposite helplessness with some far away, faceless bureaucrat.
See the rest of this and like posts:
http://pracphilosblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/government-run-health-care-denies-you-the-freedom-to-choose/
Ron Schoenberg| 6.18.09 @ 1:54PM
Many of you are arguing with a straw man. The public option plan would be similar to what U. S. Senators currently have available to them. If it is so bad, why haven't the U.S. Senators rejected their own plan.
Obama's plan is an alternate insurance plan. People will be able to choose their own doctors. The people who are afraid of the the public option are the executives of those private insurance plans who are raking in the big dollars on the backs of sick people.
JerseyJ| 6.18.09 @ 2:32PM
Ron ... "A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne. ... The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him. "
My brother's, mother-in-law's, boss's, ex-wife's, dog's former owner once got denied a pig liver transplant because they signed for it in red pen instead of blue.
C'mon.
The stories of the big, bad profit-motivated private insurance companies denying claims for technicallities are just plain trite. Any claims which were actually denied for outlandish reasons could only be the result of failure of the current regulatory bodies to actually do their jobs. I however, am of the personal opinion that most of these reports of outlandish denials contain only partial facts twisted to feed the perception that insurance companies care only about the bottom line. Even being true, do we really think that Medicare and Medicaid have a better track record than private insurers? Someone a few days ago posting on another Obamacare article told the story of his wife surviving some form of cancer due to the efforts of her doctor and Blue Cross. Sorry, but I just don't buy the testimony given by those with an adgenda to push socialized healthcare.
Also from Ron ... "The public option plan would be similar to what U. S. Senators currently have available to them. "
You sir, are seriously naive. Your socialized healthcare will bear no resemblace whatsoever to that which your elected representatives enjoy. Of that you can be absolutely certain. If you can't anticipate that on your own, there is no sense in any of us trying to explain it to you. You've obviously drank the kool-aid of "hope" and "change". Just "hope" you don't get sick under Obamacare.
Ron Schoenberg| 6.18.09 @ 3:10PM
It isn't good manners to twist and misuse words in an argument. Socialized medicine is where the doctors and hospitals are government employees. Obama's plan is nothing of the kind. It is a public insurance plan. Doctors will continue to get paid by private insurers or by the public insurer, whoever the patient has a contract with. In fact the doctor might also be self-employed and be paid directly by the patient if that is the arrangement, as well by the public insurer for other patients. It is up to the doctor whether they want to be on their own or be associated with an HMO if they want. That is nothing like socialized medicine. You're misusing words to obfuscate the discussion on purpose. That's tacky.
Joe| 6.18.09 @ 3:41PM
Yes, Mike, the Republicans need to stand up for us as a group. The Senate needs to filabuster if necessary.
Old Texican| 6.18.09 @ 3:43PM
Ron Sch...
You are either an Obama liar...or horribly misinformed!
I hate what some private insurance companies do.
...but as an employer I can fire them...and hire a better one.
...Welcome to monopolistic government care.
We can fire congress critters...but govt. regulators are faceless and nameless....and virtually un-fireable.
Get smart or get dead!
Christmas every day = Jew| 6.18.09 @ 3:53PM
All people was born free, it's man that enslave people and themselves. Slave to Hollywood, slave to a system to enrich others and not yourselves.
Keep enriching the Khazars, who claim that they are Jews they are happy as long as you don't know any better. They will keep laughing at the idiots, who keeps giving them money that they could spend on their own poor people.
Seymour Kleerly| 6.18.09 @ 4:12PM
I'm afraid Mr. Pence means freedom for those who want to make huge profits from our Health Care Industry. When will conservatives finally understand that making people get better or keeping them healthy is not just another product or luxury. Anyhow Mike, I'm sure your a Bible thumper, so what would Christ do?
JNW| 6.18.09 @ 4:19PM
Mike Pence is the smartest member in the House.
republidemotarian| 6.18.09 @ 4:29PM
Real leaders eat their own dog food. If the Democrats pass a single-payer public option, they should immediately eliminate the FEHBP for all federal employees (including Congress) and enroll every single person working for the government into the "competitive, cost-effective, high quality" plan they legislate. If they don't then they are all hypocrites.
Republidemotarian| 6.18.09 @ 4:31PM
Seymour Kleerly wrote "Anyhow Mike, I'm sure your a Bible thumper, so what would Christ do? "
The answer is easy Seymour, he would lay hands on everyone and heal them for free. He did it many times in the New Testament. Now that is cost-effective, compassionate, quality care that we'll never get from a government financed and run program!
Tom in Vermont| 6.18.09 @ 4:32PM
In case Representative Pence didn't notice, health care is more intensely rationed in the US than in any other industrialized country in the world, both for those with insurance and for those without.
I suppose the honorable gentleman from Indiana also voted to forbid the government from negotiating prices in the Medicare pharamceuticals program.
