Search First Things

81 Comments

Micha Elyi
July 31st, 2009 | 1:03 am | #1

Have any Catholic bishops in America publicly asked Catholic hospitals and clinics to draw up contingency plans for closing down if the Obama Democrats get their abortion mandate passed?

Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 1:07 am | #2

That damned George W. Bush!! Still ruining the country! It’s all HIS fault. It’s always his fault. He’s to blame for Barack Obama (who is “above the world, he’s sort of God”) being unable to create the paradise that we annointed him to create.

[Heh. Obama even has his own Ezekiel! -admin]

Andrew Batten
July 31st, 2009 | 5:36 am | #3

What a fascinating world we live in, where multi-millionaire plutocrats who got rich off non-union farm labor (and seem to be fans of elective surgery) can lecture the medical community on greed. And where sane, educated Jews can draw up plans for the culling of the “untermenschen”.

The earlier comments the Anchoress made on gratitude echo all the louder. Ingratitude is the root of all sin. It leads us to all manner of horrors: envy, coveting of another’s property, disrespect for life. It also leads us to devalue God’s gifts to us. Ingratitude opens the door to our deepest, most savage, sinful nature, and it ain’t pretty.

Jim
July 31st, 2009 | 7:56 am | #4

I actually tend to agree with Pelosi on this one. Insurance companies routinely deny valid claims with the full knowledge that 85% of policyholders do not have the money or inclination to hire an attorney (and then get called “litigious” if they sue). Their entire goal is to collect premiums and avoid paying claims, no matter how legitimate. The history of bad faith by insurance companies is long and distinguished. Let’s not delude ourselves that they are looking out for our benefit or will be any more compassionate on end of life decisions than the government would be.

Victor
July 31st, 2009 | 7:59 am | #5

Forgive them for they know not what they do!

What do you want me to do about “IT” Victor? There’s just as much problem in Canada cause they respect your god a lot less so I’m damned is I do and I’m damned if I don’t!

I hear ya Victor! Mind your own business and let God and His Angels correct “IT” all.

Peace

Christine the Soccer Mom
July 31st, 2009 | 8:46 am | #6

Two things have come up in the last couple days that reinforce the point that the government has no business running healthcare. (And I suppose the Cash for Clunkers is another – Travel Man just saw a Chevy ad that touts the rebate, the poor guys.)

One, and I credit the liberatarian I saw on Fox and Friends for bringing this up: Remember the Mustang Ranch? Most successful brothel in Nevada. (Not that I think it’s okay to legalize prostitution!) They made more than $100 million the year they were caught for tax evasion. Apparently, the government took them over, and within a year they were bankrupt. (I actually had wondered what happened to that place – you used to hear about it, but I credited it to my faith deepening that I didn’t pay attention to that stuff much any more.)

Two: Remember the uproar on the condition on VA hospitals when President Bush was in charge? Who runs the VA system?

Thanks, Anchoress, for the great insights and links, as usual. I enjoy them over my Liquid Crack every day.

Gayle Miller
July 31st, 2009 | 9:27 am | #7

Christine the soccer mom has actually been paying attention. While George W. Bush wasn’t perfect (the only perfect man ever born died on a cross thousands of years ago). That is Barack the Magnificent’s worst nightmare – people who are actually paying attention. And despite the egregious failures of the mainstream media to illuminate the new president’s inconsistencies and downright horrendous plans for us, someone the news gets out. I have a lot of faith in the ordinary people of this country. It takes a lot to get them peeved and paying attention, but once that happens, things are put right pretty effectively. Keep up the great work Anchoress. You are making an invaluable contribution to a necessary dialogue. God bless.

Gayle Miller
July 31st, 2009 | 9:31 am | #8

Ann Coulter said it best when she described Nancy Pelosi as the first mentally retarded Speaker of the House in history. The woman has shot so much bee venom into her face that her mental processes have to be impaired. She is shrill, she is petty and shallow and both Feinstein and Boxer are just like her. Shame on California for foisting these worthless dames on our nation!

Joe
July 31st, 2009 | 10:02 am | #9

With abortion and the movement of culture toward euthanasia, we are literally killing our future(the innocent babies) and past( the elderly). What remains is a culture of death with no reliance on God.

