I really don't understand why President Obama is so interested in passing the type of health care bill he and his colleagues have been trying to ram through Congress.
Any reasoned look at what is being proposed will lead to the conclusion that the long term effects of the program will be to increase costs (something bureaucracy does exceedingly well), increase taxes, lead to greater deficits, lead to health care rationing, drive private insurance out of the market, promote euthanasia, lead to more nanny state interventions in people's lives, promote greater dependency on government, stifle the development of new medical treatments (just when we're getting to the point that we might start seriously extending the human life), and basically kill a lot of people, both here in the U.S. and in other countries, which have been relying on American innovation since their own socialized medical systems put the squeeze on domestic innovation.
Why would anyone want that?
I understand that some people might want individual parts of that. Nanny staters, for example, would be in favor of more nanny statism. Euthanasia supporters would want more euthanasia.
But the package as a whole would be a disaster.
Why would he want that as part of his legacy?
It's not like we haven't had experience with seeing what happens with massive federal entitlement programs and how they morph into major threats to the nation.
This isn't the 1930s or 1960s when people could pretend that these things could be sustained indefinitely. The writing is now on the wall, with crises for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid looming.
So I dunno what is in our president's mind.
But the following video provides some peeks . . .
When this video got linked on Breitbart and Drudge, the White House was quick to respond and put out the following video by Linda Douglass, who you may remember from her time as an ABC reporter. (An ABC reporter getting a job in a Democratic White House . . . fancy that.)
While I confess that I wasn't pleased that the first video has as many cuts in it as it did, I don't find Ms. Douglass's video to be anything other than handwaving.
She alleges statements being taken out of context, without showing how the statements in the first video were taken out of context.
That won't do.
It's just a slimy political tactic to claim you've been taken out of context and then not provide the original context and demonstrate it.
What she does provide is some recent clips of the president talking about health care, saying reassurring things like if you like your insurance plan or your doctor then you can keep them–clips she says people on the other side of the debate aren't likely to show you. (I did.)
The "out of context" charge also suffered a blow when Breitbart and Drudge linked another video of the 2003 Obama event without a cut in it:
In her video, Ms. Douglass ends with an appeal for people to focus on what the President is saying about health care.
This is more handwaving.
What the President is saying (present tense) about health care isn't sufficient.
The fact is that Obama's previous statements about health care do shed light on his desires and intentions.
And the impression that he is being disingenuous with his present statements is reinforced by his Pinocchio-like style of government, his repeated bait and switch tactics, and his ram-it-through-Congress-before-anyone-including-Congressmen-can-read-and-digest-it behavior.
Ms. Douglass's efforts notwithstanding, there is just no reason to see the President's desire for a "public option" as anything other than a deliberate attempt to get the government into compe
tition with private health insurance companies so it can drive them out of the market and lead to a single payer system.
That is clearly his and his allies' intent, as quotations in the first video show. (The same quotations also disprove the President's assertion that "nobody is talking some government takeover of healthcare"–which is what single payer is.)
Since the American people do not want a single payer system, what we have is the President, again, trying to pull a fast one on the people of his own nation.
It's a disgrace.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
38 thoughts on “White House Handwaving”
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Jimmy, for this post. This proposal is a disaster, and frankly, it scares the willies outa me.
I hope the Americans who are not politically engaged wake up before this travesty becomes part of a bill he signs.
Being taken out of context only matters if it changes the meaning from when it was in context.
Thus, it could be entirely, utterly true to charge “this is out of context!!!”– but untrue to imply that it is, thus, misleading.
Obama and the Dems will literally kill us.
The problem with modern medicine is HMOs. They are quite different from an ordinary insurance companies. Remember they are MANAGED CARE entities. They say what doctor we can see, what hoops we have to go through to see a doctor or obtain treatment or medicines. They require pre-authorizations and they restrict the use of certain medicines and procedures. Most importantly, they bog the system with delays which hurt patients.
HMO horror stories are many. If you don’t like HMOs, you will not like Federal Government managed care even more.
We need to consider and push for alternatives.
We need tax credits to buy our own health insurance from non-profit insurance companies which will really spread the risk rather than HMOs which pay huge salaries to CEOs and dividends to shareholders.
