The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Health Care Juggernaut

Text Size

This year, E.J. Dionne writes today, will finally be the year of national healthcare. One part of the left's strategy is to create an air of inevitability about health care legislation, so that anybody in opposition to the eventual proposal is a skunk in the garden party, trying to ruin things for everybody else. With that said, the piece is worth reading because Dionne is certainly tapped into the Democratic powers that be, and this in particular is worth keeping an eye on:

Though only some of the players will say so now, the plan will ultimately include a mandate requiring everyone to have insurance, quelling opposition from the insurance companies. They hope that having a bigger market will compensate them for whatever they might lose from regulatory changes.

As I have noted before, this could be a major problem for the Democrats. It's very hard to argue that it isn't a government takeover of health care if the federal government is requiring individuals to purchase health care. A mandate would impose a tax on the uninsured, it would be a handout to large insurance companies, it would represent a major policy flip flop by Obama, and mandates don't poll as well as other aspects of health care reform.

View all comments (12) | Leave a comment

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 4:32PM

"It's very hard to argue that it isn't a government takeover of health care if the federal government is requiring individuals to purchase health care."

Utter nonsense.

We have that today. It's called Medicare. And it works pretty well.

And no one (sane) considers it the government taking over health care.

JohnnySquares| 4.6.09 @ 4:47PM

It will also be very hard for superlibs to convince people who, while they may be unhappy with their current health insurance, would trade their existing medical service such as they are for new "free" medical service that resembles a mind melting trip to the DMV to renew your drivers license.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 4:48PM

It seems that we have a "mandate" for auto insurance. I assume you are against that as well?

Philip, I'm not sure of the right solution for health care, but we need to do something to lower the cost of health care significantly. It cannot be done with the current system. Personally, I'm open to any system that will accomplish at least a 40% reduction in costs. I'd like to see a couple of solutions "test marketed" in different states for a number of years to determine the best solution. If you take a look at the latest implementation in Taiwan, it took over 5 years to get the bugs out of their system. I'm just not ideological on this one as we must find a way to be more competitive in business so we can create more jobs.

Sebastian O. Buniontow VI| 4.6.09 @ 5:03PM

ObamaWorld is chuck full of horribles.

I envision the Ostrich President "what me worry" where the humble citizenry drives phone booth plug in cars to work at ObamBank, ObamaGovtMotors, and forming a long queue for treatment at ObamaMed.

Maybe the KimmyNuke and/or MullahNuke won't look so bad...

jharp| 4.6.09 @ 5:06PM

JohnnySquares| 4.6.09 @ 4:47PM

"It will also be very hard for superlibs to convince people who, while they may be unhappy with their current health insurance, would trade their existing medical service such as they are for new "free" medical service"

Johnny,

Cut out the stupid. Nothing is free. And no one is proposing free coverage. And anyone with half a brain knows this.

Jackass.

Teleprompter Messiah| 4.6.09 @ 11:34PM

Single payer means rationing by government. Great if you have a strong personal relationship with your local politician. Terrible if not.

The jackboots like jharp will whine its fairer, but in reality, it means the death of innovation. "Unproven" experimental treatments will not be funded. Also, those designated as having contributed to their poor health will be denied treatment. All in the name of "cost containment".

jharp| 4.7.09 @ 12:53AM

Teleprompter Messiah| 4.6.09 @ 11:34PM

"Single payer means rationing by government. Great if you have a strong personal relationship with your local politician.'

So stick with the plan you have now. Idiot.

No one has or is proposing changing your option to do so.

American conservatives have got to be the dumbest, most uneducated lot of people in the entire world.

Indiana Alex| 4.7.09 @ 8:01AM

Did someone suggest Medicare was a success?

I guess many Ponzi schemes are successful for a while, depending on how you define success.

Kevin Smith| 4.7.09 @ 11:18AM

I notice each side of the issue does exactly what the politicians want them to do, argue amongst themselves while they play the three card monte game and hide the truth. Haven't heard anything about who will deliver these "free" or "rationed" services of health care. I will guarantee you the health care professionals of today will work less and care less over the next five years. Of course, we can always bring in cheap labor from India and China to stock our hospitals since open borders are the wave of the future!

jharp| 4.7.09 @ 12:35PM

Kevin Smith| 4.7.09 @ 11:18AM

"Haven't heard anything about who will deliver these "free" or "rationed" services of health care."

The same folks that do today.

"I will guarantee you the health care professionals of today will work less and care less over the next five years."

And I guarantee you are wrong.

"Of course, we can always bring in cheap labor from India and China to stock our hospitals since open borders are the wave of the future!"

We already bring inn health care professionals from other countries. Where have you been?

And we also outsource hip replacements by sending patients to India for treatment.

mental pestilence| 4.7.09 @ 2:19PM

As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development stated in their recent report Health Care Reform in the United States, "it is difficult to judge whether the high level of health expenditures in the United States mainly reflects a high volume of health care services or high relative prices for health care." Alright, lets hypothesize for a moment: maybe all the smog and fast food is giving us health problems and we see the doctor much more often than other countries? The answer is frankly we do not! Donald Barr, M.D. points out in his book An Introduction to U.S. Health Policy that "people in the U.S. go to the doctor 28% less often than people in Canada and are admitted to the hospital 9% less often than Canadians."

Are you as nonplussed as I am? Lets recap as I am in disbelief: Canadians spend less money per person for their health coverage, the go to see the doctor more often and they are admitted to hospitals more frequently, yet we spend more and have 46 million uninsured. Unbelievable, truly unbelievable.

If we aren't using health care services as often than we may quite possibly be paying more per service rendered. Dr. Barr notes that "resources such as laboratory tests, medications, and supplies used in providing care in physicians' offices cost 30% more in the United States than comparable resources in Canada." He also points out that U.S. physicians charge more than two and a half times more for services rendered to their patients.

www.mentalpestilence.com

MT| 4.10.09 @ 2:52PM

I want our doctors to make a good living; I don't want my brain surgeon making the same wage as a janitor. What's wrong with you liberals, why do you want crappy healthcare? You're such envious fools--you go to school for 10 years after college! You'd want to be compensated, too!