Interesting, Literature is indeed a mirror of sociey ; During the nineteenth century, if there was a problem the characters relied on GOD for help and solace; during the last cetury, Freud and the couch replaced GOD for providing solace and in our present society, Sex and immediate pleasure is the solution.

Jim
July 31st, 2009 | 10:16 am | #10

this is getting pretty uncharitable. i’m actually mildly attracted to Pelosi. she has a great figure for her age.

Ezekiel Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 10:27 am | #11

A word to the wise about the Prophet Barack –

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of the LORD! 3 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the foolish [a] prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! 4 Your prophets, O Israel, are like jackals among ruins. 5 You have not gone up to the breaks in the wall to repair it for the house of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of the LORD. 6 Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. They say, “The LORD declares,” when the LORD has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled. . . . 8 ” ‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because of your false words and lying visions, I am against you, declares the Sovereign LORD. 9 My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. . . . 10 ” ‘Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, 11 therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. 12 When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, “Where is the whitewash you covered it with?”
– Ez 13:1-12

» A New Czar Is Born… NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…
July 31st, 2009 | 11:23 am | #12

[...] “Immoral Villains!” sez Nancy “Queeg” Pelosi Sphere It Share and [...]

Joe Odegaard
July 31st, 2009 | 11:33 am | #13

An actual leader, unlike Ms. Pelosi, would not be presenting an issue by focusing on divisions within the body politic. We need to work together in mutual support; ways to do that should be the focus.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 11:41 am | #14

Liberals have always held that personal affairs should remain personal affairs. I don’t agree in all cases, but they’re not inconsistent in attacking big corporations for greed. And the Bible, you’ll remember, tells us to care for the poor. And the cash for clunkers program is going broke not because of governmental mismanagement, but because the funds set aside for it have been exhausted — it has helped X number of people and can’t afford to help more, but it has also helped the car industry, which is hardly complaining. And golly, a hastily enacted emergency program is having startup logjams — what an indictment! And the while you point out that Obama has appointed a slew of “czars,” you don’t point out that czars don’t pass laws, Congress does. What Bush did, and what I hope you protested against, was keep policy hidden from Congress. Obama’s moves are tactical; Bush’s were sometimes flat out unconstitutional.

["Liberals have always held that personal affairs should remain personal affairs." - well, that's nonsense. Did you forget John Kerry and John Edwards outting Dick Cheney's daughter as a lesbian (as though that was a bad thing) or the whole movement to "out" gay republicans? Liberals have disallowed pub owners from deciding whether or not they may cater to a smoking clientele. Next, since we're all going to be owned by the government, they'll start telling us what private indulgences we may and may not partake of. And as for Bush's "flat out unconstitutional" moves, which ones of those, exactly, has Obama rescinded and saved us from? -admin}

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 11:44 am | #15

“Who runs the VA system?”

The VA hospitals weren’t mismanaged, they were underfunded, which of course _was_ Bush’s fault. He’s the same guy who sent troops into battle without proper protection.

From what I hear, military healthcare in general is quite good.

Elizabeth Anne
July 31st, 2009 | 11:46 am | #16

Ken – In all fairness everyone I know who has had to deal with the VA outside of critical care has disagreed vehemently.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 11:51 am | #17

“the egregious failures of the mainstream media to illuminate the new president’s inconsistencies”

That’s not true. I don’t read anything here or on conservative sites I don’t find out from NPR or the NY Times or Rachel Maddow.

T
July 31st, 2009 | 12:00 pm | #18

In 2002 Lester Thurow (economist and former dean of MIT’s Sloane School of Business) was discussing the left’s objection to globalization:

“The left objects, basically, because they would like to object to capitalism but they can’t, because socialism and communism have been proven not to work. And you can’t get rid of capitalism unless you say what the replacement is; and since they can’t say what the replacement is, globalization has become, basically, their new enemy.”

In 2009 the wisdom of this statement has become painfully apparent, because now corporate profits and corporate salaries are being attacked directly. Likewise, this is a direct attack on capitalism, without any realization (or at least without any admission) that these corporations which earn profits are the same institutions which provide the jobs and employs the workersw that the left so covets and claims to represent.

The left bases its objections on the idea that corporations pay the smallest possible wage to obtain employees, but that is only true in theory. This is why we can’t hire the “best and the brightest” in government positions because corporations can always hire the brightest away by paying the more money and providing better perks and working conditions. If a corporation wants $10/hr worth of work but only wants to pay $5/hr, there is always some enterprising business out there that is willing to pay $6/hr, and then $7/hr, and so on, until a market balance is struck.