Tax credits, as most know, come right off your income tax owed rather than as a deduction from your income, as does the itemized or standard deductions. Therefore, those who don’t owe any taxes can be given a subsidy to purchase insurance.
Religious organizations, business entities and doctor’s groups could establish non-profit health insurance entities. There would be no shareholder dividends and salaries of executives could be kept reasonable and not based on profits. It is my understanding that some of the early Blue Cross Blue Shields were non-profit.
Other ideas are doctor’s groups establishing clinics which see thirty percent or so of indigent or low payer patients and seventy percent of concierge patients who pay some $1,200.00 a year for unlimited access to the doctors. This has been tried with some success alrady.
Here is another out-of-context statement: If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.
At what cost though? That would be like saying “if you like your Catholic school” you can keep sending your kids there (however, you will now also be paying for public education). I think government-run health care will have the same effect that government-run education has had.
When it comes time to sign up for a health plan through one’s employer or directly, of course most of those who are fairly healthy are going to go with the lowest cost public option. It would mostly be those of comparatively questionable health who would be willing to pay more for responsive and higher quality care of a private plan. This will drive up the cost of the private plan even further until it becomes a less affordable option for more and more people so that only those who are wealthy will be able to keep their current health care plan.
Then we’ll all be stuck complaining about our crappy health care like we’re stuck now complaining about our crappy public schools.
What is the opposite of representative government in action?
It’s not hard to figure out why Obama would want this. Because (a) he’s a committed leftist, and (b) if all works out per his plans, then he’s the one who would get to run everybody’s lives.
God forbid people can pay their medical bills. How horrible it will be when women decide they can afford to have a healthy baby instead of heading straight to the abortion clinic!
“Single payer” is an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one.
God forbid people can pay their medical bills. How horrible it will be when women decide they can afford to have a healthy baby instead of heading straight to the abortion clinic!
And that’s why we must pass federal funding of abortion on demand!
Um… wait…..
Tort reform.
Something has to be done about tort reform.
Does this even touch it?
Hardly.
I was disappointed to see that there seems to be a fair number of Catholics and Catholic organizations supporting this. I never hear anyone bring up the point that this would be a terrible violation of the principle of subsidiarity. This statement of Pope Leo XII from “Rerum Novarum” in relation to socialism comes to mind:
“…the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.”
That would seem to be what this is about. A fellow from the bishop’s conference on the “World Over” last week was concerned about the abortion and euthanasia potential, but then made it pretty clear that aside from that, he had no real problem with the concept. He basically said it’s not fair that some of us have good insurance, and that we should give it up so everyone could have substandard care. He left me with the impression that he thought it was wrong for some people to get such good care. It was really offensive. Where does this love affair of some in the Church with socialism come from?
Where does this love affair of some in the Church with socialism come from? Here.
“Where does this love affair of some in the Church with socialism come from?”
I’d really like to know the answer to that too. Seems like many clergy and religious mistake Social Justice for Social-ism.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that Foxfier is injecting some truth into this political double-talk!
JohnE is right.
Understanding Pres. Obama’s past statements is key in understanding where he’s trying to take the country in the future.
In the White House response, there are clips that show him saying, If you like your plan and you like your doctor, then you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor.
And he also says, If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep your insurance..
Given Pres. Obama’s past statements on the single-payer system, I think that he’s telling the truth … with mental reservations.
Pres. Obama is telling voters “if”.
He also says (in the White House response), We are trying to change what doesn’t work in the system. And he says, The public plan is, I think, a important tool to discipline insurance companies.
Mentally reserve a couple of key intentions: (1) The over-arching plan – that will take maybe up to 20 years to implement – will cause the current proposal to evolve. (2) I’m only talking about this particular version of the plan at this particular time.
Put together the conditional “if” and the reservations, and you come up with a statement like this: “If you still like (and can afford) your previous insurance plan after the new rules have disciplined your insurance company, then you’re free to keep it.”
I believe that Pres. Obama is the most skilled politician at mental reservation that I’ve seen.
Italics off.
industrial strength italics off
Thanks.
I can’t believe typepad hasn’t fixed that yet. Surely if we can put a man on the moon…
I’m reporting you to the U.S. Government via flag@whitehouse.gov. How dare you defy our rulers?