How many children does Rep. Sence choose to ration health care to today?
As Jesus says in the Good Book: "If you do it unto the least of these, you do it unto me."
Gary| 6.18.09 @ 4:33PM
Rep. Pence,
This is an excellent and insightful article on concept of the Federal Government's creeping socialism into one of the finest health care systems in the world. The present system is not without faults and can and should be improved upon. Sorry to say, the Federal Government and it's plan are not an improvement in any way.
Just for conversation sake, please name any Federal Government program or department that is well run and provides efficient service?
This is exactly how the new Federal heatlhcare program will work also.
Tim| 6.18.09 @ 5:11PM
Thanks for the article. It appears the government is trying to break another law, that of supply and demand. You can't grant healthcare to 40m people and control costs at the same time. Good luck. Let us also remember that it is when government pegged wages during WW2 that resulted in this insane employer based system.
Charles| 6.18.09 @ 5:24PM
Ron, Federal Employees currently get to to choose from hundreds of plans including private fee for service. This allows them access to the best doctors. You can be assured that our current admistration will not provide a program of this caliber to the masses. Also, if you look at Wikapedia, the definition of Socialism can be narrow like your version or it can be broader to simply mean government financed health care. Like it or not a new govt. plan will expand the size of government which will lead to Socialism.
Jeremy Janson | 6.18.09 @ 5:38PM
@Sean: Sweden. Sweden walked back from Singlepayer about 10 years ago. China's walking back to.
Jeremy Janson | 6.18.09 @ 5:38PM
@Sean: Sweden. Sweden walked back from Singlepayer about 10 years ago. China's walking back to.
Health care for all is a must| 6.18.09 @ 6:17PM
Christ would say, why do mankind love themselves so much that they would walk on by because they have enough to pay for their healthcare and don't care about those less fortunate than himself, and yet claim to be Christian.
Kevin | 6.18.09 @ 6:52PM
I am an American currently working on a Ph.D. in Canada. I am also from Indiana's second district, the district that Mr. Pence represented before recent redistricting. After graduating from Notre Dame I was without health care for more than a year while working a dangerous manual labor job and applying to graduate school. Now that I'm in Canada, I have the best health care I've ever had by far. I have had countless dental work done, and haven't paid a dime.
carolinem| 6.18.09 @ 7:32PM
I have the following questions for Mr. Pence:
1. Will the Republican plan cover the 12-20 illegal aliens living in this country?
2. Under current health insurance law, patients in employer-based health plans are barred from contesting denial of healthcare or reimbursement of their insurers in state court. How would the Republican plan address patient grievances?
3. Health plans currently deny and delay payment to physicians and patients to escape paying legitimate claims, resulting in class action lawsuits and enforcement intervention by state attorneys general, including racketerring allegations. At the same time, the executives of health insurance companies are paid tens of millions of dollars a year in salary and stock options. What is the Republican plan to address this injustice?
4. Since Republican opposition to government healthcare is partially based on the inability and inefficiency of government to deliver services, what are the Republican plans for dismantling government schools, welfare programs, Medicare, the immigration department and the IRS?
JerseyJ| 6.18.09 @ 7:36PM
Ron seems to think ... "It isn't good manners to twist and misuse words in an argument. "
Which leads me to wonder why so many Libs, including our teleprompter in chief insist on doing it every time they open their mouths. Were I twisting words to suit my purpose I suppose I would say to you ... good for the goose and all that.
I am not, however twisting words. Socialized medicine is precisely what's being pushed upon us. Despite Mr. Obama's paperthin reassurance delivered with a wink and a smirk that we'll be able to keep the plan we have if we like it, the fact is the decision is not going to be up to us. I, like a plurality of Americans, rely upon my employer for my health insurance. Said employer will have zero incentive to continue offering my beloved plan to me once they realize they can cut 15 to 30% off their salary & related budget line by dumping their health plan and forcing their entire workforce into the government plan. Why would they possibly continue to offer private health insurance when it costs them money in the form of premiums AND taxes on the plan which are used to subsidize the government plan.
So you see, the statement made to various and sundry sheeple that they'll continue happily along with their current private insurance plan if they so choose is simply and undeniably false.
This is the first step to single-payer (read that socialist) medicine. The next step is to price out those private insurance carriers who attempt to continue operating by mandating medical providers accept whatever it is the gov wants to pay them. Private carriers will have no such mandated pay schedule and will be forced to subsidize those shortfalls in payments by the medical providers passing on the cost to the private carriers until they reach critical mass and must fold. Step two complete. No more private insurance.
