The American Spectator

Larry-bob Roberts| 5.14.09 @ 1:27PM

Is this a one-sided thing, or are you also going to do everything you can to expose the flaws in the private-business-run approach to health care as well?

JP| 5.14.09 @ 1:41PM

Larry-Bob-Roberts,

The obvious point is that the American people haven't a clue what awaits them vis-a-vis Obamacare. The vast majority of Americans are reasonably happy with thier coverage, and despite rising premiums they do not want anything to do with rationing, less coverage, and additional taxes and charges.

The federal goverment is beyond broke. Monday the OMB published the fact that in 2009 it borrowed 46 cents for every dollar it spent. Obamacare would entail raising anyhwere from $800 billion to $1.5 trillion in taxes to cover shortfalls. There is no way this would work financially, and in the end the voters would be paying quite a bit more than their premiums now dictate, and receive less coverage than they now enjoy.

In my own opinion, the GOP will wake up once the details (now locked up in Pelosi's office and the West Wing), and between them and the Blue Dogs, Obamacare will go down in defeat. The fight will not be waged by hospitals, insurance companies, and the Fortune 500, but by the grassroots.

Politically, this will be a no-win situation for Obama. Obamacare will ruin his chances for a 2nd term, and if he can't pass it, the glitter will begin to fade.

BD57| 5.14.09 @ 1:45PM

Larry-Bob:

so you're basically arguing for a "fairness doctrine" in the discussion of political ideas which applies website-by-website, right?

In short, this Blog has to play it right down the middle - discuss "pro" and "con" of every approach in a "fair" manner?

Can you bring MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Public Radio, the major newspapers, DailyKos, HuffPo, et al to the same table?

Will they all agree that they're obliged to treat every possible approach to the issue "fairly" in their posts and discussions?

I look forward to your response ....

Old Texican| 5.14.09 @ 2:44PM

Our present health insurance system is far from splendid.
The only problem is that the government will be horribly worse, and very expensive.
Even worse than that, some bureaucrat will decide if you live or die from lack of care.

Kay | 5.14.09 @ 2:52PM

The main thing to keep in mind is that the Democrats have the votes to pass health care legislation, the momentum, grassroots organization, and for now, support of the special interest groups.

MT| 5.14.09 @ 3:01PM

Once we are apprised of the details of this democrat power grab, we'll stop the stupid destruction of our healthcare system just like we stopped bogus immigration reform.

Tom Paine| 5.14.09 @ 6:54PM

If optional (not mandatory) public health insurance would "drive [private insurance companies] out of business, the question becomes: what's so great about private health insurance?

We keep being told by people on the right that our current system is vastly superior to what a public health system might offer.

Well, then why not create a public system parallel to the private and let them compete?

If the private sector really can deliver better health care at lower costs, let the private secter prove this by actually doing it!

We keep being promised a Golden Age if only the market would be let do it's Divine Will.

Naive student of the Enlightenment that I am, I'd like to see some proof.

I'm tired of faith based capitalism.

MT| 5.14.09 @ 7:51PM

I'm tired of liberals who promise free medical care when they know there's no such thing. If it seems too good to be true--it is. Liberals lie, just watch their lips move.

Mary| 5.14.09 @ 7:51PM

And it would also help if grassroots conservatives started to show the same level of passion about the health care issue as they have on issues such as immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.

Well said.

Enactment of nationalized healthcare will establish, however illegitimate, an irrevocable and eternal bishopric with all the attendant power, over health, life and death, no matter how distant that prospect might seem right now.

In Great Britain, per what I've read recently, 25 year old women are not allowed or encouraged to get pap-smears. And the problem with that is that ovarian and uterin cancer are ususally pretty advanced once symptoms appear. Dan Harman admits that cancer survial rates in GB are not much to brag about.

It's inevitable that the preventive end will take hits too, when costs must be contained.

Republicans don't really need to do much except water the seeds of doubt very well, so present in the electorate already. They don't have to scare anyone. They just have to remind everyone that just as we may not want the petty official in our bedroom, we certainly don't want him in the examining room with our physician, whether we're 25 or 75. He doesn't belong there.

BJC| 5.14.09 @ 8:39PM

Hmmm. This quote suggests a good approach to me: "Republicans don't really need to do much except water the seeds of doubt very well, so present in the electorate already. They don't have to scare anyone. They just have to remind everyone that just as we may not want the petty official in our bedroom, we certainly don't want him in the examining room with our physician, whether we're 25 or 75. He doesn't belong there."

Can you envision a funny-polemical series of ads making this point? Female patient, sitting atop examining table, struggling to keep that open-along-the-back gown modestly closed... Doors opens, sweaty bald green-eye-shade guy carrying a medical folder walks around behind her, opens the gown, starts looking, prodding and poking... She: "Um, I haven't met you. You're doctor...?" He: "Oh, no, I'm your ObamaCare comparative effectiveness evaluator." And so on.

Tom Paine| 5.14.09 @ 9:03PM

BJC et al --

What you're failing to point out is that a surveillance regime whose only task is to deny coverage is already at work.

The private system excludes millions and under-serves the people who pay for it.

You're probably right that "sowing the seeds of doubt" will be effective. The tobacco industry did it for decades and reaped billions in profits as a reward.

Perhaps this time, however, sanity will prevail and we will move to a public system that offers REAL competition.

When the private system is forced to compete, perhaps it will become more effective.