In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care.
…
In 2007, forty-six million Americans were living without health care coverage.
… An estimated 14,000 persons a day are now losing coverage as a result of the recession …
source: US Conference of Catholic Bishops on health care reform
Those who do not believe that health care is a basic human right will probably oppose, in principle, all attempts at providing universal health care.
Those who believe that health care is a human right might disagree with aspects of this particular attempt at universal provision; but they would probably suggest better ways of providing health care for all. Any suggestions for improvements on President Obama’s proposals?
Uncle Joseph, The numbers you have there are rather misleading. Yes, 47 million people are without insurance (NOT without healthcare), but at least 10 million of those are not American citizens (not that they shouldn’t receive healthcare, but I don’t think they should be included in any nationalized health insurance, different provisions should be made for the care and support of immigrants (legal or otherwise), more than 14 million of them are eligible for an existing government program (medicaid, childrens’ insurance programs, etc.) and have failed to sign up, 7.2 million make over 75,000/year and could afford insurance if they chose. The remaining 16 million includes those who were temporarily without insurance because they changed jobs, college kids who prefer to depend on the student health center and spend their money on other things, people who have partial insurance (accident, etc) but not comprehensive, people who don’t want insurance because they don’t believe in modern medicine, people who make between 50,000 and 75,000 a year and might be able to afford coverage if they wanted it, etc. etc.
Citations available here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/insurancestats.htm
Who are the uninsured? By and large, they are working Americans or their family members.
• Eight out 10 of the uninsured are from working families – 70 percent are in families with at least one full-time worker – and more than half are in low-wage earning families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
• More than nine million children are uninsured – and more than 80 percent of them live in households headed by a working adult. President Obama signed a bill reauthorizing the children’s health insurance program on February 4, 2009. This new law should reduce the number of uninsured children.
It seems unjust that immigrants, who are paying tax, are excluded from the benefits of a taxpayer subsidized scheme. More on this from the US Bishops here
No, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, I’m saying we need to start by taking an honest look at the problem rather than using inflated numbers. To begin with, stop equating health insurance with health care. No one is denied basic health care because they cannot pay. Do we need to expand what is considered basic health care? Maybe, but I want to see some research on it first.
Even using health insurance coverage as a meter, find out how many people do not have insurance through no fault of their own, and go from there rather than include millions of people who either don’t want insurance or don’t want it enough to be bothered to make it a priority or even sign up for free coverage. Then consider whether those people are best served by tax-payer funded insurance or by other services, such as more urgent care facilities and free clinics, subsidized payment plans, or non-government programs. Look at lowering medical costs by initiating tort reform and reforming the current medicaid/medicare pricing rules. Instead of just handing taxpayers yet another enormous bill, start by stopping the fraud that is costing the medicare/medicaid programs billions of dollars a year.
Health care is an incredibly important issue, which is why we need to get the right answers instead of shoving through a half-baked, anti-life, socialized scheme that the legislators can’t even be bothered to read. Find a real cure instead of a false cure that’s far worse than the disease.
“Holly, So there’s no problem then?”
You got THAT out of Holly’s post?
Holly wrote (a post which I think is sensible, by the way): Even using health insurance coverage as a meter, find out how many people do not have insurance through no fault of their own,
Ohh, Ohh…me, me..that makes one…
The Chicken
No one is denied basic health care because they cannot pay.
No is denied EMERGENCY care because they can’t pay, but emergency care is not the same as basic health care. find out how many people do not have insurance through no fault of their own
That’s not sufficient. You’d also need to find out how many people are limited in their ability to get health insurance such that they may have insurance but with exclusions, limitations or at a burdensome price, or they chose a well-insured job at XYZ company rather than better work (but less insured) elsewhere.
I’ll grant counting under-insured (though, what counts for that? Not having dental or eye insurance should be reported differently than exclusions for pre-existing conditions and that differently from other limitations…) and those for whom the cost of insurance is overly burdensome (both counted separately of course, not lumped in with uninsured), but I disagree about counting those who choose a job based on the insurance. People work jobs they hate every day because that’s what it takes to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. I don’t see how choosing a job for better insurance should be any different than choosing it for better pay. Sacrifices are part of life and we don’t always get the jobs we want.
The point remains that we need to get the real numbers, identify the actual problems, and base our discussions and possible solutions on that.
People work jobs they hate every day because that’s what it takes to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. I don’t see how choosing a job for better insurance should be any different than choosing it for better pay.
Whether it “should be any different”, it is different. For many people, the choice between a lower paying insured job rather than a better paying uninsured job is not really a financial decision at all, or often, it’s one that cannot be calculated by available numbers. In many cases, a man can end up with a finer roof, better food, more money in the bank, and he and his family may be greater contributers to society in the long run if he takes the uninsured higher paying job. But because he cannot bear the risk individually, and in fact likely doesn’t even know the risk, and because of a pre-existing condition he can’t buy an individual insurance policy for whatever extra pay he’d received from the better paying uninsured job, he does not choose the uninsured job. That’s the state of the present system. So instead, what some propose is a change to the present system such that the man can choose the higher paying job PLUS be insured while working it — regardless of his pre-existing condition or what insurance that particular employer offers or doesn’t offer. The point remains that we need to get the real numbers, identify the actual problems, and base our discussions and possible solutions on that.
We need many things, including to stop dreaming that we’ll ever have everything we need. The fact is that whatever numbers or problems anyone comes up with or has come up with, everyone won’t and doesn’t agree on how to weigh them or that they’re correct or that it’s enough. For some people, there’s enough known already to begin making changes, and for others, there’ll never be enough known. They’ll always want more data and more talk. That’s just how it is.
But there are other ways to deal with the problem of uninsured people then massive government intervention. One problem is that the government won’t let people make suggestions. This is not a real search of discovery for a way to fix health care. It is a draconian forcing of one groups solution.
The Chicken
group’s
One problem is that the government won’t let people make suggestions.
If the people hired servants who won’t listen, then the people’s problem is with themselves. If it helps, I can play the violin.
But there are other ways to deal with the problem of uninsured people than massive government intervention.
such as?
which also keeps in mind:
In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care.
Health CARE is not the issue. Health INSURANCE is. But I’ll bet you knew that.
Indeed, bill, indeed.
What about good old fashioned charity? You know, when people, out of love for one another offer their services? What about those doctors that offer free clinics to people for preventive care and other services?
Insurance is part of the problem. It provides easy money for doctors to be paid for their services (for the most part). This means that doctors can raise their fees because, due to insurance contracts, the insurers will pay the higher fees (or at least a portion of them).
There is no way that government can alleviate this fundamental issue. In nearly every task that government assumes, most notable social security and Medicare/Medicaid, the service deteriorates while the costs sky-rocket. This is in part because of the extensively large bureaucracy, and also in part because of the attitude that taxes provide a nearly unending supply of revenue.
Several proposals could have an impact:
1) Instead of defined benefit plans, offer term-based plans–purchase a plan that will provide 100% coverage for 1 year up to $40,000 or something like that. It would be cheaper than current plans, and cause people to be cautious about which doctors to visit, which could further bring down costs. This puts the responsibility on the individual citizens for keeping their costs down. This could also be used to help older Americans on fixed incomes. Admittedly, their health-care costs are higher, but this could be used to provide something to assist Medicare with (and drive Medicare costs down).
2) Freeing insurance companies from cost-increasing regulations. There is a reason why the same health-insurance policies are double the cost in NJ than they are in PA. It has nothing to do with the companies, but with government-imposed regulations.
3) Creating company-run or family-run cash deposits for medical care is also a viable option. One of my mother’s employers did this and provided for the health-care of the employees quite well, and for a fraction of the cost of buying insurance policies for each employee. Incidentally, this is what some Amish communities do, and it works great for them.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Jimmy, for this post. This proposal is a disaster, and frankly, it scares the willies outa me.
I hope the Americans who are not politically engaged wake up before this travesty becomes part of a bill he signs.
Being taken out of context only matters if it changes the meaning from when it was in context.
Thus, it could be entirely, utterly true to charge “this is out of context!!!”– but untrue to imply that it is, thus, misleading.
Obama and the Dems will literally kill us.
