You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
From Awful to Worse
2009-12-13
For most of this year, the liberal Holy Grail has been the so-called "public option"--a new government-run insurance program offered to working age people and their families, much as Medicare is available to senior citizens. But, despite a full-court press by liberal activists, the idea has foundered on its complete lack of sense.

The only plausible reason to put more people in government-run insurance would be cost control, but no one believes the federal government now knows how to control costs sensibly. Liberals say a new insurance bureaucracy should be given the power to use Medicare's price-setting and regulatory structure to cut costs. But that structure has never successfully controlled Medicare spending because price-setting doesn't address volume--and so creates an incentive for more and more spending. Indeed, the Obama administration admits that Medicare's current arbitrary bureaucratic payment systems are a prime source of the inefficiency and inequity throughout the entire health sector, driving up costs for everyone. That's why the president and his team are proposing to set up an independent Medicare commission to straighten out the mess. They know they don't know how to do it and can only hope someone else does. So if Medicare is a big part of the problem, how is its model the solution?
The whole objective of this year's healthcare pie fight has been to get that public option in place, which then gives the opportunity to grab the entire 17 percent of the economy -- and still growing -- healthcare boodle. That much money represents one hell of a lot of sweetheart contracts and a lot of fine-detail control of the lives of us hoi polloi. If they really wanted to extend healthcare to the masses it'd be cheaper and set up a network of Public Health Service hospitals to provide care to the indigent. But we don't do charity hospitals anymore, unlike our brutish forebears, who had them up until the mid-20th century.
Posted by:Fred

#6  You wanna straighten out MediCare? SCRAP IT!!!
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2009-12-13 16:54  

#5  If more and more doctors bail out of medicine, there will be fewer doctors to practice. Service will most likely be poorer. It is likely that lawsuits will increase as a result. The trial lawyers will love this health care bill if it passes.
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-12-13 15:03  

#4  Tort has become an alternative that never would have reached this parasitic level if the community had policed itself in the view of the public which are the arbitrators in tort jury trials.

Very well said and while I partially agree it's very important to note that in practice juries are overwhelmingly likely to err on the side of fleecing the apparent deep pocket in order to ensure that the poor(er) party is not overly burdened. Until and unless we can erase this bias in the jury pool the only workable tort reform that will be possible will, unfortunately, merely cap damage awards and/or allow some of the medical profession's bad apples to skate.
Posted by: AzCat   2009-12-13 12:31  

#3  "The Plan" does nothing to solve any of the alledged problems.

It does not address costs - in fact it vastly increases it with a huge, expensive, government bureaucracy which adds nothing to the delivery of healthcare. My guess is that it would be far cheaper to go out and buy - at market rates - Congressonal-class insurance for those who don't have it.

It is not 'universal coverage'. About half of those who don't have insurance now - still won't have insurance. And don't forget that it _will_ decrease availability - dumping a whole bunch of people on the system while 30% (and up to half) the Doctors quit practicing isn't going to help.

Unfortunately there will be 'Death Panels' - only they will be hidden, impersonal, and hidden by a vast bureaucracy (that's what its really there for isn't it?) and unchallangable 'polices', 'guidelines', and 'regulations' will be their means. The 'false' claims the Democrats (and Zero) are making about insurnace companies will seem tame by comparison.

And once in place the Democrats will use this to keep the peasants (that's you and me folks) on a short leash.

That is the true goal of this 'universal healthcare' they are imposing on us.

Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-12-13 09:31  

#2  Why don't we relieve the medical community of the onerous costs of this?

While I too support tore reform, it must be matched by effective and open accountability in the medical community in cleaning their own house of incompetent and dangerous practitioners. Tort has become an alternative that never would have reached this parasitic level if the community had policed itself in the view of the public which are the arbitrators in tort jury trials.

IF the government had run Indian Health, Veterans and Military medical, and Medicare effectively and efficiently, do you really believe that there would be major objections to this national health care? The reality is that the government has failed on both counts to deliver. Maybe the lib/left should grasp that little concept. The government is as imperfect as any non-government agent in delivering health care.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-12-13 09:10  

#1  I find it ironic, and all too telling, that the single biggest problem with healthcare related insurance is not touched anywhere.

Where is government control and cost cutting proposals for MALPRACTICE INSURANCE????? Why don't we relieve the medical community of the onerous costs of this?

Oh, that's right, tort lawyers are the Dems biggest money pit.
Posted by: AlanC   2009-12-13 08:12  

00:01