Finally, the hypocrisy of the left is absolutely without measure. Have you ever seen a Hollywood liberal complain that s/he was paid too much to make a film? If profits are such a bad thing why does Nancy Pelosi have no problem when she and her husband “rakie in the dough” and become millionaires many times over? Likewise Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore to name just a few. Ahh! Profits for me but not for thee!

Ezekiel Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 12:02 pm | #19

the Bible, you’ll remember, tells us to care for the poor

Yes, the Bible tells US to care for the poor. It does not tell government to take money from people so that government provides for the poor in the way that the government decides, including caring for the poor by paying to abort their children.

And the Bible tells us to care for the POOR. It does not tell us to hand over our money so that government can use it to subsidize the rich in their purchase of new cars. Make no mistake — the “cash for clunkers” program is a welfare program to benefit the rich, not the poor, not the middle class. The only vehicles that qualify for the program are low mileage vehicles. Nearly all of the low mileage vehicles are big cars and SUVs, that is, expensive vehicles. The cheap cars, the cars that poor and middle class people can afford to buy, are the small cars, which by and large get mileage that exceeds the requirements for the cash for clunkers program.

So the program does not benefit the poor or middle class, but, like TARP and all the other bailouts, benefits mostly the well-to-do and other pals of the Democrat Party.

T
July 31st, 2009 | 12:04 pm | #20

sorry, that should be “rake in the dough”

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 12:05 pm | #21

“In all fairness everyone I know who has had to deal with the VA outside of critical care has disagreed vehemently.”

Elizabeth Anne, thanks for mentioning that. I haven’t had much luck searching for polls, but I did find this from a CBO report:

“VA officials have often cited studies that have given the department high ratings for the quality of its medical care. For example, then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Nicholson stated in a speech in July 2007, “We lead private and Government health care providers in almost every measure and our state-of-the-art quality care arcs from the research lab to a patient’s bedside.”7 Michael Kussman, then-Acting (now confirmed) Under Secretary for Health, gave testimony before the Congress in March 2007 in which he called VA “the Nation’s leader in providing high-quality health care” and cited a number of external research studies to support that claim.”

dry valleys
July 31st, 2009 | 12:07 pm | #22

So you’re back, then?

Deal with Blue Dogs sets up health care vote

Review of Does God Hate Women? (excellent book that I’ve got on my own shelves- even handed criticism of all religions, with Islam getting the worst of it because that’s how it happens in reality, but the Catholic Church hardly being spared).

On about liars- Richard Dawkins writes in to set the record straight about the atheist camps that he actually has nothing to do with… it’s just that his detractors think he does because they’re obsessed with him!

Popcorn
July 31st, 2009 | 12:10 pm | #23

Nice try Ken, but no dice. Let me give you just one example. You think the Cash for Clunkers is doing great things? Now for the Law of Unintended Consequences…

Those “clunkers” are being cut up. That means that the parts will not available for parts dealers and for those who keep their cars running by fixing them up. Who will suffer? The poor, of course, since they tend to use those parts to keep their cars running just a bit longer.

And now you know why no one with any sense trusts glib arguments such as yours.

dry valleys
July 31st, 2009 | 12:11 pm | #24

“has nothing to do with”- I mean has little to do with. He supports them but didn’t mastermind them in his lair- whatever some may think.

Going to have some tea now- don’t think I’ll give myself much as, despite having done 40 miles on my bike, I still have a load of belly fat that hasn’t been shifted

Hope to get some more discussion on my return

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 12:13 pm | #25

“Have you ever seen a Hollywood liberal complain that s/he was paid too much to make a film? If profits are such a bad thing why does Nancy Pelosi have no problem when she and her husband “rakie in the dough” and become millionaires many times over?”

I did hear an interview recently in which a star Hollywood actor had taken a lower fee than offered so that his fellow actors could get more, and you could argue that most stars are hypocritical for not doing the same. But I’m not sure how much any Hollywood actor struggles financially. On the other hand, insurance execs makes huge salaries off the backs of a lot of people who struggle financially. And while low-to-medium income people need health care whether they can afford it or not, no one needs to see a movie.