The problem with modern medicine is HMOs. They are quite different from an ordinary insurance companies. Remember they are MANAGED CARE entities. They say what doctor we can see, what hoops we have to go through to see a doctor or obtain treatment or medicines. They require pre-authorizations and they restrict the use of certain medicines and procedures. Most importantly, they bog the system with delays which hurt patients.
HMO horror stories are many. If you don’t like HMOs, you will not like Federal Government managed care even more.
We need to consider and push for alternatives.
We need tax credits to buy our own health insurance from non-profit insurance companies which will really spread the risk rather than HMOs which pay huge salaries to CEOs and dividends to shareholders.
Tax credits, as most know, come right off your income tax owed rather than as a deduction from your income, as does the itemized or standard deductions. Therefore, those who don’t owe any taxes can be given a subsidy to purchase insurance.
Religious organizations, business entities and doctor’s groups could establish non-profit health insurance entities. There would be no shareholder dividends and salaries of executives could be kept reasonable and not based on profits. It is my understanding that some of the early Blue Cross Blue Shields were non-profit.
Other ideas are doctor’s groups establishing clinics which see thirty percent or so of indigent or low payer patients and seventy percent of concierge patients who pay some $1,200.00 a year for unlimited access to the doctors. This has been tried with some success alrady.
Here is another out-of-context statement: If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.
At what cost though? That would be like saying “if you like your Catholic school” you can keep sending your kids there (however, you will now also be paying for public education). I think government-run health care will have the same effect that government-run education has had.
When it comes time to sign up for a health plan through one’s employer or directly, of course most of those who are fairly healthy are going to go with the lowest cost public option. It would mostly be those of comparatively questionable health who would be willing to pay more for responsive and higher quality care of a private plan. This will drive up the cost of the private plan even further until it becomes a less affordable option for more and more people so that only those who are wealthy will be able to keep their current health care plan.
Then we’ll all be stuck complaining about our crappy health care like we’re stuck now complaining about our crappy public schools.
What is the opposite of representative government in action?
It’s not hard to figure out why Obama would want this. Because (a) he’s a committed leftist, and (b) if all works out per his plans, then he’s the one who would get to run everybody’s lives.
God forbid people can pay their medical bills. How horrible it will be when women decide they can afford to have a healthy baby instead of heading straight to the abortion clinic!
“Single payer” is an Orwellian phrase if there ever was one.
God forbid people can pay their medical bills. How horrible it will be when women decide they can afford to have a healthy baby instead of heading straight to the abortion clinic!
And that’s why we must pass federal funding of abortion on demand!
Um… wait…..
Tort reform.
Something has to be done about tort reform.
Does this even touch it?
Hardly.
I was disappointed to see that there seems to be a fair number of Catholics and Catholic organizations supporting this. I never hear anyone bring up the point that this would be a terrible violation of the principle of subsidiarity. This statement of Pope Leo XII from “Rerum Novarum” in relation to socialism comes to mind:
“…the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.”
That would seem to be what this is about. A fellow from the bishop’s conference on the “World Over” last week was concerned about the abortion and euthanasia potential, but then made it pretty clear that aside from that, he had no real problem with the concept. He basically said it’s not fair that some of us have good insurance, and that we should give it up so everyone could have substandard care. He left me with the impression that he thought it was wrong for some people to get such good care. It was really offensive. Where does this love affair of some in the Church with socialism come from?
Where does this love affair of some in the Church with socialism come from?
Here.
Fixed. (I hope.)
“Where does this love affair of some in the Church with socialism come from?”
I’d really like to know the answer to that too. Seems like many clergy and religious mistake Social Justice for Social-ism.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that Foxfier is injecting some truth into this political double-talk!
JohnE is right.
Understanding Pres. Obama’s past statements is key in understanding where he’s trying to take the country in the future.
In the White House response, there are clips that show him saying, If you like your plan and you like your doctor, then you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor.
And he also says, If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep your insurance..
Given Pres. Obama’s past statements on the single-payer system, I think that he’s telling the truth … with mental reservations.
Pres. Obama is telling voters “if”.
He also says (in the White House response), We are trying to change what doesn’t work in the system. And he says, The public plan is, I think, a important tool to discipline insurance companies.