Finally, once there's no one other than the government paying the bills to medical providers, they are quite sustantively working for the government. That is except for the VERY few doctors who manage to buy off someone to avoid treating the mandated government covered populace and treat only the "elites" who pay outrageous fees for private care. They will then begin squeezing those providers by cutting the payment rates and doing nothing about tort reform until no one wants to enter the medical field. It will become a losing proposition to pay for years and years of schooling to work for what the government pays. (That could then conceivably be the argument for socialized higher education.)
I won't even get into the cost saving measures inherent in the plan and the rationing and unavailability of care. You only argued the socialist aspect.
This entire argument can be ressolved in a test phase by removing the income restrictions on medicaid and/or the age restrictions on medicare and letting anyone who wants coverage join those programs. Let's try that for a couple years. If it works, I'll apologize for being short sighted and buy you lunch. We both know you won't feasting on my dime.
Finally, let's all remember that Mr. Obama also stated he didn't want to get the government in the car business, yet he did all he could to do just that. Anyone who continues to believe anything ... ANYTHING ... he says should seriously consider birth control.
So Sad| 6.18.09 @ 7:46PM
The level of discussion here is sad - no wonder we cannot accomplish anything in this country anymore...
John K| 6.18.09 @ 8:23PM
I have worked for corporations in the US for the past 24 years. Over the years, the coverage has gone in one direction only. Worse. There is rationing going on today already. One Fortune 500 company I worked for eliminated visioncare without announcing it to the employees. They gave us a discount card instead. This will continue to happen if we remain beholden to the insurance companies.
I would like someone to explain to me what value they bring that is worth protecting to this extent. A public option will not have to market itself or pay high salaries to executives. Those savings will be critical for our sustaining a health care system going forward.
By the way, I have used health care services in both Canada (as a student) and Sweden (as a contractor) and both systems were transparent and easy to use. I paid nothing in Canada and only a small amount in Sweden for out patient pre-natal care.
D Max| 6.18.09 @ 10:00PM
Mike Pence,
My health care (freedom) is already being rationed by my insurance company. I pay $300 per month to an insurance company that repeatedly tells me "you are out-of-network" and "we don't cover that expense." You, of course, wouldn't notice this since you have a government insurance program like the one Obama wants to make available to all Americans. What a pathetic bunch of hypocrites you and the rest of the GOP has become.
Ellen K| 6.18.09 @ 10:24PM
Back in the day, people didn't have coverage for every little cold and bruise. They had major medical which covered serious things like broken arms or having babies. But with the advent of HMO's-we evolved into this idea that people have to go to the doctor for every little thing. Each office visit adds up. For example, my kids were seldom at the doctor except for well checks and the ocassional earache. But I had friends whose kids were literally at the doctors office every single week. While my kids made it through without any major issues, their kids had thousands of dollars of medical and dental care that probably wasn't necessary, but the parents wanted it AND IT WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE. So fast forward to today and you have some upper middle class people that CHOOSE not to get insurance. They rely on luck or on defaulting to hospitals to get their care. Who pays? Saps like me that get health insurance for the whole family. And mark my words, with Obamacare, not only will the overall quality of care go down, but the innovation, the ability to be seen and the number of doctors will also decrease. What needed to happen was national tort reform that would root out the ambulance chasers like John Edwards and keep them from accruing their fortunes on the backs of out of court payouts. But instead we will have experienced doctors moving out of country or retiring. We will be left with inexperienced physicians who have too many patients and not enough time. That sounds like a medical disaster to me.
Steve J. | 6.19.09 @ 12:33AM
"When we had real insurance, we would call and come in at the drop of a hat.”
When I've had "real insurance," I was never able to come in at the "drop of a hat" unless someone else cancelled an appointment.
NWI Mike| 6.19.09 @ 2:15AM
I'm proud that we have men such as Rep. Pence and Gov. Daniels from Indiana to speak out against Obama and his gang. Heck we even have Sen. Bayh going aginst the grain!
Sean| 6.19.09 @ 8:14AM
Jeremy Jansen, Sweden's healthcare is funded by taxes, and available to citizens at a nominal fee. That's singlepayer.
Pingback| 6.19.09 @ 8:26AM
AM Points of Interest: Marian Hossa is Always a Little Late « Souvenir City links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ray| 6.19.09 @ 11:41AM
"Ray, Canadians don't get billed. How can you pay for what you aren't charged for? "
Sean, the Canadian hospitals and other medical service providers normally bill the Provence in which they are located. in this respect ALL the Canadians in that Provence get bill, they just never see see it even though they pay it through their taxes. Several provinces in Canada has outlawed the use of private medical insurance to pay the bills that would normally be charged to the Provence. This is why most people "don't get billed" as you claim. The Provence's changed the laws to prevent anyone other than the Government from paying their own medical costs and getting a bill, as it were.