Pelosi is supposedly a “resort, dining and winery baroness” — which of those industries makes money off the poor?

[Yeah, cause heaven knows middle class people don't take vacations, dine out, drink wine (or, maybe pick grapes as grad students) or eat Tuna, for that matter (I do recall that Pelosi's interest in something regarding fish affected some sort of fishing law a few years back.)

You know, you came in here wagging the finger at how we were all bad Christians (and you still pull that out, from time to time) then you started telling us all that we hated the poor and didn't care about them as much as you do, because we didn't think it was the government's job care about them for us (and subject our own taxmonies to the performance of abortions, etc) and now, "you people are mean picking on the rich who don't profit from the poor." Ben Franklin spoke the truth when he said. “The rich do not work for one another. . . Everything that they or their families use and consume is the produce of the laboring poor.”

You seem to have that exactly backwards.

There is no such thing as a rich person who does not make some profit from some poor, somewhere. I'm thinking of the backbreaking work of keeping those resorts running, clean and habitable and how many of the people who do that are working poor. How many of those food service people and winery people are working poor? More, I think, than you are willing to admit.

You spend a lot of time here either crying for "the poor" and telling us how awful we are, or defending the rich and telling us how awful we are. You love everyone, it seems, but the struggling middle class which is being squeezed by a government spending TRILLIONS of dollars it can't even keep track of. What is supposed to happen to middle class people who work for those greedy profiteering "immoral" capitalists that the wealthy coastal democrats so despise, when the greedy, immoral capitalist businesses close their doors because they cannot function in the midst of high taxes and overregulation? Without the middle class, what you end up with is precisely what you see in Cuba, and what you used to see in the Soviet Union. A HUGE lower class, an elite and privileged upper class and a non-existent middle class. You see people poverty-stricken and silenced while the fatcats in power drive by them and exhort them to "keep it real."

It's the middle class - and the middle class values - that build houses for Habitats for Humanity, that took in so many of the Katrina refugees after the flood, that rebuilds what is lost. Government will take care of everything? Government still cannot fill the gaping hole in NYC, it still cannot bring New Orleans under control, and that has been true whether we're talking about Democrat or Republican mayors or governors. Government is now so loaded down with self-interested and corrupt officials serving either themselves or ruinous ideology that they have long-ceased to serve us.

You're fond of thowing the bible around. Maybe you remember that Jesus said we would always have the poor with us - and that is true. It is the job of all of us to help them, in so far as we can - it is NOT the job of governments. I know in my church and countless others, we feed people with our food pantries, help find housing for them, help them with writing resumes, with learning to read, with affordable day care, with free - yes free - care for the low-income elderly and the poor dying of cancer and other illnesses. We do all of that with the help of donations of time, talent and treasure from people of all walks, rich and middle class, but the bulk of the donations come from the middle class - there is no more generous group on earth than the American middle class, but they don't want to be told they MUST do something; they do not wish to be compelled or forced into doing what their own instincts would tend them toward on an individual basis. Tell them there is a need, the American middle class rushes to help. Tell them to just fork over their money and YOU'LL take care of it for them...well why should they trust you to do it right, well, fairly or (and this is important) honestly?

And do not even try to talk to me about what "you've heard" about government health care and the VA. What "you've heard" is no match for my 30 years of actual experience with it via my brother. There is no more wasteful entity on earth the a government, and the answer to their wastefulness is never to "cut spending," at the bureaucratic level; it's to increase taxes or decrease the surplus population. THAT is immoral.

I am still wondering why the whole nation has to be upended into government health care. IF there are "40 million uninsured" people in the nation (and that number is dubious because many choose not to participate) why can't this brilliant government simply offer them some sort of buy-in to an insurance plan, commensurate with their ability to pay? Why do all of us have to be in? Because this isn't about taking care of Americans...it's about taking CONTROL of AMericans.

Oh, and you "did hear" about one Hollywood type who took a lower salary. How inspiring that is! When they (or people like Thomas Friedman) lecture us about the environment while they fly around in their private planes and go live in their enormous houses with air-conditioned garages, I just get so inspired I could plotz!

