Search First Things

68 Comments

tim maguire
July 21st, 2009 | 12:46 pm | #1

Wesley Smith’s remarks remind me of the tax code. If you’re ever looked into it, you know. Every provision refers to other provisions that you need to understand in order to understand the one you’re reading. But those provisions in turn refer to other provisions, and so it goes forever. You can never fully research a tax issue, the best you can do is venture deep enough into the web of cross-references that you figure you’ve probably covered the important points.

If you are satisfied with the efficiency and reliability, the predictability and sensibility of the tax system, then you will probably like national health care.

outside of the military, government doesn’t run many things well

No surprise. The military is one of the few government departments where efficiency is not a significant concern.

EJ Hill
July 21st, 2009 | 1:04 pm | #2

The sentence, “…because outside of the military, government doesn’t run many things well, at all.” is, of course, a half-truth. There is a reason the term FUBAR (F-ed Up Beyond All Recognition) originated in the military.

The only reason our military does as well as it does is because at the point the ship hits the sand operations become decentralized and the battlefield commander, the squad leader and the individual soldier are empowered to do what’s necessary.

In WWII the Germans were the superior soldier with the superior technology. They were also paralyzed by their centralized top-down command structure. And that’s the mindset we are duplicating in Washington. Nothing will get done until the uber-minister approves it. God help us all1

shanasfo
July 21st, 2009 | 1:14 pm | #3

If what I heard is true – and how can we find out for sure when the thing is 1000 pages long, Ted Kennedy is exempt from this abysmal care, and so are all members past and present of Congress.

They love this plan so much, they don’t plan on being part of it.

One representative in Arkansas wants to stop that nonsense now:

Stephanie
July 21st, 2009 | 1:16 pm | #4

You do know, don’t you, that your private insurance already rations care and denies treatment for some illnesses because paying for them would hurt their profit margin?

[Hmmmmm...that suggests that - since the gov't has NO profit margin...nothing should be rationed! -admin]

tim maguire
July 21st, 2009 | 1:31 pm | #5

Stephanie, be honest now, does that response convince even you that this is a good bill?

What I mean is, hypothetically speaking, would you, absent that “fact”, be inclined to oppose this bill, but, because of that “fact” (setting aside for the moment whether it is even true in the way you intend it), you support this bill and think it is a good way, maybe even the best possible way, to provide health care.

Andrew B
July 21st, 2009 | 1:36 pm | #6

I am not at all conspiracy-minded. I don’t believe in UFO’s, the Loch Ness Monster or that the Bavarian Illuminati control our destinies. I even believe that JFK was killed by an angry loner with a rifle.

That being said, I cannot help but feel that there is something at work here beyond mere typical governmental inefficiency. This whole mess just comes off as too…calculated. Everything will now be so complicated that only “experts” can even think of doing the work. We will evolve a new priestly class, and the rest of us will be expected to go meekly about our work and bring them offerings and tribute. Should get REAL interesting when 20 million boomers are simultaneously rejected for dialysis…

Kris, in New England
July 21st, 2009 | 2:04 pm | #7

I have a few health issues that – under Obamacare – I could potentially be denied coverage in the future. Nothing life-threatening, but chronic and treatable but not curable.

I also just had a long-needed total hip replacement at age 45; which means in about 20 years I’ll need a revision surgery. Under Obamacare it’s likely I’d be denied that surgery because I’d be too old to bother with the expense.

Oh yeah, I’m loving the idea of Obamacare. /sarc

[Funnily enough - we've reached a point where 65-70 is not really considered "oooold" anymore. Once Ocare comes into effect, that will no longer be true. -admin]

s1c
July 21st, 2009 | 2:11 pm | #8

When I was in the Navy we used to have discussions about why the US had only lost a couple of nuclear submarines while the USSR had lost many more in the same time period. I always stressed there was a difference in the mind set of the government – The US believed in the sailors to make smart decisions and valued their contributions and training. They wanted to keep you alive. USSR looked at their sailors as just a replaceable part.

This health care bill just makes you a replaceable part (except we are going to fund abortion so, we are also going to restrict the replaceable parts available).

Jessica
July 21st, 2009 | 2:15 pm | #9

+J.M.J.+
The August/September 2009 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review has an article entitled “The Supreme Court, eugenics and the Eucharist”. Although it is primarily about eugenics, it does have a correlation to rationing healthcare in that they both have their roots in American pragmatism. The quote from the article that stuck in my head the most was: “Those who argue that eugenics does the community a favor by reducing the number of individuals at risk miss the central point: the common good is never truly achieved at the expense of family bonds.”

newton
July 21st, 2009 | 2:26 pm | #10

My dear Abuelita (“grandmother”) will turn 97 next January, Good Lord willing. Were it not by medical care, she would not be with us still. Yet, some Democrat bureaucrat will soon decide that Ted Kennedy is more “worthy” of saving than the matriarch to an entire family that now has, including herself, five generations. Mine is not a famous family by a long shot, and we don’t intend to be. But for some bureaucrat to tell us that we should get rid of Abuelita just because she’s “a burden to the health care system”…

Logan’s Run, anyone?

“Should get REAL interesting when 20 million boomers are simultaneously rejected for dialysis…”

Dialysis? Just watch after they are told they can no longer buy Viagra or Cialis!

dry valleys
July 21st, 2009 | 2:59 pm | #11

I’ve spent my entire life living under evil fascist healthcare of doom. I have several things to say:

If it’s really as bad as American right-whingers say it is, why is it that virtually no one wants to privatise the NHS? The politician who advocated dismantling it would be absolutely slaughtered in an election, which is why not even Thatcher tried.