And by the way ... There are NO Democrats in Congress that support a health care plan that would force anyone to leave their current provider, and the president does not support such a plan. All claims to the contrary are false fear-mongering.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.14.09 @ 9:05PM

The problem is the government will never allow a level playing field. The Democrats are already discussing taking away the tax exempt status of company health care plans to fund the nationalized plan. Those that actually generate wealth in this country are about to get screwed, and how.

Obama wants nationalized healthcare and will change the rules until he gets it.

Mary| 5.14.09 @ 9:15PM

Doors opens, sweaty bald green-eye-shade guy carrying a medical folder walks around behind her, opens the gown, starts looking, prodding and poking... She: "Um, I haven't met you. You're doctor...?"

BJ, that makes me shudder. But something like this could be done and could be very effective.

That doesn't mean we have to stop thinking about ways to help those who are uninsured, it just means we tell Washington, Hell No, We Won't Go.

Totally unrelated except that the hippies are now in charge, but does anyone remember the old chant:

What are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
My next stop is Vietnam...

And it's 5,6,7
Open up the pearly gates,
Well we ain't got time
To wonder why
Lord, we all gonna die.

You know somethings you just don't forget.

To Jeremiah's claim about false fear-mongering; that's nonsense.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure where power grabs of any kind are concerned. Especially those proposed by those who don't have to live by the evil(s) or problems they create.

No bureaucrats in the examining room. They're not smarter than my doctor, and their bottom line can't be appealed like it can be in the private sector. Forewarned is forearmed.

Mary| 5.14.09 @ 9:22PM

Oh, and BJC; it's likely the "ObamaCare comparative effectiveness evaluator" will acquire an acronmym: COBRA (cost/benefit ratio advisor).

Mary| 5.14.09 @ 9:41PM

Boys and girls, the great Mark Steyn.

Also, for your listening pleasure: The Traveling Wilburys.

Angel| 5.14.09 @ 10:41PM

There's one word for all that false fear-mongering--TRUTH. Liberals like TP/Jeremiah have trouble wrapping their brains around the concept. All liberals do.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.14.09 @ 11:36PM

How about the hidden costs? The government can impose artificially low rates for nationalized healthcare. They write the laws and make the rules. How to make up the difference? You or the company that signs your paycheck will be taxed as well, hiding the true cost, or the country will spiral into a black hole of new debt.

Profit is a powerful motive to become efficient. Take that away and you end up with a failed socialist systems like Canada and England. Work to resolve the problems in the current system, but leave it in the hands of the private sector.

Dave C| 5.15.09 @ 7:59AM

I'm a bit surprised that nobody's made the connection between health care and the arbitrary closing of nearly 800 Chrysler dealerships. Both provide an example of what the government will do once they are calling the shots: they will decide who, when, and where government controlled products/services can be bought. There is no rationale for closing those dealerships. Dealers are the ones buying cars from Chrysler. They buy materials from Chrysler to support sales, and they make the availability of Chrysler cars to more and more people. The only effect of shuttering these dealers is that it reduces competition and ultimately increases the price consumers will have to pay for their vehicles. And make the driver farther, too.

The problem on the healthcare side is more frightening. By pushing more and more demand into the system, prices will go up. In order to keep prices "down" the government will have to reduce demand, and thus you will find more impetus to eliminate those the government deem unworthy.

We'll all be like those 789 Chrysler dealers at some point in our lives. Without advocate, without hope, and probably suffering from something the government doesn't think is worthy on which to spendvour own tax dollars.

Welcome to the Obamanation.

hoads| 5.15.09 @ 9:42AM

The schism between public and private insurance is a charade. Big business, private health insurers and government are aligned in an unholy alliance that will result in depleting our healthcare resources and restricting access to medical care.

Think about it. Government mandates based upon "comparative effectiveness" are really about "cost effectiveness" such that expensive, life-saving treatments that benefit a few will be sacrificed for the common good. While everyone may feel good about getting their annual physical, having their free stitches and cholesterol lowering drugs, God help you should you become seriously ill or old.

Big business currently represented by the CEOs of major corporations, are all for forking over their healthcare costs to the government. Of course, they are rest assured that their wealth will ensure unfettered access to top quality medical care. Its the peons who will be waiting in line.

Health insurers are all for restricting payments to healthcare providers and access to expensive drugs, treatments and surgeries. And, mandated health insurance will be a windfall for health insurers. They'll have increased volume with reduced costs.

Everyone wins here except the patient and doctor and only a public revolt can stop this runaway train.

Mark Hutcherson| 5.17.09 @ 12:48PM

Most Americans do not want a government run health care system. However, at some point in time - something has to be done to hold down the costs associated with even a short visit to a doctors office or emergency room. Conservatives believe in the free enterprise system, that works to keep prices low - but something is broken in the U.S., because while there is competition - almost all doctors and hospitals charge the exact same price for the same treatments and procedures. The current U.S. health care system seems more like a monopoly - rather than a free enterprise system, which is based on the rules of competition and that is why the government must do something to protect consumers from unfair medical price fixing.

AC| 5.22.09 @ 9:05AM

Look outside the USA. Plenty of countries run excellent health care systems through a balance of public and private health care provision.

Rob| 6.19.09 @ 1:46AM

Someone show me a government program that is run well. I can't think of any, and I surely don't think healthcare would be. Nope, just another part of creating the largest percentage of the population dependent on one form or another of government. No thanks.