Mentally reserve a couple of key intentions: (1) The over-arching plan – that will take maybe up to 20 years to implement – will cause the current proposal to evolve. (2) I’m only talking about this particular version of the plan at this particular time.
Put together the conditional “if” and the reservations, and you come up with a statement like this: “If you still like (and can afford) your previous insurance plan after the new rules have disciplined your insurance company, then you’re free to keep it.”
I believe that Pres. Obama is the most skilled politician at mental reservation that I’ve seen.
Italics off.
industrial strength italics off
Thanks.
I can’t believe typepad hasn’t fixed that yet. Surely if we can put a man on the moon…
I’m reporting you to the U.S. Government via flag@whitehouse.gov. How dare you defy our rulers?
In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care.
…
In 2007, forty-six million Americans were living without health care coverage.
… An estimated 14,000 persons a day are now losing coverage as a result of the recession …
source: US Conference of Catholic Bishops on health care reform
Those who do not believe that health care is a basic human right will probably oppose, in principle, all attempts at providing universal health care.
Those who believe that health care is a human right might disagree with aspects of this particular attempt at universal provision; but they would probably suggest better ways of providing health care for all. Any suggestions for improvements on President Obama’s proposals?
Uncle Joseph, The numbers you have there are rather misleading. Yes, 47 million people are without insurance (NOT without healthcare), but at least 10 million of those are not American citizens (not that they shouldn’t receive healthcare, but I don’t think they should be included in any nationalized health insurance, different provisions should be made for the care and support of immigrants (legal or otherwise), more than 14 million of them are eligible for an existing government program (medicaid, childrens’ insurance programs, etc.) and have failed to sign up, 7.2 million make over 75,000/year and could afford insurance if they chose. The remaining 16 million includes those who were temporarily without insurance because they changed jobs, college kids who prefer to depend on the student health center and spend their money on other things, people who have partial insurance (accident, etc) but not comprehensive, people who don’t want insurance because they don’t believe in modern medicine, people who make between 50,000 and 75,000 a year and might be able to afford coverage if they wanted it, etc. etc.
Citations available here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/a/insurancestats.htm
Holly,
So there’s no problem then?
I don’t think the US Catholic Bishops are exaggerating the scale of the problem. Their health care backgrounder says
It seems unjust that immigrants, who are paying tax, are excluded from the benefits of a taxpayer subsidized scheme. More on this from the US Bishops here
No, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, I’m saying we need to start by taking an honest look at the problem rather than using inflated numbers. To begin with, stop equating health insurance with health care. No one is denied basic health care because they cannot pay. Do we need to expand what is considered basic health care? Maybe, but I want to see some research on it first.
Even using health insurance coverage as a meter, find out how many people do not have insurance through no fault of their own, and go from there rather than include millions of people who either don’t want insurance or don’t want it enough to be bothered to make it a priority or even sign up for free coverage. Then consider whether those people are best served by tax-payer funded insurance or by other services, such as more urgent care facilities and free clinics, subsidized payment plans, or non-government programs. Look at lowering medical costs by initiating tort reform and reforming the current medicaid/medicare pricing rules. Instead of just handing taxpayers yet another enormous bill, start by stopping the fraud that is costing the medicare/medicaid programs billions of dollars a year.
Health care is an incredibly important issue, which is why we need to get the right answers instead of shoving through a half-baked, anti-life, socialized scheme that the legislators can’t even be bothered to read. Find a real cure instead of a false cure that’s far worse than the disease.
“Holly, So there’s no problem then?”
You got THAT out of Holly’s post?
Holly wrote (a post which I think is sensible, by the way):
Even using health insurance coverage as a meter, find out how many people do not have insurance through no fault of their own,
Ohh, Ohh…me, me..that makes one…
The Chicken
No one is denied basic health care because they cannot pay.
No is denied EMERGENCY care because they can’t pay, but emergency care is not the same as basic health care.
find out how many people do not have insurance through no fault of their own
That’s not sufficient. You’d also need to find out how many people are limited in their ability to get health insurance such that they may have insurance but with exclusions, limitations or at a burdensome price, or they chose a well-insured job at XYZ company rather than better work (but less insured) elsewhere.