A few malcontents will always be found to complain, & hyped up by the right-wing press. Most people have some objection to some aspect of their health care. But they advocate making it better, not selling it off. If you want to see dissatisfaction, why not look at the myriad complaints against the American status quo, including from people who are deemed unworthy because they can’t pay?

Fascist, Bolshevik health care doesn’t mean doing away with private schemes. We have a lot of private healthcare schemes that people are welcome to join if they can pay for them. Yes they have shorter waiting lists etc. because so much money goes into them, it’s hardly a surprise, just like it’s hardly stunning that private schools get top results when they have affluent pupils, small class sizes & the best teachers.

If you don’t want Obamacare then stump up for your own provision.

Mutnodjmet
July 21st, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #12

We need to get the word out about the Senate verison’s Community Transformation Plans, which Kennedy wrote.

Here is a synopsis: COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION PLANS

A summary:

One of the things she reported is that the Senate version of the proposed healthcare reforms had bureaucratic organizations to implement “Community Transformation Plans”. Teams that would assess the individuals that make up each community and begin drafting plans for healthier living. The bill, with the Orwellian name of the Affordable Health Choices Act, would direct money to “community organizations” so they could promote government health care and tailor citizens’ diet and exercise programs healthy lifestyles — based on their opinion of what constitutes such lifestyles. In a nutshell, American lifestyles would be dictated by “Community Transformers”.

dry valleys
July 21st, 2009 | 3:26 pm | #13

We are almost certain to have a right-wing government after the next election. Senior Conservatives say they will cut spending, & the majority of people accept this as necessary, including me (though I’d probably take a differnet view to them over where exactly the axe should fall).

But they have explicitly pledged not to cut NHS spending. Why, if it’s so bad, are they running scared of making this argument? Because the ordinary voters want their healthcare to be preserved, to the chagrin of bollock-brained libertarians.

SjB
July 21st, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #14

I think C.S. Lewis put it best:

“I fully embrace the maxim… that ‘all power corrupts.’ I would go further. The loftier the pretensions of the power, the more meddlesome, inhuman, and oppressive it will be.”

ricki
July 21st, 2009 | 3:59 pm | #15

I am horrified by the idea that my parents (both in their 70s and, at least now, in decent health (thank God for that) would be required to meet regularly with a doctor or nurse to discuss how they want to die and what might suggest that the end should be hastened, or at the very least, care denied so it isn’t slowed down.

It’s so cold. It turns my stomach.

And I expect they will also quietly include a similar provision where parents of severely disabled children (if such children are even permitted to be born) are forced to meet with a doctor regularly to discuss “end of life” issues for the child.

To me, it seems the idea is “We’re going to plant the seed of an idea, and keep watering it.” Luckily my parents are strong-willed people and would not believe they had a “duty” to die.

And what about the wonderful faithful people who are doctors – like my dad’s lovely internist? How could they live with themselves having to dispense such advice. I don’t know Dr. P. (my dad’s doctor) all that well, but from what I know of her, she would be appalled – perhaps even quit medicine – if she were told to do this

Katherine
July 21st, 2009 | 4:07 pm | #16

I have had “Obamacare” — i.e. Canadian style, single payer, government health insurance — for years. Its called Medicare. I remember what it was like before LBJ signed the Medicare bill. I would never want to go back to those days. It was very bad for the elderly.

Kris, in New England
July 21st, 2009 | 4:11 pm | #17

Fascist, Bolshevik health care doesn’t mean doing away with private schemes. We have a lot of private healthcare schemes that people are welcome to join if they can pay for them.

Actually, in Obamacare it does mean just that.

As the provision is written in Obamacare (on page 16 of the 1,000+ page document), as soon as an American faces a change in employment or their current employer decides to change health care plans – they will no longer have access to private insurance. They will be forced onto the public plan (government-run) as that will be the only option.

This will spell the death-knell for private insurance in this country. As more and more people drop out of private enrollments, costs of private insurance will skyrocket to the point where no one will be able to afford them. Once that happens – private insurance will go the way of the dinosaurs.

It’s not a matter of having a choice – the choice will be taken away from us. And in the process, the middle class in this country will be paying for it thru increased taxes. Small businesses won’t be able to afford to stay in business with the 8% penalty tax that Obamacare will levy upon them if they don’t offer health care to their employees.

All the while Obama is forcing this thru without anyone having time to read what is really in it – including himself. When asked about the private insurance provision in his own plan Obama had to answer that he didn’t know that particular provision.

No one has a clear understanding of this thing – they keep adding provisions and earmarks without anyone knowing what the other is doing.

The Blue Dog Dems are risking their political careers by standing fast and saying no. I never thought I’d say this about a Dem – but more power to them.

p
July 21st, 2009 | 4:24 pm | #18

ricki said “And I expect they will also quietly include a similar provision where parents of severely disabled children (if such children are even permitted to be born) are forced to meet with a doctor regularly to discuss “end of life” issues for the child.”

Yes, indeed, will those children be allowed to be born? In a day and age when some 80+ % of Down babies are killed before drawing breath, will the unwilling mothers be forced into the invasive mid-pregnancy testing that all over-35 women are now pressured to consent to? If those test results aren’t optimal by government standards, will pregnancy/birth care be denied? Will births outside the government system (e.g. home births) be disallowed and those children somehow disenfranchised or stigmatized?

You know the answers to those questions. We aren’t China, but money can be used to bring about similar outcomes to what is happening in China.

Jenny H
July 21st, 2009 | 4:25 pm | #19

Health care isn’t one size fits all like potus thinks. Have seen w/parents that you have to try other drugs or dosages or other procedures at times to get the one that works on a person. Fear that this kind of puzzle solving will be stopped & you have this you get this, doesn’t work, well, we tried!

EJ Hill
July 21st, 2009 | 4:48 pm | #20

Why they don’t get rid of the NHS in the UK?
It’s not because it’s good but because people have lived a lifetime without preparing for any alternative. They have, in a very real sense, been bought just like any slave.

That’s why you’ll never see a REAL secessionist movement in any US state. After our government handlers explain to the boomers that if they leave the Union they also leave behind their Social Security “investment,” any movement would collapse like a cheap lawn chair.

Once you’ve sold your soul to the devil he’s not bloody like it to give it back…

dry valleys
July 21st, 2009 | 5:01 pm | #21

Ah, so the general public are just mindless sheeple. Glad we’ve cleared that up.

[The left and the right take turns saying that. -admin]

dry valleys
July 21st, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #22

Yes, they do. But it seems to be mainly libertarians enraged at people’s failure to support dismantling the state, & persistent support for public services.

Look, I’m clearly not at my best in debates such as this. But I do get quite irate, not to mention confused, when the American right speaks as if this country were somehow a living hell. I am in fact more open to reforming health care than most Britons. But the fact that they regard their health service as sacrosanct, which they plainly do, surely gives the lie to those who wield it as an argument against Obamacare.

You really had best hurry up because I very strongly suspect that if these policies are implemented they will gain mass support very soon. This could be a knockout blow to Republicans. Whatever you think about Obama’s agenda, it’s not as if he lacks skill as a politician. The man’s ability to wrongfoot opponents is breathtaking, which even his foes are going to have to concern. There’s no underestimating him… & if you’re an opponent you’d say “no underestimating the threat of him”.

Mark
July 21st, 2009 | 5:49 pm | #23

Unfunded liabilities for Medicare/Medicaid:
$37.5 trillion

Unfunded liabilities for prescription benefits:
$8.5 trillion

U. S. unfunded liabilities debt per citizen:
$186,372

Let’s have a new government benefit and add some more to the unfunded liabilities! Then eventually we can de-prioritze or euthanize the body politic, since we’ll be in need of maximum rationing, i.e., no services.

Makes sense to me!

See u.s.debtclock.org

Andrew B
July 21st, 2009 | 6:45 pm | #24

Dry Valleys raises an interesting point–If European style healthcare is so bad, why do so few people want to change it?

I can only hazard a guess by posing a similar question–If American education is so awful (and it is), why do so few people want to change it?

I don’t really know the answer, but I suppose it is a combination of inertia, fear, confusion, propaganda, laziness and muddled good intentions.

My education (1968-1984) was vastly worse than my father’s (1925-1940). My childrens’ education (1991-2009) was worse still. I fear that, in some distant age, my grandchild will be saying the same thing about their healthcare. But the stakes are significantly higher.

Gina
July 21st, 2009 | 6:57 pm | #25

The fact that this plan is being spearheaded by an administration that hires a eugenicist as its “science czar” should put all the context you need to such news.

I’ve finally accepted, dropping all sense of denial, that what is happening here is an attempt to make a fundamental shift in our government structure and social outlook. It is not a case of conventional liberals and conventional Republicans duking it out, but rather the New Deal reborn, the last gasp (if we are lucky) of 20th century totalitarian progressivism. And the administration is trying to foist it on us so quickly that we don’t have time to wake up and say nay.

I think it’s going to backfire, but what worries me is that education is such that the younger generations are completely indoctrinated and out of touch with our own Constitution and traditions, to say nothing of critical thinking, the examination of rhetoric, and such virtues as personal responsibility and personal pride.

Gina
July 21st, 2009 | 7:03 pm | #26

If it’s really as bad as American right-whingers say it is, why is it that virtually no one wants to privatise the NHS?

Not to be glib, but you also have a monarchy. We gave up that sort of thing about 230 years ago. We also never had an empire.

Americans are different, America is different, and most of us want to stay that way, thank you. I would rather go bankrupt than have government bureaucrats telling me what medical treatments I can and can’t have. As for this current administration, it is so corrupt and inept that I wouldn’t take a handout from them if they dropped a pile of C notes on my doorstep from the back of a moving van.

Western Chauvinist
July 21st, 2009 | 7:29 pm | #27

Thomas Sowell helps to clarify this issue at NRO:

He says, “Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years — repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration, and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?

Refusing to pay the costs is not the same as bringing down the cost. That is why price controls create these problems. When developing a new pharmaceutical drug costs roughly a billion dollars, you are either going to pay the billion dollars or cause people to stop spending a billion dollars to develop new drugs.”

This is why nearly all the new drugs, treatments and technologies are coming out of the U.S. We pay for our medical care – and we pay a lot. One radiological group I know of in Toledo Ohio has more MRI machines than the whole country of Canada. And it’s a good thing because they’re seeing lots of Canadians.

It may not be the only factor, but one reason most Britons may be happy with the NHS is that when they are asked about it, they’re healthy. Canadians say the same about their system, but when they get sick, they come to the U.S. if they can.

I may not have the numbers completely right, but I remember reading that Britain and Poland have about the same cancer survival rate (both much lower than the U.S.). However, Britain spends six times (?) more on its national plan than Poland. We must decide whether our health care system is about saving lives or saving money. But, clearly, under Obamacare we’ll do neither very well. Even the CBO of a Democrat-controlled congress recognizes this.

John Bey
July 21st, 2009 | 8:56 pm | #28

Just face the facts that big pharma and medical insurance companies don’t want any change at all. They are having too much fun telling everyone that any plan that the government comes up with, from any side, will be no good for anyone. After all, if you were having as much fun, making as much money as they were, would you want anything to change??? Nah.

Obamacare is the silent FOCA « Jim Blazsik
July 21st, 2009 | 9:02 pm | #29

[...] Obamacare: Kennedy lives; Grandma dies – UPDATED – The Anchoress [...]

EJ Hill
July 21st, 2009 | 9:03 pm | #30

Leave it to the great Mark Steyn to illuminate:

“One of the points I make in the current NR is that, if health-care “systems” are so critical to your health, why is there an entirely negligible difference in outcomes?

“Life expectancy in the European Union 78.7 years; life expectancy in the United States 78.06 years; life expectancy in Albania 77.6 years; life expectancy in Libya, 76.88 years; life expectancy in Bosnia & Herzegovina, 78.17 years. Once you get on top of childhood mortality and basic hygiene, everything else is peripheral – margin-of-error territory. Maybe we could get another six months by adopting EU-style socialized health care. Or we could get another six weeks by reducing the Lower 48 to rubble in an orgy of bloodletting, which seems to have done wonders for Bosnian longevity… Even within the United States, even within the Medicare system, there are regions that offer twice as much “health care” per patient – twice as many check-ups, pills, tests, operations – for no discernible variation in outcome.”

Obama: Empathy for the Court But Not For Elderly in Healthcare : Stop The ACLU
July 21st, 2009 | 9:33 pm | #31

[...] The Anchoress: This regime is a very controlling machine, but life itself is a very uncontrollable proposition, and thank God for that. Life throws us curveballs, when all we want is a slider. But if we don’t duck and dodge, if we decide to hang in and take our swings at the messy challenges life throws at us, we will generally look back and say, “it wasn’t what I’d planned or what I’d hoped for, but I’m glad that pitch came my way.” [...]

becbeq
July 21st, 2009 | 9:33 pm | #32

This worries me as I’m the mother of a special needs child. He has autism, is bright as a button, loves computers. He may very well design robots or bridges someday. But since he has autism, I worry at some point, if he needed life saving medical care, it would be denied under this plan and this science czar.

And, dry valley, folks won’t be able to buy into a private system once this plan is out of the chute. Investors Business Daily actually started reading the plan – 16 pages until tthey found an eye opener.

“It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.”

Just Shut Up and Take Your Pill « Obi’s Sister
July 21st, 2009 | 9:55 pm | #33

[...] is this Congress trying to squash our property rights and mobility, they are intent on squashing our quality of life as well. According to the Socialist’s R Us playbook, a demoralized and weakened population is [...]

Just Shut Up and Take Your Pill - Obis_Sister’s blog - RedState
July 21st, 2009 | 9:58 pm | #34

[...] is this Congress trying to squash our property rights and mobility, they are intent on squashing our quality of life as well. According to the Socialist’s R Us playbook, a demoralized and weakened population is [...]

Gretchen
July 21st, 2009 | 10:21 pm | #35

My ex-husband is very ill with cancer. His youngest child is about 17 (four kids still at home). He is only 57. The doctors say it is just a matter of time. To him and to his wife and children, what time is left is precious. He is having experimental treatments. He wants to live and be there for his family as long as possible. I can’t imagine what his situation would be like under Obamacare.

dry valleys
July 22nd, 2009 | 4:15 am | #36

US teen pregnancy and syphilis rates rose sharply during Bush’s presidency

See also the rates of poverty, unemployment, welfare dependency, single parenthood etc. in godly red states- obvious to anyone who sees the world as it is rather than as social cons want it to be.

If policy-makers had consulted the evidence rather than mythical beings, this could have been avoided.

Further the rising number of “pro-government conservatives”, & unemployed Republicans who are in no mood to be hectored about how evil & socialist they are for wanting some form of basic sustenance.

Those who gloatingly link to polls about Obama’s popularity slipping don’t deign to mention that their party does a lot worse in all of them, & indeed why would anyone want to vote for Steele, Jindal, etc?

Kris, in New England
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:31 am | #37

If European style healthcare is so bad, why do so few people want to change it?

Because Europeans have never had anything different.

What I want to know is – why is the government-run option the only one being talked about as a real fix to the health care crisis in this country?

To answer that question we need more texture around the claims that there are 46 million people in the US without health care. The CBO and an independent study from Blue Cross/Blue Shield provides it:

—First of all, if you go without health care for any reason for even 24 hours – you are counted in the 46 million. A 2 week gap in a job? You are considered without health care.
—More than 14 million uninsured Americans are already eligible for health insurance through Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
—More than 13 million uninsured adults and families have incomes of $50,000 or more, and many have access to affordable healthcare coverage.
—Approximately 5.7 million uninsured adults are “short-term uninsured,” perhaps between jobs or recent college graduates.
—Fifty-four percent of low-wage workers in firms with fewer than 10 workers do not have coverage.

In fact, no American is without access to health care – because no emergency room in the country can refuse care due to lack of insurance.

And yes, we do need to reform health care. But it doesn’t have to be a full-on government controlled option for everyone.

Obama said during his campaign that if you liked your current insurance, you can keep it. Yet now there is a provision in the bill that makes that impossible. Why the change?

Because Obama and his minions want to force socialism on this country in every way they can. Lie, cheat, steal – whatever it takes for them.

If they really want to reform health care, they should start with Medicaid and Medicare – because they are nearly bankrupt and without reform of these 2 monoliths, government-run health care will be doomed before it gets started.

Ramming one thing down the throats of this country, when current indicators are that fully 90% of its citizens like their health care just the way it is – is to ignore the very people who these politicians are working for – us.

Kris, in New England
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:38 am | #38

US teen pregnancy and syphilis rates rose sharply during Bush’s presidency

This of course can’t be due in part to the increased media attention paid to amoral celebrities and other famous people who continue to have “baby daddies” rather than pursue and more traditional approach to conception – getting married. It can’t be because the media glamorizes people who have children without the benefit of at least a committed relationship – like the Angelina Jolie’s of the world.

Of course not – everything is former President GW Bush’s fault.

Gayle Miller
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:44 am | #39

We have to contact our elected representatives and lay out for them the consequences if they vote for this EVIL piece of legislation! As in unemployment in less than 2 years. And we need to start boxing Zero into a corner where he has no wiggle room to continue to lord it over the American people as though he is our king instead of our EMPLOYEE!

Gayle Miller
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:46 am | #40

Incidentally, a dear friend’s husband was diagnosed about 2 months earlier than Senator Kennedy with the exact same cancer. His oral chemotherapy runs $16,000 per month! Mark is the beloved grandfather and father of a large family and is cherished by them and by the family’s friends. Under this evil health care plan, that wouldn’t be worth consideration!

dbaty
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:47 am | #41

be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.

This section troubles me deeply. I lived in Oregon when they passed their “Death with Dignity” bill. “Death with Dignity” is just another euphemism for government sponsored suicide and, as someone who just entered their 50’s with parents in their 80’s, I don’t want the government encouraging my or their deaths because we are “old”. We want to live and have a lot of life still in us.

Western Chauvinist
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:59 am | #42

Exactly right, Kris. Really, there is no such thing as someone not having health care in America, because anyone who can’t afford a private plan is eligible for Medicaid. So, we’re to dump the whole system for single payer rather than fixing the problem of enrolling those who qualify into the existing system? Only the ideological “never let a crisis go to waste” left can appreciate this plan.

Here are two quick ways to improve the current system:
1) reform tort law so that “loser pays”. This would drastically reduce the number of frivolous medical malpractice suits which are almost all settled out of court by doctors and hospitals to avoid expensive litigation and which drive up the cost of malpractice insurance thus increasing the cost of health care.

2) Put public “servants” (I use the term loosely) on the public plan. Especially Congress and to include Social Security and all the public “entitlements”. Nothing would “bring it home” to legislators like having to live under the systems they devise for the rest of us.

Gina
July 22nd, 2009 | 11:31 am | #43

Just face the facts that big pharma and medical insurance companies don’t want any change at all.

And progressives want “change” for change’s sake. Your logic founders on reality, however. Insurance may be unhappy by the government threatening their industry- wouldn’t you be?- but big pharm is already in bed with the government. Why wouldn’t they want even greater promiscuity? They’re no doubt salivating at the opportunity to lobby for national mandates for their products. Look at how Merck tried to lobby for state mandates for their HPV vaccine for cervical cancer. If a committe of federal government bureaucrats is the only one making medical decisions for the whole country, why, that makes life much simpler for the lobbyists.

Another troubling provision, besides those mentioned regarding private insurance and elderly “you haven’t died yet?” appointments, is the one mandating home visits for households with children. Progressives have long been trying to get this one. “Public health” will be the rubric under which they will try to insert the state ever more invasively into our lives. It’s for the children, you see!

Private individuals and families are the greatest bulwarks against state tyranny. The only time I want the feds showing up at my door saying “we’re here to help” is if a nuclear bomb just dropped; even then, they would likely be there to steal, not give. Obamacare brings the federal government into the very sanctum of every American’s private life. We need to very firmly tell them to stay out.

Gina
July 22nd, 2009 | 11:41 am | #44

Fascist, Bolshevik health care doesn’t mean doing away with private schemes. We have a lot of private healthcare schemes that people are welcome to join if they can pay for them.

One more comment to our sarcastic British friend: I have no doubt that the rich will always be able to buy what they want, when they want it. Obama himself, as well as Congressional Democrats, admit that they won’t be partaking of the wonders of Obamacare.

The question is why the bulk of the American populace, 80% of whom are quite satisfied with our health care as it is, should be forced to go on welfare for the sake of the utopian vision of a very few. The administration’s own experts say that it will only reach some of the uninsured and that overall health costs will still continue to rise. The losers, as usual, would be the working stiffs who pay their taxes and would be forced to give up health plans we like to go into Uncle Sam HMO.

dry valleys
July 22nd, 2009 | 12:00 pm | #45

Kris in New England, firstly I believe few European countries had health care before World War Two, & it was introduced because the health of the countries was so woeful. The original welfare state was introduced in this country just before 1914. One of the main reasons was that those volunteering to fight in the Boer War & other conflicts were unfit soldiers because their health was so appalling.

I think, as much as any right-winger, that capitalist prosperity has driven up standards of health & wealth. I know of no one who wants to do away with markets, & if they exist I disagree with them. Funnily enough, at home I’m only seen as being on the moderate left & many leftists refuse to acknowledge me as being one of them at all, because I’m not a socialist, yet here I am the odd one out

As for that link, it actually points to evidence of Republican policies failing. I do not blame Bush for everything. I think he was right to go into Afghanistan &, whatever the rights & wrongs of the initial Iraq invasion, I think the surge was necessary & might come through. I neither hated McCain nor lauded Obama.

But one of my big things is in being socially liberal (which is the reason I oppose Islamism, which I consider right-wing). & I really do think socially conservative policies on the “war on drugs”, abstinence, faith-based policies & what have you don’t work. I like to think that link, & others which are accessible from the likes of Andrew Sullivan, make a solid case in this respect.