I'm solidly middle class; my husband and I are both the product of blue-collar working class families, but I'm no class warrior. I believe we all have our place in the world, and I have no hate for the rich. After all, it was a rich and connected man who got Christ down from the cross and into a tomb before sundown on Good Friday. But I am beginning to weary of your daily and tireless (and humorless) fight-picking with everyone on this blog. I do not understand a mind that wants to do nothing but fight and seems incapable of putting down the gloves between rounds for a bit of friendly banter. It wearies, and gets boring, actually, "Democrats good and benevolent, Republicans evil and stingy, and remember your bible, folks." I'm not even a Republican, and I begin to take offense. -admin]

T
July 31st, 2009 | 12:18 pm | #26

Jim (above, 7/31/09)),

You list the ills of the insurance company withou any evidence. While it is true that insurance companies would collect premiums and pay no claims if they couls get away with it, the truth is that they can’t get away with that. The market interferes. Again your point is only valid in theory, but not in fact.

The fewer valid claims that insurance companies pay, the more pressure there is in the market for premiums to stop. Why pay premiums for something that you know you can never collect on? There must be some kind of balance for the premium income to continue.

Do you know a particular situation in which a valid claim was denied? Do you know if the claim was valid? Cite some examples. I have had numerous medical problems in my life, and I have never had my health insurance deny me a valid claim. Social Security Disability, however, (a government provider) routinely denies 50% of all disability claims, valid or not, because the bureaucrats know that a large percentage of those denials will never be challenged.

Social Security Disability claims are the prelude to Obamacare. If you think insurance companies are in the business to deny valid claims, just wait until your government gets in to game. You can stop paying insurance premiums if you really believe that you’re not getting you’re money’s worth; let’s just see you stop paying taxes for the same reason–or any reason at all.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #27

Ezekiel, do we as individual citizens adequately provide for the poor? Then why is it wrong for us, through the democratic process, to decide to use tax money to help them? And an awful lot of lower and middle income people drive SUVs (I know people making $12 an hour driving them) and the like because they’re status symbols. A lot of these folks who could barely afford them before can’t well afford them in this economy. A lot of the poor also drive clunkers, which don’t get the mileage gthey did originally.

Popcorn, can you cite a cost-benefit analysis?

Amy P.
July 31st, 2009 | 12:25 pm | #28

Have any Catholic bishops in America publicly asked Catholic hospitals and clinics to draw up contingency plans for closing down if the Obama Democrats get their abortion mandate passed?

Don’t for a moment think that would happen. Catholic hospitals and clinics and hospices would be taken over by the government – forcibly – for “compelling public interest.” The prevailing attitude would then be “Screw Catholic teaching. Abort those babies and euthanize those old folks.” Doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical personnel who object to immoral behavior like abortion or euthanasia will be forced to choose between their jobs or their conscience. It will not be a pretty situation.

As for insurance companies, they are not 100% pure by any means, but profits are not evil. That is a dangerous argument because profits are essentially income – expenses. If, say, at the end of the month you (who make $50,000/year) have more expendable income (“profit”) than your neighbor who also makes $50,000/year – is it justified to go after you for being “greedy?” Is it “unfair” for you to have more money left at the end of the month than your neighbor?

Profits are not contradictory to Catholic teaching. And insurance companies employ hundreds and thousands of people who don’t make gazillions, who work just as hard as you or I, who would suffer undue financial hardship if insurance companies were forced to close and/or are punished for “excessive profits.” What about the right to a just wage and employment? Where do you think the wealthy businesses who often donate time or money to Catholic causes get that capital from? Those “evil” profits people seem so quick to demonize.

And nobody seems to think there’s alternative solutions – like tort reform – to this debate that would help lower costs and make health care more accessible to people. It’s either the government runs the show (and you’re a bad, evil, hell-bound Catholic if you disagree) or nothing changes at all (and you’re still a bad, evil, hell-bound Catholic). I don’t understand where in the Catechism, or the Bible, we’re compelled or commanded to trust the government with these decisions, or when personal responsibility was removed from Catholic teaching in favor of blindly following the government (and at the sake of other Catholic teaching, such as on issues of life, human dignity, and freedom of conscience).

As I’ve said elsewhere, my mother-in-law (in her 60s) was diagnosed with ALS last fall and has been in assisted living and/or the hospital since New Year’s Eve. She will not go home again, but needs extensive medical care while this disease runs its course (which could go anywhere from weeks or months to years). She is not in a coma, her heart beats on its own, and she only needs mild assistance with breathing. She has a DNR order on file if she takes a turn for the worse. But she no longer works and relies on 24/7 care to make her life as comfortable and dignified as possible. Now, the yardstick by which I measure this legislation is the kind of care someone like her would receive.