Several Canadians who have private medical insurance want their insurance plans to pay those bill instead of charging it to the Candian tax payers (a very noble endeavor, wouldn't you agree?). The provenances, as I have mentioned, has made this option illegal, thus violating the rights of the individual Canadians to decide the best course of action regarding their medical expenses. This law was challenged in the Courts. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that people have the RIGHT to choose their own method of payment and has granted them the ability to allow the hospital to charge the insurance companies instead of the Provence's for the cost. So, yes, Canadians may now receive a bill and have their own private insurance companies pay that bill, thus lowering the burden to the Canadian taxpayers while restoring free choice in an individual's ability to buy and use medical insurance.
Sean| 6.19.09 @ 6:13PM
Ray, what private insurance plans operate in Canada? What Canadian, who must contribute to their provincial system [like OHIP] would opt to buy medical insurance and what insurance would feel indebted to pay? You're confused, methinks.
Pingback| 6.19.09 @ 7:24PM
Steynian 365 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sue| 6.19.09 @ 8:51PM
To Ron Schoenberg:
Obama's "victims" rounded up and presented to Congress; give me a break. I don't believe any of these stories, number 1 and number 2, with so many lawyers around, why are they only "stories?
I have my own story, but don't want to force socialized medicine down 200 million American's throats.
Joe Jack| 6.20.09 @ 4:15AM
"What Canadian, who must contribute to their provincial system [like OHIP] would opt to buy medical insurance"
Lets see, people who aren't happy with the government plan perhaps? People who are sick of the government intrusion, the bureaucrats deciding what treatment they can or cannot have, the lack of choice... people who are willing to pay more to have one tiny shred of freedom and decision regarding they're own health.
But this is only for those who can afford both right? Most people can't pay for the mandatory government run plan (and its heavy taxation) and a private one on top of that, so they are stuck with the mandatory government plan and its endless lines, restrictions, and rationing. And that my friend is what lack of choice is all about.
And this is the most amazing part, America has a health care system that ensures about 90% of its population, and instead of debating how to get better treatment to the remaining 10%, you also want to get the covered 90% on a government plan, in this monstrosity called "single-payer" system. I know that liberals would love to have a big government bureaucracy having life and death decisions over every single citizen, but try to keep this totalitarian lunacy to yourselves.
Joe Jack| 6.20.09 @ 8:05AM
Joe Jack, if you want to pay twice, knock yourself out. That's freedom, too...freedom to be a fool.
As to your "monstrosity", admin. costs at the caregiver level are 2 or 3% in Canada; 31% in the US.
Max Rossell | 6.21.09 @ 12:22PM
Hi there. I live in the UK. We have socialised healthcare. It's really great. It has its faults, but surprise surprise, the majority of those faults come from areas where the system has been partly reprivatised.
The bottom line is that everyone gets free healthcare, no matter how costly it is. No one gets denied treatment they need, because everyone is on a full-coverage insurance. You can choose your doctor. I've never had to deal with a single bureaucrat.
And yeah, there are private healthcare companies in the UK. They're for rich people who don't want to rub shoulders with ordinary people.
Everyone's in favour of private healthcare until they get sick and their insurance won't cover it and they can't afford the treatment themselves. That's usually the point where they'd LOVE for the government to step in.
I also lived in France, where I developed a strain of leukemia which I believe is not covered by many major insurers in the USA. In France, the state paid for my care. At a conservative estimate, the total bill ran to seven figures. No way I could have afforded that. Had I been in the USA at the time, I would have died.
Alan Brooks| 6.21.09 @ 7:35PM
What did W. do for health care? What was the Prescription Drug Plan of '06 about?
Last great president was Clinton, before him Reagan; the Bushes were only good at fighting wars.
Having said that, Jeb Bush will probably be president January 20th, 2017.
Sherri| 6.22.09 @ 2:37AM
Obama's so-called public option will be heavily subsidized by the government, and will quickly run all the private insurers out of business. The government plan will be the only plan left, and then we will all be forced into it. This is exactly how Medicare came about in the 1960s.
mld678| 6.22.09 @ 5:46PM
Friends of the U.S. Chamber - Protect choice and private health care! Agree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that having competitive market forces is the best way to meet the growing needs of the American people? Support the Chamber’s efforts by signing the health care petition. Go to http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction
twiop| 7.3.09 @ 12:44PM
Very good article, I would add some things but overall it is very comprehensive.
I was looking for this!
visit my site
acne
mdgirl| 7.13.09 @ 12:22AM
name one country with a single payer system that is ABLE to go back to choice.
Once we hand it over - it could be gone forever.
Don't Americans care - what will you do when your loved ones are turned away due to age etc.
It baffles me that Americans are willing to give it all up and let all this country stood for be taken over. There were greedy people who screwed many of us- but now there will be no incentive to do much of anything but get by if all we do is pay taxes and there is no way to excel by performance.
Wake up America ...before it is too late:(
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 11:44PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. poptropica
Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you.poptropica
. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale