-
Obama’s Labor Department Shakes Down AP
June 6, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Leftists Off-Message: Liberal Think Tank Praises Maggie Thatcher
April 11, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Obama’s Gun-Grabbing Judge Nominee Implodes
March 28, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Obama’s Radical, Tasteless Defilement of 9/11
September 9, 2011 | 5 comments
-
Vadum vs Thom Hartmann on Registering the Poor to Vote (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
September 8, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
After Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, admits that the U.S. economy will continue to contract “for some time to come,” yet more truth manages to escape his lips.
As John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, notes, on TV Sunday Summers clearly implied that the Obama administration plans to try to control healthcare costs in the future by rationing healthcare. Summers, Lott writes
let the cat out of the bag on health care. In explaining why universal health care wasn’t going to increase the deficit, Summers said that people are just getting too much unnecessary care. Summers claimed: “whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies … procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we - estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.”
This sure seems like rationing.
Americans spend far too much on healthcare, according to Summers, and government is going to force them to spend less. Patients get too many surgeries such as “tonsillectomies or hysterectomies,” Summers says.
Lott finds it “strange that the Democratic Party, a group that doesn’t think the government should intervene between a doctor and a woman when it comes to determining whether or not to have an abortion, appears to have no problem in telling doctors whether they can perform tonsillectomies or hysterectomies.”
Indeed.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Matthew Vadum
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/27/obamacare-means-healthcare-rat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Pingback| 4.27.09 @ 7:20PM
Obamacare Means Healthcare Rationing, Summers Says | But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Gazinya| 4.27.09 @ 8:15PM
Well, DUH!!
BPT (Australia) | 4.28.09 @ 5:39AM
Lott makes a great point. Pro-choice Democrats, so-called, seem emotionally invested in socialistic medicine, or an anti-choice system.
thinkingabovemypaygrade| 4.28.09 @ 8:17AM
And...let's not forget.
We have a party in power which DOES NOT LIKE HUMANS ALL THAT MUCH.
EXCESS, TOO-SICK, TOO-OLD,TOO PREGNANT HUMANS WILL BE EXPENDABLE.
Their extreme Democrat members would probably stack trees, tigers, etc. over humans any given day...i.e. PETA--which ran that recent commercial using young women as visual objects "meat" so to speak---to promote their protection and exaltation of animals, vegetation.
Actually, young women, girls are so much "cows' to the Dem leaders--now 17 year old girls will probably soon get a chemical they can dump into themselves to prevent pregnancy. (This is revenge on Pres. Bush's so called "political" decision here---the judge never considered what it means to allow a significant NEW drug to be dumped into minor children without the parent's knowledge).
Havent found my old copy of Solzhenitsyn's book about socialist states & the evil they do...From Under the Rubble (or UP from the Rubble) but one ofthe essay contributors mentions that in some ancient socialized culture, young girls were sacrificed to the "gods".
Is it too crazy to speculate---will the super left DEMS (who seem to be RUNNING the major changes) also move "terrorist" or "extremist" types far down on the healthcare list also???
I have no factual basis for this speculation also---but it is crazy times here --- Will one's political views determine the quality of one's health care?
An unfounded idea---but two years ago who would have imagined the world we have---today?
And watch for the revival of Island of Dr. Moreau!
Bob| 4.28.09 @ 9:35AM
Vadum, I don't care who is in power, from an economics point of view, healthcare will be rationed. Right now, we have rationing done by the insurance companies (which you don't say). You can't have non-emergency surgery without your insurance company weighing in. Medicare also rations. Furthermore, with the rise in healthcare costs being 2-3 times the rise in the CPI, rationing will be done by Republicans as well in the future. Not rationing will cause us to be not competitive for labor intensive industries and our economy will shrink, unemployment will continue to rise, and our standard of living will drop.
So let's be truthful here -- we will have rationing. The solution is not, as current ideologues like you seem to imply, to keep our same system. That will result in huge economic problems. Personally, I've always supported a tiered system where people can pay for their level of coverage but basic coverage is given to everyone (and by basic I mean VERY basic). That would give the individual control over their level of care and their choice of doctor. If they wanted the cheapest plan, they would have to use plan doctors, have no elective surgeries, forgo their right to sue, etc.
But then again, I'm just another one of those RINO's that no "real conservative" would want in their party. This is another reason why social conservatives are ruining the Republican party.
MattSwartz | 4.28.09 @ 9:48AM
I think that we actually play into the leftists' hands by using the term "Universal Health Care". First off, if it's rationed, and it will have to be, then it isn't universal, secondly, with the amount of oversight (and yes, all executive-branch oversight ultimately ends up politicized) involved, it ought to be called:
wait for it:
Universal Health Control
That term does a better job of actually describing what it would be like to have the fearsome leviathan state in charge of our health and self-healing. Preventative care would allow no deviations, and the possibilities of how mental health would be handled are positively Orwellian.
Universal Health Control.
Know the term, learn to use it reflexively, because that's what's on the table.
MattSwartz | 4.28.09 @ 9:49AM
I think that we actually play into the leftists' hands by using the term "Universal Health Care". First off, if it's rationed, and it will have to be, then it isn't universal, secondly, with the amount of oversight (and yes, all executive-branch oversight ultimately ends up politicized) involved, it ought to be called:
wait for it:
Universal Health Control
That term does a better job of actually describing what it would be like to have the fearsome leviathan state in charge of our health and self-healing. Preventative care would allow no deviations, and the possibilities of how mental health would be handled are positively Orwellian.
Universal Health Control.
Know the term, learn to use it reflexively, because that's what's on the table.
MattSwartz | 4.28.09 @ 9:49AM
I think that we actually play into the leftists' hands by using the term "Universal Health Care". First off, if it's rationed, and it will have to be, then it isn't universal, secondly, with the amount of oversight (and yes, all executive-branch oversight ultimately ends up politicized) involved, it ought to be called:
wait for it:
Universal Health Control
That term does a better job of actually describing what it would be like to have the fearsome leviathan state in charge of our health and self-healing. Preventative care would allow no deviations, and the possibilities of how mental health would be handled are positively Orwellian.
Universal Health Control.
Know the term, learn to use it reflexively, because that's what's on the table.
MattSwartz| 4.28.09 @ 9:49AM
I think that we actually play into the leftists' hands by using the term "Universal Health Care". First off, if it's rationed, and it will have to be, then it isn't universal, secondly, with the amount of oversight (and yes, all executive-branch oversight ultimately ends up politicized) involved, it ought to be called:
wait for it:
Universal Health Control
That term does a better job of actually describing what it would be like to have the fearsome leviathan state in charge of our health and self-healing. Preventative care would allow no deviations, and the possibilities of how mental health would be handled are positively Orwellian.
Universal Health Control.
Know the term, learn to use it reflexively, because that's what's on the table.
MattSwartz | 4.28.09 @ 9:50AM
I think that we actually play into the leftists' hands by using the term "Universal Health Care". First off, if it's rationed, and it will have to be, then it isn't universal, secondly, with the amount of oversight (and yes, all executive-branch oversight ultimately ends up politicized) involved, it ought to be called:
wait for it:
Universal Health Control
That term does a better job of actually describing what it would be like to have the fearsome leviathan state in charge of our health and self-healing. Preventative care would allow no deviations, and the possibilities of how mental health would be handled are positively Orwellian.
Universal Health Control.
Know the term, learn to use it reflexively, because that's what's on the table.
MattSwartz | 4.28.09 @ 9:51AM
I think that we actually play into the leftists' hands by using the term "Universal Health Care". First off, if it's rationed, and it will have to be, then it isn't universal, secondly, with the amount of oversight (and yes, all executive-branch oversight ultimately ends up politicized) involved, it ought to be called:
wait for it:
Universal Health Control
That term does a better job of actually describing what it would be like to have the fearsome leviathan state in charge of our health and self-healing. Preventative care would allow no deviations, and the possibilities of how mental health would be handled are positively Orwellian.
Universal Health Control.
Know the term, learn to use it reflexively, because that's what's on the table.
MattSwartz| 4.28.09 @ 9:53AM
Sorry for the quadruple-post. I had a browser glitch.
BD57| 4.28.09 @ 10:17AM
Bob
You were doing fine until you got on your "social conservatives" hobby-horse. Because "social conservatives" aren't the ones who drive health care policy in the Republican Party - the ec0nomic-cons do.
So - sorry, your all purpose 'whipping boys' don't work in this instance.
As for your basic concept - sounds like Reagan (who the social cons loved and still love, by the way), who thought high-deductible / low premium 'catastrophic' health insurance was the way to go.
The problem - having sold the idea of health care being a 'right' for so long, Democrats have no interest whatsoever in a system in which people would forego care in some cases because they don't want to pay for it.
I mean, that's what the myth of 47 million (or whatever it is now) uninsured is all about - - - every one of those people is portrayed as someone who very much wants health insurance but simply can't afford it.
Bob| 4.28.09 @ 10:29AM
BD57 -- my point on social conservatives is precisely relevant on this matter (and I do admit to it being a "hobby horse". Here's why....
As long as Democrats are in power, we will have the health care "right" issue. So if you want a market based solution, Republicans must put together a working majority. If you take a look at voter behavior, they tend to vote more for the party than the issue. They don't pay attention to politics the way we do. Therefore, these kinds of solutions will exist if social conservatives continue to drive the social libertarians out of the party.
According to the latest polling which came out yesterday, self-identified Republicans have dropped to 21% of voters -- the lowest in 40 years or so. The problem of social conservatives was not great in the time of Reagan as they were a much smaller part of the party. Now they control the party and it has become a party of beliefs, not a party of reason.
So, BD57, I'm not going to back off my hobby horse because I want to see a majority party interested in fiscal conservativism open to people who believe in things like choice and gay marriage.
I'llalwaysGetMine| 4.28.09 @ 10:46AM
Loser liberals like Bob will be the first to scream 'foul' when he or his are denied care. Hey IdiotBob, why don't you move your family to Canada or Cuba so you can partake in their 'health care' systems. Now, only take your sick family members.
I'm so glad we have a medical expert like MR Summers explaining how this or that medical treatment is not necessary. He is actually probably more qualified to decide your medical treatment than the future faceless bureaucrats that will decide you and your family's fate.
As a physician, I will always be able to treat mine. Bob, you and yours can go te Hell! I'll be happy to send you there myself.
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 10:55AM
As for your basic concept - sounds like Reagan (who the social cons loved and still love, by the way), who thought high-deductible / low premium 'catastrophic' health insurance was the way to go.
I did this for years, while working minimum wage jobs.
Per Jeffrey LLoyd's response from another thread to the question of social conservatives in the party:
"The fact that you believe Reagan conservatism to be the "ultra right wing conservatism" indicates you really are a liberal. Your arguments for the Big Tent seem clouded. Opening the tent to bring in more than just liberal or moderate Republicans is exactly what Reagan did. Those social conservatives you disdain used to be Democrats. We are about enlarging...you about shrinking to comfort. We have won...you have lost. In the hard world of vote counting, that spells the difference between running the government or being on the outside. And most of the time in the last several decades, we have been "in"..."
Even if Republican identification is reduced to 21%, that can't be garnered by purges and re-enlistments. And the sore spot for those who disdain social conservatives is that they will be forced to travel further to the left than they probably want to go.
The dissonance is easily identified when more libertarian republicans are forced to argue that they don't believe nationalized healthcare will come to be because democrats don't want that either. Faith over reason, because if you judge the history and what happens when government takes the reins of such a service, by reasoning you'd have to come to the opposite conclusion. And all that you have read -Daschle's dismissal, notwithstanding- points to a system close to that of Canada and/or England. It can't happen at once, but that's the goal.
While I may have to deal with my health care insurance in terms of any rationing, my doctor can still advocate on my behalf and stands a much better chance of prevailing than he will against a government board, if he even has the opportunity to do so.
Independents who loathe social conservatives are now married to Democrats, whether they want to be or not, and when they attempt to justify arguments defending the moves of the democrat congress, in a libertarian way, they fail.
I'm not a registered Republican. I'm a registered conservative. We have a dreadful party in my area. Just dreadful. One of our leaders just passed away. He had tumultuous relationship with a recent liberal mayor and just before he died they made amends. That was good to read. But if takes death to do that; you can see the futility.
I'd like to register, but the independent party here is just reactionary. Some states have a non-declared option, but I don't think we do.
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 10:56AM
My apologies to Mr. Lord for calling him LLoyd. Brain spasm.
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 11:06AM
I like the idea of organizing. I think the tea-parties are a good idea, especially if they're able to formulate and ennuciate a message that isn't singularly anti-taxation or anti-regulation but more vociferously about ccountability.
I think everyone recognizes that taxation and regulation is necessary, but accountability demands that these measures operate under the aegis of a superstructure built by laws that are designed to protect private property, shared resources and maximum liberty.
Bob| 4.28.09 @ 12:03PM
GetMine -- I see that you have a problem with reading comprehension. A system that makes people pay for what they want in healthcare is the exact opposite of nationalized healthcare. The reason for very basic care is an economic one -- we currently treat everyone anyway in inefficient emergency rooms. My solution also includes tort reform -- but you are so ideological that you are blind to the truth.
Mary -- conservatism today is not Reagan conservatism when you look at the structure of the party. Social conservatives were in the minority then and are in the majority now. Fiscal conservatives prominence has diminished to about 30% of the party. After Iraq, Republicans have lost many who don't believe the expansionist policies of neo-cons were consistent with the traditional Republican beliefs of Reagan. This is NOT the party of Reagan today.
Also, you and Lord don't seem to understand that numbers add up. Votes are totaled -- they are not weighed. You need numbers of people to win. That's how democracies work. You cannot win without expanding your tent. You cannot expand your tent when you have one segment running your party.
Regarding parties, it is hard to argue that you Conservative party has any relevance. It is very small, is not large enough to put any national candidates in a place where they can debate the issues, and cannot raise enough money to get their point across. That is why I remain a Republican. I will vote for any fiscal conservative who is NOT an ideologue notwithstanding their "values" positions. However, most social conservatives are non-thinking ideologues and I will vote against them every time. If I don't, I am supporting a party structure that will continue to get less relevant.
For that reason, I supported Romney. By the time the primary came to my state, he had dropped out of the race so I voted for Ron Paul. I could not support McCain, especially after he chose Palin as his VP. People like me are the swing vote in the party. Most of us have left the party and are now independents. I still want to vote in the primary.
The fact that you consider me to be a "lib" because I believe in a market based solution to healthcare, think the bailouts were wrong, think about data and rationality over ideological beliefs, believe in education and success thereto, are a problem with your tight and restrictive definition of "conservative".
The Republican party will either change and open up, or die.
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 12:19PM
Republicans can't win without social conservatives, as they obviously can't win without idependents or the moderate vote, whatever it's properly called.
As I mentioned, you can't purge that 21% and replace it. Independents are tied to the democrat party and where ever that's going to take the Country.
You've never said this, that I'm aware of, but those who argue I don't vote for the party, I vote for the man, get the party whether they like it or not.
It'll be interesting to see where the Country is 10 years from now.
Bob| 4.28.09 @ 12:47PM
Mary, could you ever see a social conservative voting for a Democrat? I wouldn't worry much about losing that 21%.
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 1:15PM
Bob, I encourage you to fund the purging or the elimination of that 21%. If you have the money and the influence, do it. Then replace that 21% anyway you can. In the meantime, you may be registered a republican but you voted for a democrat and you're going to have to follow him and the party where he and it lead you.
Bob| 4.28.09 @ 1:33PM
Mary, you didn't read my comment. Social conservatives will not vote for a Democrat. The Republican party will not lose them. They may not be as active, but I guarantee that over 95% of them will vote for a Republican even if the party moves to the center. The reason for that is judges -- and they know it.
And by the way, I'm with Specter on most social issues. However, I disagreed with him on the stimulus and bailout bills. Why should you care -- you are not a "Republican"...
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 1:52PM
Bob, I did read your comment. We're just talking past each other probably.
There's been a lot of bad blood. You said yourself your anger at social conservatives was blinding. You've lamented that people want you to leave the party when you have asked others to do the same thing.
A vociferous pro-choice, gay marriage candidate will not win 95% of that 21%. Assuming -and I think it's a fair assumption- that 21% is socially conservative. Just as you noted you would vote based along choice and gay marriage lines, so will they.
Why should I care? Because I've voted for republicans before and may again.
Bob| 4.28.09 @ 2:10PM
Mary, you misread me. My anger at social conservatives has nothing to do with their beliefs -- it has to do with their unacceptance of my beliefs. I'm willing to vote for a social conservative who is also a smart fiscal conservative, but they are not willing to do the reverse. I happen to think we need a viable fiscally conservative party. Social conservatives are not making that possible by shutting out people like me. That's the issue. So Mary, would YOU vote for a fiscal conservative who is pro-choice and pro gay marriage?
Mary| 4.28.09 @ 3:54PM
Mary, would YOU vote for a fiscal conservative who is pro-choice and pro gay marriage?
Yes. I would have voted for Giuliani if he would have been the nominee. I would have voted for Fred Thompson (social conservative, I know) who was my preference. And Romney too.
I think the Country has gone too far in the direction of no longer caring about the things that make fiscal conservatism possible, strong families, etc for any candidate to turn that around. IOW, fiscal conservatism has come to lose meaning.
Becky| 4.28.09 @ 9:25PM
The point being made about rationing is that some medical procedures are not necessary. If that is truly the case, then will that mean that abortion and subject to review?
What makes a woman's right to chose superior than another woman's right to get a hysterectomy?