And my research shows me she would be considered basically a “useless eater” and asked, compelled, or forced to die for the sake of budgets and bean counters. That is not justified, nor is it moral.

Amy P.
July 31st, 2009 | 12:28 pm | #29

Then why is it wrong for us, through the democratic process, to decide to use tax money to help them?

I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with that necessarily. The problem is not providing tax money to help people – I’m a big proponent of tax dollars going to help single mothers have their children rather than abort them.

But here’s the problem. Most, if not all, of the representatives we have now (both Democrat AND Republican) can’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “priority.”

Was it a priority to put $1 billion into “Cash for Clunkers”? Probably not. There are countless earmarks and pork-laden bills out there where the money being spent is being spent unwisely, and at the sake of funding things – like insurance for the poor – that WOULD be of actual benefit.

If Pelosi and others are going to demonize insurance companies for making a profit, it is legitimate to criticize government officials for seeing taxpayers as an endless source of revenue to whom they have little accountability, and who are wholly incapable of fiscal restraint.

Dramatic reversal thanks to conservative Democrats – abortion will be a required coverage in Obamacare « Jim Blazsik
July 31st, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #30

[...] “Immoral Villains!” sez Nancy “Queeg” Pelosi – The Anchoress [...]

T
July 31st, 2009 | 12:35 pm | #31

Nice try Ken,

You can’t try to deflect the the issue by the socialistic “making money off [of] the poor” ploy. The money is made in the market, and Pelosi condemns market profits. Period!

By your logic, all physicians are grifters because they earn their income by treating patients, the great proportion of whom are middle or lower (economic) class.

As for your implication that health care is somehow mandatory, (“low to medium income people need health care”) you are absolutely wrong. Everybody WANTS health care. We can all choose not to have it, but we fear (rightly so) that the consequences COULD BE dire. Human society has been around for some 10,000 to 12,000 years and we have only had high quality health care for a very small percentage of that time.

It is no accident that such high quality health care coincides in the largest part with the industrial revolution which allowed care to be available to all, rather than just the privileged few. The very companies that you would denegrate for exploiting workers, the middle class and the poor, are the very companies that have allowed both the development of and access to the health care system which, you imply, is some kind of inalienable right.

Thus the danger of allowing the government to impose a health care system. It would propel us BACKWARD into the pre-industrial age; if congressmen were not required to participate in the same system thay want to force on you and I, then we would have health care for the privileged few and government care for the rest of us.

If this doesn’t conjure up images of Societ Communist party members shopping for luxuries at the GUM department store, while the average Soviet citizen stood in line for bread and meat and other staples, then I don’t know what will.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #32

Amy P, the Cash for Clunkers program benefits the car industry, which can obviuosly use all the help it can get right now. Of course it also helps a lot of people with their transportation needs, which in turn helps with their need for
employment.

T, please quote Pelosi as condemning market profits period. Physicians of course provide services the poor need as much as the rich, and many physicians have sliding scales, while only a very few specialists make as much money as the top guys on Wall Street.

You’re right that big corporations have historically provided good health care. Nowadays of course, many of those companies have gone under or have had to slash benefits, while their top people make many times more than their predecessors did; meanwhile, real income has dipped for the rest of us.

I don’t entirely trust any predictions re: healtch care reform, liberal or conservative. I don think Obama’s right that without reform, we will see more and more defacto rationing.

Dagwood
July 31st, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #33

If the current pack of hyenas had been in power at the time of 9/11, we’d probably be enduring strip-searches in our own homes. Bush may have acted too rashly when he enacted programs without congressional approval. However, the very nature of some of those programs, such as those enabling surreptitious surveillance in light of 9/11, was such that the more light shed upon them, the less successful they would be, even BEFORE the NY Times did its “patriotic” duty and compromised our efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Just what, by the way, is constitutional about telling industries how much they may pay their employees, telling secured investors that they must move to the back of the line, or threatening to “nationalize” industries that don’t bow and scrape when called up before a panel of overpaid and under-informed House members?

Vintage Pelosi Spinning Like a Top « The Lioness
July 31st, 2009 | 12:58 pm | #34

[...] take on it: “MMMhhmmmm, that’s just the sort of incompetent, inefficient nightmare bureaucracy I want [...]