I’ll grant counting under-insured (though, what counts for that? Not having dental or eye insurance should be reported differently than exclusions for pre-existing conditions and that differently from other limitations…) and those for whom the cost of insurance is overly burdensome (both counted separately of course, not lumped in with uninsured), but I disagree about counting those who choose a job based on the insurance. People work jobs they hate every day because that’s what it takes to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. I don’t see how choosing a job for better insurance should be any different than choosing it for better pay. Sacrifices are part of life and we don’t always get the jobs we want.
The point remains that we need to get the real numbers, identify the actual problems, and base our discussions and possible solutions on that.
People work jobs they hate every day because that’s what it takes to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. I don’t see how choosing a job for better insurance should be any different than choosing it for better pay.
Whether it “should be any different”, it is different. For many people, the choice between a lower paying insured job rather than a better paying uninsured job is not really a financial decision at all, or often, it’s one that cannot be calculated by available numbers. In many cases, a man can end up with a finer roof, better food, more money in the bank, and he and his family may be greater contributers to society in the long run if he takes the uninsured higher paying job. But because he cannot bear the risk individually, and in fact likely doesn’t even know the risk, and because of a pre-existing condition he can’t buy an individual insurance policy for whatever extra pay he’d received from the better paying uninsured job, he does not choose the uninsured job. That’s the state of the present system. So instead, what some propose is a change to the present system such that the man can choose the higher paying job PLUS be insured while working it — regardless of his pre-existing condition or what insurance that particular employer offers or doesn’t offer.
The point remains that we need to get the real numbers, identify the actual problems, and base our discussions and possible solutions on that.
We need many things, including to stop dreaming that we’ll ever have everything we need. The fact is that whatever numbers or problems anyone comes up with or has come up with, everyone won’t and doesn’t agree on how to weigh them or that they’re correct or that it’s enough. For some people, there’s enough known already to begin making changes, and for others, there’ll never be enough known. They’ll always want more data and more talk. That’s just how it is.
But there are other ways to deal with the problem of uninsured people then massive government intervention. One problem is that the government won’t let people make suggestions. This is not a real search of discovery for a way to fix health care. It is a draconian forcing of one groups solution.
The Chicken
group’s
One problem is that the government won’t let people make suggestions.
If the people hired servants who won’t listen, then the people’s problem is with themselves. If it helps, I can play the violin.
But there are other ways to deal with the problem of uninsured people than massive government intervention.
such as?
which also keeps in mind:
Health CARE is not the issue. Health INSURANCE is. But I’ll bet you knew that.
Indeed, bill, indeed.
What about good old fashioned charity? You know, when people, out of love for one another offer their services? What about those doctors that offer free clinics to people for preventive care and other services?
Insurance is part of the problem. It provides easy money for doctors to be paid for their services (for the most part). This means that doctors can raise their fees because, due to insurance contracts, the insurers will pay the higher fees (or at least a portion of them).
There is no way that government can alleviate this fundamental issue. In nearly every task that government assumes, most notable social security and Medicare/Medicaid, the service deteriorates while the costs sky-rocket. This is in part because of the extensively large bureaucracy, and also in part because of the attitude that taxes provide a nearly unending supply of revenue.
Several proposals could have an impact:
1) Instead of defined benefit plans, offer term-based plans–purchase a plan that will provide 100% coverage for 1 year up to $40,000 or something like that. It would be cheaper than current plans, and cause people to be cautious about which doctors to visit, which could further bring down costs. This puts the responsibility on the individual citizens for keeping their costs down. This could also be used to help older Americans on fixed incomes. Admittedly, their health-care costs are higher, but this could be used to provide something to assist Medicare with (and drive Medicare costs down).
2) Freeing insurance companies from cost-increasing regulations. There is a reason why the same health-insurance policies are double the cost in NJ than they are in PA. It has nothing to do with the companies, but with government-imposed regulations.
3) Creating company-run or family-run cash deposits for medical care is also a viable option. One of my mother’s employers did this and provided for the health-care of the employees quite well, and for a fraction of the cost of buying insurance policies for each employee. Incidentally, this is what some Amish communities do, and it works great for them.