I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge ”“ year after year, decade after decade ”“ has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.
Not a thing has changed, old wine in new bottles. It’s single-payer by the drink. We can call you out too, Mr. President, for your misrepresentations.
I thought over all it was a fairly good speech. Being a former speech writer myself, I find President Obama’s speeches quite predictable though. He changes the subject, but the form, patterns, and structure are always exactly the same. I’m always put off by the emotive appeals, and I thought his appeal at the end to the character and legacy of Ted Kennedy was a bit much, but at least he avoided the sick-granny-in-Mississippi-who-was-bitten-by-rabid-sharks-and-then-struck-by-a-meteorite-that-caused-her glaucoma-and-is-about-to-be-evicted-from-her-radioactive-cockroach-infested-FEMA-mobile-home-because-the-other-political-party-are-really-dark-Sith-lords-who-want-to-gnaw-on-her-bones sob story.
I did appreciate him taking the bull by the horns and laying to rest a few of the patently absurd claims floating around like the death panels and such. I never found gross misrepresentation to be helpful in any dialog.
I remain concerned about his naivete on the price tag of such reform. His $900 Billion dollar cost seems extremely conservative to me. For sake of argument let’s assume his cost estimates are on target, He was also, again, incredibly vague on where the money is coming from to pay for this from a Congress that can’t balance a budget to save its life. That’s my major hangup on this plan.
I am also concerned about the “private option” scheme (whatever you want to call it.) It seems to be some form of health plan run somehow by the government (this was also vague as to whom was doing what). I’m troubled by this premise because a government (i.e. federal) plan would not be subject to the same constraints as private health insurance plans (for example, state licensing requirements, financial solvency requirements, prompt payment requirements, coverage mandates, and state taxes assessments).
Such a scheme, as with all federal programs is not profit based, and therefore would in the beginning be cheaper than private sector insurance plans, thereby undercutting competition.
I just don’t see how private health insurance plans would be able to compete with a subsidized government plan free from the various rules that would constrain private plans. If another specific private company got all those benefits and incentives and every other company did not, people would be screaming “Monopoly!”
I remain dubious.
[blockquote]I did appreciate him taking the bull by the horns and laying to rest a few of the patently absurd claims floating around like the death panels and such. [/blockquote]
Actually, while “death panels” is a bombastic way to describe them, there will most certainly be boards charged with determining what will and will not be covered under any plan and for whom. Obama admitted as much with his “pain pill” comment. Some people will be denied treatment – as policy – that will end their lives prematurely.
Call it a death panel, call it what you will, but that’s the reality.
Of course, the private insurance market has long had “death panels.” “Claims reviewers,” “limitations” call it what you will.
As similar as straw and strawberries, Albany+
It’s a neat trick. If we don’t call the committees of bureaucrats who decide whether Granny gets offed or not “death panels,” then we can honestly say that we aren’t proposing death panels. Problem solved.
As Albany+ helpfully points out, it is extremely dishonest for the President to suggest that his proposals do not include “death panels” since, again as Albany+ rightly points out, any insurance system contains such things.
But since private insurance policies are not burdened with a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, they don’t have a vested interest in refusing to cover treatment for old people (or else they would quickly lose customers.) Putting the same people who are in charge of coming up with cutting the Social Security checks in charge of determining how many people live long enough to receive them strikes me as a conflict of intrest.
[blockquote]But since private insurance policies are not burdened with a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, they don’t have a vested interest in refusing to cover treatment for old people (or else they would quickly lose customers.)[/blockquote]
As you point out, James Manley, the private insurers aren’t burdened with Medicare. If they were, they would just as surely choose not to cover many expensive diagnostic modalities and treatments for the elderly, just as they now do with expensive modalities and treatments for younger patients – such as PET/MRI, bone marrow transplantation, etc.
My big concern is taxpayer-funded abortion – which has never been clearly taken off the table; the waters have been made very muddy, but there is no clarity that the issue has been seriously addressed.
[/i]As Albany+ helpfully points out, it is extremely dishonest for the President to suggest that his proposals do not include “death panels†since, again as Albany+ rightly points out, any insurance system contains such things. [/i/]
Actually, I don’t think “any insurance system” does. I think private insurance is less to be trusted by a long shot as we have already seen their fruit. I’m not sure yet what the “government opition” might or might not do under this plan. Nobody does for sure — unlike private insurance behavior.