Amy P.
July 31st, 2009 | 1:00 pm | #35

Amy P, the Cash for Clunkers program benefits the car industry, which can obviuosly use all the help it can get right now.

But the government STILL can’t manage the program and – mark my words – some dealerships will receive reduced or be denied funds because in less than 10 days this program was bankrupt. There are lots of reasons the car industry was in trouble; government intervention (fuel mandates) is one of them. And it isn’t the solution.

kelleybee
July 31st, 2009 | 1:10 pm | #36

Jim, I find your comments on the greed of the Insurance companies a bit disingenuous. Companies who constantly refuse to pay claim end up with fewer and fewer contracts The profit margins are are low enough today to preclude such action. Insurance companies are not charitable organizations.
Some reasonable solutions to the so called health care crisis are not even being considered by our elite betters. Tort reform which could save up to $ 1/2 trillion. No, the Congress will soon vote on a bill granting their favorite, protected cash cow $1.6 Billion sweet tax deal. Allowing trial lawyers to take deductions the year expenses are incurred rather than after a case has been adjudicated. Allowing for even more frivolous malpractice claims. Forcing Doctors to continue to practice self defensive medicine.
The congress could,also make simple changes to some of the regulations and laws that limit the types of medical insurance policies for sale (Like Major Medical), and to offer national plans to small business. There are many others.
But not our Congress. Which proves to me that they are disinterested in the people or our needs, but in accumulating power for themselves and the varied protected classes.
Sorry A, As you can tell, I’m an more than a little fed up with Washington and those ruling.
I need to pray a little more today.

[Tort reform is absolutely necessary, but will never happen. They don't know reform or spend less. They know tax and control -admin]

T
July 31st, 2009 | 1:17 pm | #37

Ken,

Fair enough about market profits. Perhaps I was being too general. Pelosi condemns insurance company profits, I consider that a prima facie case of condemning market profits because all profits in this country come from the market.

Remember, we make the distinction of “For Profit” companies (meaning whose with shareholders or stakeholders) and “Non-Profit” companies (meaning those without stockholders. It’s really a misnomer, because non-profit companies do, indeed make a profit. It’s just not a profit passed on to stakeholders, but kept and used within the non-profit corporation (Oftentimes this use is to pay very large salaries to the directors of those corporations).

Those profits, too, come from the marketplace, whether it’s marketing for donations, or like the Red Cross, selling blood to hospitals at a profit over and above the cost of obtaining and processing the blood.

If you don’t think that this concept is accurate, carry the idea one step further, where do tax revenues come? They come from the profit of the market place. Wages are taxed (Income tax), profits are taxed (capital gains tax) and goods are oftentimes taxed (excise taxes).

Imagine if there was no market; a society in which everyone worked for the government. Where would the tax revenues come from? The government would have to tax your government salary 100% just break even.

Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #38

Ezekiel, do we as individual citizens adequately provide for the poor? Then why is it wrong for us, through the democratic process, to decide to use tax money to help them? And an awful lot of lower and middle income people drive SUVs (I know people making $12 an hour driving them) and the like because they’re status symbols. A lot of these folks who could barely afford them before can’t well afford them in this economy. A lot of the poor also drive clunkers, which don’t get the mileage gthey did originally.

It’s Bender, actually. No need for channeling Ezekiel here.

And individuals would be able to better provide for the poor themselves, either directly or through the Church, if government didn’t shove it’s grubby hands into their pockets and forcibly take their money.

As for those poor and middle class who might have some old, big, low-mileage vehicle, if they could barely afford in the first place, how can they afford the extra several tens of thousands of dollars to buy a new car even with the clunker subsidy? THEY CAN’T. On either end, whether it is the trade-in or the new car, both are slanted toward subsidizing the rich.

Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 1:31 pm | #39

Tort reform is absolutely necessary, but will never happen.

Yes and no. If government succeeds in taking over, then it most certainly will assert sovereign immunity to preclude people from suing the government or government-run facilities for medical malpractice claims. And if doctors become de facto agents of the government, they too will claim qualified immunity from suit.

Obama destroyed existing product liability tort claims against Chrysler and Government Motors when they were in bankruptcy, so we could expect him to preclude medical malpractice tort claims when Dr. Obama takes over.

