Wow, the left...the people who pride themselves on being jackasses, of assaulting conservative public speakers, is now aghast that Seibulus and Specter got booed while dishonestly answering questions. Pelosi continues to be a moron.
However, ignoring the projection that defines the DNC, let's get to the issues. I came across a pie in the sky list of 10 reasons why we should support Pelosi-Care. First, let me be clear, Obama has shown no leadership in this mess, outside of getting SEIU muscle to intimidate voters. He just wants Congress to pass anything with words "health," "care," and "reform" on it. Let me be clear, Obama was a substandard student who published only one paper. Bill Ayers wrote his books for him, so it's not like Obama has any real intellectual skin in this game. Dr. Jacob Hacker is the archetict for PelosiCare.
To the list:
1. It's good for our health.
2. It costs less and saves money.
3. It will assure high quality health care for all Americans, rich or poor.
4. It's the best choice - morally and economically.
5. It may be a matter of life or death.
6. It will let will let doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork.
7. It will reduce health care disparities.
8. It will eliminate medical debt.
9. It will be good for labor and business.
10. It's what most Americans want - and we can make it happen.
Alright, off the bat, these aren't really that persuasive. Let's revamp the fundamental nature of America because of a few undefineables or a few questionable benefits (er, #6, what?).
I started listing some responses, and the list gets bigger and bigger.
So, let me aggregate here.
I. introThe best refutation of these points is the fact that they're all wrong. Starting with point one...it's good for health. What ever that means. Since our system drives medical research and development and other countries that have adopted the single payer system can't even afford to have enough MRI's or cancer drugs to make their survival rates
equivalent to ours is telling.
However, what the person who wrote this list probably thinks point one refers to is the idea that ObamaCare (which was written by Hacker) focuses on prevention. This is a fallacy. Diseases are age related. You can't take vitamin pills and not die. And government institutionalization of "prevention" is not a good enough reason to do it.
Another little trick is that they want to wean the public off of specialists. That is, you will be sent to general practitioners instead of specialists, and they label it prevention.II. The money, yo!point number two is insanely wrong. the CBO would state otherwise. And people who have checked the CBO's math have stated they've missed the mark by half.
http://city-journal.com/2009/eon0805sp.htmlAgain, you have to believe that (a) the government will finally run something well. and (b) that the underlying free lunch being peddled is real.
III. Low quality for allPoint three is nebulous because it doesn't mean anything. If you look at socialized health care systems, you will see that health care is equal (except for politicians and athletes) because they deny care equally. And you, as a Canadian, would have to fly to America and pay for needed treatment out of your pocket.
What the person who wrote this list appears to refer to is the alleged 45 million uninsured. This is wrong because, well, that number includes self insured, illegal aliens, and people who already qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.
Again, what is the model? Or, what is the problem? The poor don't have access to care? not true. Their care isn't up to the Walt Disney level of personal cryogenic chambers? Sorry, since bending the curve will include denial of care to elderly and other expensive patients, it won't matter. Instead, you will define service down so that everyone's health care is reduced. But we'll all be equally sick. Sorry, not interested.IV. What about the children!!!Point Four...pardon my french, but who the made you the judge of morals. Your economic sense speaks for itself...see point two. See also Europe, Canada, Cuba, etc. Rationing of care, denial of care to elderly, hospital facilities that are incubators of their own diseases.
To quote Mark Steyn:
"What
’s so moral about relieving the citizen of responsibility for his own health care?"
"Smokers in Manchester, England have been refused treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk have been told they’re ineligible for hip and knee replacements...they still have to ration treatment. Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, says there’s nothing wrong with the state forbidding treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices”. And apparently the “pro-choice” types ... are entirely relaxed about the government getting its bureaucratics all over your lymphatics."http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2295/26/V. blah blah blahpoints 5 through 10 are more misconceptions, outright lies, or restatements of points 1-4.
I am also confused as why tort reform isn't part of bending the curve on costs. It's not because they are major DNC contributors?
Seventy-four percent (74%) of voters rate the quality of care they receive as good or excellent. 9% rate it poor.
VI. Get realFinally, for now, stop talking in platitudes. Obama came on the air and talked about unneeded tonsillectomies...what? Is there going to be a government agent between you, the doctors, and your tonsils? That's "let[s] doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork?" Or is it all nonsense and he just was lying his butt off.
How about this, give us a brochure. Like a real insurance company would do. What will the average person lose out on in this deal?
For those of us intellectually invested in this debate, why not point out your model. Is it Massachusetts style, Canada Style, Cuba style? Then, we can say, "well, in Canada, they did this wrong. How do we get around it?"
If the idea's so great, why not deliberate? Why rush it through? The God-King wanted this passed without debate a month ago. That's stealth care, not health care.VII. I have a bridge you can buy...Oh, the hits keep on coming.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.htmlWith respect to points, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, the CBO has today announced that Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs.
"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.
...
"For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual," Elmendorf wrote.VIII. Know the enemyOne thing about the left...or at least spendthrift government types (e.g., Schwarzenegger and California) is that they are money hungry. This plan reflects this because one of the methods it uses to bend the curve is to force all those young people who sign up for minimal or no health insurance coverage to buy the full Cadillac. That is, the young and the poor (because young people are poor since they just got started) will again be forced to subsidize the old. Or they get taxed out the wazoo if they forget to sign up.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/5 specific points made:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
...
5. Freedom to choose your doctors...
"the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians..."IX. but, really, what about the children?In case the statist who demands free aspirin reads this far and thinks to herself, well, Obama said that those who are opposed to health care have no alternative plan (my plan, BTW, tort reform, overhaul of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP to provide bottom floor service to those who fall off the map, every one else has to act like an adult (this is America, dammit, take care of
yourself)), let it be known that:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwZDRlMDkzMTA5NTdiMTlkZjhjZjMwZTdkNjhiYzM=
"Press is wrong: Republicans have put several health reforms on the table, from the bipartisan plan sponsored by Sens. Robert Bennett (R., Utah) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore), to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wisc.) comprehensive entitlement- and tax-reform plan, to Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R., S.C.) plan to allow consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines. These Republican plans would do more to “bend the cost curve” than congressional Democrats’ proposals, all of which push costs in the wrong direction."X. What about the working class?Another fallacy with respect to points 2, 4, and 9. I just came across this as I was waiting for a print job...
http://poorandstupid.com/2009_08_09_chronArchive.asp#3293351309667487047The highlights are how the plan...as structured...the one that the God-King, bringer of the Sun and leveler of the seas wanted passed as is, weeks ago without debate:
"the financial shock of expanded coverage would be much larger and would drive wages down for nearly the bottom 40 percent of the earnings distribution."
In English, this study found that the effects of Pelosi care (to be honest, Obama never wrote any legislation) is that wages of lower-skilled employees would be smashed.XI. Watch out for big tonsilWow, aggregator is my middle name. WRT to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, I found this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuekTcSFfMApparently, the Oregon model shows what happens when special interests can get between you and your doctor and your money...i.e., how Obama will prevent you from being victim of big tonsil...
So, how do we prevent
politically popular causes blocking out treatment for more run of the mill and less slogan friendly illnesses...keep the government out of the decision matrix (in the real world, this means keeping the government out of the money that is spent on health care).More to follow.
quote "Irish support: Kennedy with Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams - for years the Democrat was seen as a cheerleader for American Irish supporters of the IRA"