Jeffersonian, straw and strawberries is cute but seems non-responsive. What are you trying to say? Is it something like: “It’s worse when the Government does it, so let’s let the private sector do it more?” In any case, that’s my read of your post.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, straw and strawberries is cute but seems non-responsive. What are you trying to say? Is it something like: “It’s worse when the Government does it, so let’s let the private sector do it more?†In any case, that’s my read of your post. [/blockquote]
No, my point is that everyone pretends that we pay princely sums to health insurance companies who then turn right around and deny coverage on a whim. That’s not the case. Believe it or not, a legal obligation is created when you pay that premium to fulfill their end of the bargain. If they don’t, you can sue them and compel payment through the use of government. That’s an entirely proper function of government. But similarly, if you haven’t contracted for a particular type of coverage, the insurer is not obligated to pay for it.
Now, what happens when there’s no arms-length relationship between the people providing payment and the people compelling payment, when they are, for all intents and purposes, the same people? When you have no contractual rights against them?
This is just one enormous problem among many with state-provided health care. Others include:
* unconstitutionality
* authority – implicit and explicit – to regulate behaviors deemed not in the interest of the State
* costs skyrocketing due to political pressure
* individual choice obliterated
You get the idea. We need reform, but we don’t need this reform.
[i]No, my point is that everyone pretends that we pay princely sums to health insurance companies who then turn right around and deny coverage on a whim. That’s not the case. [/i]
Jeffersonian,
Another thing some insurance folks pretend that is not the case is the myth of the irresponsible consumer detached from costs like a kid in a candy store. No, what happens in real life is this: You don’t feel well. You go to the doctor. The doctor says we need to do this or that. You do it.
As for constitutionality, are you of the view that the only legitimate function of government is defense and to enforce contracts?
i sincerely hope Obama [i]will be[/i] the last president to attempt to get a government health-care system, by virtue of this plan’s failure to pass. If it does pass, I’d love to see an electoral uprising at the polls in 2010 followed by repeal.
Thanks for the information! Well, if you are already tired of all of these, you might want to watch The Extract. But the Extract reviews aren’t very good. The Extract reviews not being very good might not matter that much – the film’s director, Mike Judge has never had much of a great following with establishment types. His three films are more of cult classics – the Beavis and Butthead movie, Office Space, and Idiocracy all got lousy reviews upon release and didn’t make huge box office earnings, but rather gained followings through rentals and word of mouth. Extract, starring Jason Bateman, had a limited opening this weekend. If the Extact review bear on the box office earnings and grosses over all, let’s hope they made it with low cost loans. You can visit this site for more readings: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/09/05/extract-reviews-weekend-comedy/
In my job I work with the Federal Government as a customer. I can think of nothing worse than the Fed’s running a national health care system. In my experience, though they may mean to do well, they are a procedure-oriented bureaucracy that hinders things getting done efficiently and effectively. Many are merely monitoring others work. There is of course no profit incentive or incentive to be more cost effective. In fact, the opposite is true, as they boast about the size of their budgets. Federal health care would be a nightmare. If the problem is that a large segment is not covered by insurance, then de-regulate interstate private health insurance and provide subsidies to individuals to buy health insurance from private companies. De-regulation will increase competition and good insurance companies will weed out the ineffective. We also do need tort reform, but try getting our legislators, a bunch of lawyers, to pass that. LOL!
[blockquote]Jeffersonian,
Another thing some insurance folks pretend that is not the case is the myth of the irresponsible consumer detached from costs like a kid in a candy store. No, what happens in real life is this: You don’t feel well. You go to the doctor. The doctor says we need to do this or that. You do it. [/blockquote]
That may well be, but that is independent of who is responsible for payment of those products and services. If I contract with the Acme Insurance Company to indemnify me if I get swine flu, do I have a gripe if they fail to indemnify me when I get meningitis?
Not all insurance is the same, nor should it be. If an insurer fails to live up to its end of a contract, then you’ll hear nothing but condemnation from me.
[blockquote]As for constitutionality, are you of the view that the only legitimate function of government is defense and to enforce contracts? [/blockquote]
It’s not a matter of what I think, really, but what’s in the Constitution. There may be some perfectly dreadful things in it that are, by definition, constitutional. There may be some wonderful things left out of it that are unconstitutional. As it happens, national defense and enforcement of contracts (kinda) is in it. So are many other things. But unless we apply it as it was intended, we really don’t have a Constitution, do we?
#9 – great. So now everyone should hire lawyers to ensure Insurance companies do what they say they should.
#12 – deregulation would work if we also didn’t regulate medical schools and allowed anyone to become a doctor. Of course, you also assume that, insurance companies would always have money available. What would happen in the real world?
[blockquote]#9 – great. So now everyone should hire lawyers to ensure Insurance companies do what they say they should. [/blockquote]
I’ve got a hunch insurers are already doing that for the vast majority of their customers. For those that don’t, I’m betting administrative remedies will take care of 90%, with lawsuits addressing the rest.
Personally, I’d rather have 5,000 lawyers suing insurance companies for failure to perform than 20,000 of them infesting a new People’s Health Care Collective.