As for celebrity, the celebrity cult has been going on for some time. I despise it utterly. But I think it is right-wing individualism & consumerism that is behind dumbing down. Consider, for example, the Rupert Murdoch empire, which is clearly on the right.

dry valleys
July 22nd, 2009 | 12:06 pm | #46

Unfortunately I hit enter submit by mistake. I will now resume

The links between Murdoch & Thatcher, & the general right-wing support for this sort of shite, is known. Right-wingers blame liberalism for social problems, but the question remains as to why most indicators of all that is bad are worst in red states.

I don’t actually mean to be sarcastic, rude or whatever. I am glad that someone so completely opposed to the prevailing tone of this blog is even allowed to comment at all! But I really do feel that the language being used is well over the top & I struggle to engage with it.

I

["I am glad that someone so completely opposed to the prevailing tone of this blog is even allowed to comment at all!" Do you know, that is the saddest and most interesting comment of the day. The presumption of censure, for the crime of simply holding a different opinion. Speaks volumes about where we are today, and how far the restrictive and oppressive mindset of "silencing" others has spread. -admin]

dry valleys
July 22nd, 2009 | 12:20 pm | #47

Glad I’ve finally succeeded in interesting someone

What I mean is it must sometimes seem as if I have come to mock, for example, your religion, the basis of which I can’t really understand at all. I know I am not always as well-mannered as the likes of Joseph Marshall, etc. (Unless it’s a fairly uncontroversial life/culture post).

This is actually the furthest blog from my own views that I’ve ever found, apart from really militant racists, etc. which don’t really count at all because they’ve so marginalised themselves. I read a number of right-wing blogs but I’ve never felt so unable to actually find a common language.

If I had a blog I would have a free speech policy. But I have no problem with people policing their own territory & have been banned from some blogs, which I didn’t have a problem with as I fall victim to petty spite too often & I don’t have much right to complain about being dismissed.

I talk this much in real life, too. But I am not assertive with my opinions so I just talk about general stuff. Also I’ve never been that much of a listener!

[Your manners seem fine, to me, and your introspection and self-knowledge are both admirable and rather charming, imho. The notion that everyone has to agree with everyone else all the time, about everything, never made much sense to me. - admin]

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #48

“Incidentally, a dear friend’s husband was diagnosed about 2 months earlier than Senator Kennedy with the exact same cancer. His oral chemotherapy runs $16,000 per month!”

No, the public option is unlikely to spend $16,000 a month to keep one man alive. It would divy that money up to keep many more alive.

Evil?

[Yes. Let me ask you - do you think that $16,000 will be used to deliver Down Syndrome kids and letting them live and grow? -admin]

Charlotte
July 22nd, 2009 | 1:14 pm | #49

This is really, really scary. All of us have paid into the medical system, and now we will be told that we are too old to live and must sacrifice ourselves for the good of the majority.

It is all about power. Power and more power. I don’t think that money even means anything to Congress members anymore. Just power.

And those special needs kids…well, we won’t have to worry about those Trig Palins because THAT problem will be resolved in the womb.

When Terri Schivo was murdered by her “husband” and Florida Hospice by denying food, I said that the slope had become slippery. And so it has. This will become an everyday event under the Obama plan.

When I saw Soylent Green many years ago, it was science fiction. Who knew that the movie was actually predicting the future?

» Financial News Update - 07/22/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…
July 22nd, 2009 | 1:56 pm | #50

[...] Obamacare: Kennedy lives; Grandma dies – UPDATED [...]

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 2:45 pm | #51

Anchoress, I would guess so. Down’s Syndrome kids get lots of publicity. But I really don’t know.

[Do you really think so, though, Ken? Do you think Obamacare will not spend $16,000 on a man with cancer because he's "older" so that they can use that money to, say, support a new mother who has decided to go forth with the birth of her doomed-to-die child, because she wants to see him, hold him, and love him for a few hours, before he dies? Or do you think the old cancer patient will die, and the mother will be told that the gov't will not pay for her to deliver a doomed child (which is pretty much what we all know will happen, if we're being honest) and that $16,000 will be wasted somewhere in usual gov't inefficiency. And life will be cheapened that much more -admin]

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 4:09 pm | #52

Anchoress, by Obamacare you seem to mean a single payer. Obama says he opposes single payer.

[ROFLROFLROFLROFL -admin]

Kris, in New England
July 22nd, 2009 | 4:12 pm | #53

But I really do feel that the language being used is well over the top & I struggle to engage with it.

What is over the top dry valleys? I think the discourse here is some of the most reasoned and rational of all the sites I read.

Americans want our health care system fixed – but not the way Obama is railroading it thru without any consideration. Speaking for myself I don’t object to a public option, so long as I continue to have the choice to continue with the private insurance I currently have and like.

What does the introduction of the welfare state have to do with the state of health care in Europe? If Europeans didn’t have health care before the nationalized system that exists today – then going back to the first person who brought that up in this thread I stand by my comment that Europeans don’t want to change it because it’s all they’ve ever had.

Which is not what is going on in the U.S. We have always had the choice. And I would argue that if Europeans had the same choice years ago and then suddenly had it forcibly taken away from them – they would not have been too happy about it either.

I also find it interesting that you find the commentary here over the top – when you use terms like “right winger” and “bollock brained libertarian” I hope you don’t think you are flattering someone who would self-identify as conservative.

As for evidence of Republican policies failing – does that mean it’s OK for a Democrat to ram thru legislation that will punish 90% of this country’s citizens? The ones who currently like their health care just as it is today?

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #54

Congress won’t pass a single payer system anyhow.

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 5:06 pm | #55

Oh, and Kris, 90% of Americans are satisfied with the system as is? Where in the world did you get that _that_ figure? We wouldn’t even be talking about change if that was the case, but no bill will ever pass.

Western Chauvinist
July 22nd, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #56

Oh yes – comments here are “over the top”, but making claims that conservatives don’t care about “basic sustenance” is just reality. What you don’t know, dry valleys, is a lot.

You sound very much like the British friends we debated health care with on Independence Day. Despite living here for over a decade, they spoke about the current US system as if one would expect to see corpses piled on the side of the road. They did not know much about the current national plans Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the poor). Or that it is illegal for hospital emergency rooms to turn anyone away for lack of insurance. Or that our tort law, unlike Britain’s, doesn’t use “loser pays.” I don’t know, but I assume members of the British parliament use the NHS like everyone else. Not so here. Our legislators have a generous private medical plan and exceedingly generous retirement outside the Social Security system. If the public “options” (which aren’t or won’t be options) are so wonderful, why aren’t lawmakers on them?

Your tone reminds me of former DNC chair Howard Dean’s comments that, unlike Republicans, Democrats care that kids go to bed hungry at night. And then liberals accuse conservatives of moral preening.

dry valleys
July 22nd, 2009 | 5:48 pm | #57

Sorry, I’ve come across rather badly here.

I am not some smug defender of the British system- which I think has a lot of flaws, such as the fact that recent large increases in spending have yielded little results, & that the excellent quality of medical staff too often yields little result.

I also do not have any wish to be a cheerleader for Obamacare.

I was merely saying that I am confused at the American right pointing to European countries as if they had been run into the ground by their health care plans. This link, for example, “What Socialised Medicine Looks Like In England”. It is a cobbled together list of stories about hiccups in the NHS. Most readers would look at it & say “Yes, look, the health service is playing up again”. But they wouldn’t want it to be overturned for this reason.

There is a reason why people welcomed the creation of the NHS, why there were massive outbursts of joy at the introduction of old age pensions, etc. It is because things were so awful before. Yes, it’s not always a good excuse (for example the replacement of slums with public housing was rather questionable) but these systems have got some form of merit & aren’t some kind of blight on humanity as they seem to be viewed by some.

Now I’ve long argued that people should be encouraged to provide for themselves. I hear stories lamenting an ageing population & calling for more immigration to make up for this. I think this is ridiculous because socially & culturally, not to mention environmentally, we can’t handle more immigration. It is just a giant Ponzi scheme to think we can offset demographic change by importing more people.

So people should be encouraged to set up their own insurance, pension, unemployment coverage schemes, & yes it would be remiss of Obama to neglect this. I do not fawn over him in this regard. It will be hard to face demographic changes such as an ageing population but the alternatives are harder.

I merely return to my point that I have always been bemused by people who berate “socialised medicine”, & they really do seriously use the phraseology I sarcastically deployed.

& as I said, I can’t imagine this sort of language winning over those who’ve been suffering since mid-2008, many of them Republicans. The constituency of “pro-government conservatives” is definitely one to watch.

Ruth H
July 22nd, 2009 | 6:28 pm | #58

I am 72 and within the past two months have had cataract surgery in both eyes. For at least 5 years I had eyes that could not see well, even with the strongest lens that could be prescribed for me. The reason I could not have the surgery earlier was they had to be REALLY bad before medicare would pay for it. If medicare won’t pay private insurance doesn’t pay either. When the doctor told me my eyes weren’t ready for the surgery I asked him what decided ready, and he replied, “medicare.” We already have rationing. I am also looking at a knee replacement within a year or two, will I then be “too old?” What is the cutoff point? We need answers, or better yet, reform not a new system of socialized medicine.

Barb
July 22nd, 2009 | 7:01 pm | #59

Anchoress, (or anyone else for that matter) do you know of any writings (maybe your own) which address a Christian perspective of life/eternal life and the reliance on medical measures to sustain life? I don’t have a clear handle on my question, but this healthcare debate has got me wondering if the medical breakthroughs which have lengthened our life expectancies is best, especially when one has an eternal perspective. I’m struggling with how to word this, so I hope this question is received with understanding (beyond what I can communicate here). Are we, as believers, holding too tightly to life in the here and now, when we ask for medical treatments which may prolong one’s life for a few years, while costing hundreds of thousands of dollars? Can/should cost and energy (emotional/physical) spent be a legitimate issue?

[Barb, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good place to start - has lots of information on medical treatment and end of life care. Come to think of it, so does my little book, which talks not only about Care for the Dying, but the churches position on DNR's, organ donation, living wills and extraordinary means...also, you can look at the life of John Paul, II, who embodied beautifully the teaching of the church. He was not shut aside or put down because his body no longer worked optimally; his mind was still lively, and he - even in an advanced age - had much to contribute to our understanding of the value and sanctity of a human life. He was not kept alive by "extraordinary" means, which is something the church leaves up to families. [Extraordinary means, btw, does NOT mean withholding food and fluids, esp. fluids - dehydration is a horrible way to die, as I wrote here of my brother. If someone is dying and has stopped eating, there is no reason to force-feed, but if IV's are available, it is only humane to keep a dying person hydrated. It is one thing to step back and allow natural death to happen, quite another to hasten it through hydration. - admin]

Devin
July 22nd, 2009 | 7:37 pm | #60

Personally, I think we should have a single payer system. We are already rationing healthcare in the U.S. to the highest bidder. There is no way that all Americans could have the same quality of healthcare as citizens in the top tenth percentile. So the question is not should we ration healthcare (we already are, even some of those with healthcare find out that their coverage is inadequate) but rather how we should ration, via the free market or pre planned gov’t program. I vote for the gov’t on this one. More people will be healthier and live fulfilling lives. Plus I got Pope Benedict XVI and the American Catholic Bishops on my side as well .

[The pope and the American Bishops are looking for a just system...not one that will put human life on a spread sheet. -admin]

Western Chauvinist
July 22nd, 2009 | 8:14 pm | #61

Barb,

I can’t answer you about writings, but I think you ask a legitimate question. That’s the concern with a public program that “provides”. When individuals pay their own way – individuals get to decide when enough is enough. When the government pays…

Kris, in New England
July 22nd, 2009 | 8:49 pm | #62

Ken – I can’t find the original reference to that 90% that I read earlier today. I apologize.

But I can provide a link to the latest Rasmussen poll that shows 53% of Americans oppose Obamacare. The represents a 9% increase in opposition in less than one month.

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 9:22 pm | #63

“[The pope and the American Bishops are looking for a just system...not one that will put human life on a spread sheet."

Any system is going to have to do a cost/benefit analysis. As others have said, we have rationing now, and rationing is unavoidable. The implication that Obama and Co. are not looking for a just system is reprehensible. It's an ugly charge based on nothing more than a policy disagreement.

Kris, thanks for the numbers.

[No, it's based on the fact that Obama's plan is going to be so busy funding abortions that it will not have money to keep grandma alive, or maybe to allow this child to be born. Reprehensible is a good word. You are misdirecting it. -admin]

Ken
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:11 pm | #64

“Obama’s plan is going to be so busy funding abortions that it will not have money to keep grandma alive, or maybe to allow this child to be born.”

What evidence is that any potential Obama plan would deny any mother the right to give birth?

[Give it time. Rationing and bottom lines all come into the scenario and you know it. I wonder, if Bush were pushing this plan, would you be so enamored of it? Would you be so trusting of the purity of motive and assured of the justness of it all? Just curious - admin]

cathyf
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:50 pm | #65

…also, you can look at the life of John Paul, II, who embodied beautifully the teaching of the church… He was not kept alive by “extraordinary” means, which is something the church leaves up to families. Extraordinary means, btw, does NOT mean withholding food and fluids, esp. fluids – dehydration is a horrible way to die, as I wrote here of my brother. If someone is dying and has stopped eating, there is no reason to force-feed, but if IV’s are available, it is only humane to keep a dying person hydrated.

Maybe someone who has better sources of information can confirm or refute this, but at the time of Pope John Paul’s death I read newspaper reports that he had a feeding tube inserted, even though earlier reports were that his digestive organs had already failed. I was quite disturbed by this — somehow we seemed to have gone from being a Church quite confident to split the smallest hairs in the correct place, to making inappropriate decisions about one patient in order to “make a statement” about another. We have always been the Church that operates pro-life offices and hospices, and supports the theological and ethical work of making fine distinctions in difficult cases.

Perhaps the news reports were merely garbled? (It’s certainly plausible…)

[the news reports WERE garbled as they always are, coming out of the Vatican. My general rule of thumb is, whatever the news is, wait at least 4 days for some clarity. In JPII's case, when he first began his final turndown, they DID insert feeding tubes, but when it was determined that he really had reached his culmination, and the tube was pointless, it was removed. JPII was permitted to die naturally, without his life being unnecessarily extended. My BIL, who died of cancer just months after diagnosis, found the aggressive treatment so debilitating that he asked his family to allow him to stop the treatment and let the disease, which was fatal and fast-moving, to take its course with appropriate pain management. He had no intention of simply taking a pill and saying goodbye - his intention was to be with his family through it all - and his final weeks were full of beauty as people shared in his leave-taking with visits, expressions of love and admiration and many clinks of the beercans. Hard, yes. Heart breaking, yes. Transcendent and love-filled, yes. Would any of his children or his widow have hastened a moment of it, or done any of it differently? Yes, I asked them, because I wanted to know if their experience of helping my BIL to die was as life-changing, filled-with-meaning and insight, and ultimately positive as our experience w/ caring for my brother until his end. They all emphatically declared that the walk through the fire - difficult as it was - was a "terrible beauty," and that they were grateful for every step of it. For what it's worth, this was my experience with my brother, as well. -admin]

Ken
July 23rd, 2009 | 8:05 am | #66

Rationing and the bottom line do figure in, and so does human feeling. In any case, Obama’s plan won’t be single payer, and so no woman will be denied coverage of birth expenses (not that that denial would force them to have an abortion).

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt for years.

Ken
July 23rd, 2009 | 12:55 pm | #67

And by the way, what’s “just” about allowing millions of people to languish without health insurance? Sometimes it seems all the religious right cares about is its own freedom, its own economic welfare, other people’s sexual behavior (not its own divorce and adultery rate) and abortion.

lzzrdgrrl
July 25th, 2009 | 2:48 am | #68

The Boomer Generation is in for extreme difficulty as elders even outside of, ehm…. obamacare ….

One, they are not given to moderating personal habits. “Living large” means staying in the three bedroom house long after the kids have left, filling it with rubbish paid for by a second mortgage and too many dogs, cats and birds. Two; their children hate them, being very much like their parents and brought up in the same, self-absorbed manner…..

Fully expect to see them (and I have) go at each other with hammers …….

Links

• Home
• Current Issue
• About Us
• Advertising
• Contact Us
• Media
• RSS Feeds
• Kindle Edition
• Store
• Print Subscription
• Digital Subscription

Blogs

• First Thoughts
• The Anchoress
• Gateway Pundit
• Spengler
• Secondhand Smoke
• Evangel
• Postmodern Conservative

Find Us

• Facebook
• Twitter

Contact

• ft@firstthings.com
• p. 212.627.1985
• Legal/Terms and Conditions