Amy P.
July 31st, 2009 | 1:40 pm | #40

Fair enough about market profits. Perhaps I was being too general. Pelosi condemns insurance company profits, I consider that a prima facie case of condemning market profits because all profits in this country come from the market.

She’ll be against any company that makes a profit if it will give her a convenient target and the rhetoric to shove through some agenda. So your comment, while not perhaps correct in this context, will certainly come to fruition during Pelosi’s career.

kelleybee
July 31st, 2009 | 1:43 pm | #41

Bender, Obama will use malpractice tort claims and higher malpractice insurance premiums to force the Physicians, who do not retire, into the government system.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #42

Anchoress, I don’t hear a lot of friendly banter in your sarcastic criticism of everything Obama does, but you forget my thanking someone for posting something I hadn’t heard, and my agreeing with someone else’s point against my larger point and telling you I see your point. We’re discussing issues here; sometimes I’m cordial, sometimes I’m irritated like others here, but I don’t see a place for friendliness. What do you want, “I think you’re wrong and here’s why, but how’s your mother-in-law?”

And what you calling wagging the finger I call expressing disgust at how and snidely and pettily and uncharitably partisan you often are. Reading a lot of what you and others here say, I might as well be listening to Rush Limbaugh. Oh, and I never accused anyone of hating the poor or being mean to them, for pete’s sake. I respect economic conservatism — I don’t assume it springs from a hard heart. You might extend that same openmindedness to Pelosi. I’ve seen your if-you’re-not-entirely-with-us, you’re-entirely-against-us” mentality so often in political discussions: it makes imaginations run wild. And I have no problem with the rich benefitting from the poor; I have a problem with the poor staying poor because of the rich. But ggain, I think there are legitimate differences in economic philosophy. I’m familiar with your economic arguments, I agree with some of them and respect the others, and I’m not knocking or mocking anyone for their economic views — you are. Yes, right-wingers do a lot as individuals, a point I’ve often made to liberals. I’ve also noted that religious conservatives give more than liberals. But I don’t make the grand distinction the right does between individuals and the government, not in a democracy.

” Tell them there is a need, the American middle class rushes to help. Tell them to just fork over their money and YOU’LL take care of it for them…well why should they trust you to do it right, well, fairly or (and this is important) honestly?”

No one argues that the government isn’t often inefficient and corrupt, but I’ve never understood why people speak of government bureaucrats as if they’re some seperate species. Their faults are just human faults. Again, I respect the argument that the private sector does a better job, but I see government as able to do what the private sector sometimes won’t. I don’t see liberal or conservative solutions as moral or immoral in and of themselves; what I find fault with is kneejerk cynicism towards one side or the other.

“You’re fond of thowing the bible around.”

Like that.

[I have never said you weren't civil. You are, of course, or you wouldn't be here. But we have others on the left here who manage to joke around from time to time, in yes, a "friendly" fashion, and I am surprised that you don't find this a friendly place...I can only assume it's because you are always looking for confrontation that is never allowed to end with a friendly "we'll agree to disagree," and move on. As to the rest, I am cynical, on and off, and I've admitted it and rued it - (and I've admitted it plenty of times and admitted further that cynicism is the easiest thing in the world to grow). I don't understand thinking that suggests a democracy should preclude championing the individual. If anything that is precisely what a democracy that is also a republic should do. I for one am not interested in becoming part of a collective. I have no interest in being a borg! I understand that bureaucrats are individuals and humans. I even understand that they are loved into creation by God, all of them -including Obama and Pelosi (and yes, I pray for his good every single day, as I did for Bush) but my time of "open-mindedness" for Pelosi has ended, largely because of her announcement that she would "Drain the swamp" of corruption while doing nothing about Charlie Rangel, nothing about Chris Dodd...her "most ethical congress ever" is a musclebound machine that doubles down to protect its own. She's a child of God, and I wish her no ill, but that doesn't mean I have to believe the garbage coming out of her mouth, or ignore her double-standards. I think she is incompetent to her task and as closed-minded and partisan a legislator as I have ever seen. You will, undoubtedly, tell me I am closed-minded and partisan, too. I am not really partisan. I differ plenty with the right on many issues, most emphatically on the issue of illegal immigration. But if I do seem closed minded and partisan to you, then perhaps you'll simply thank God I'm not pretending otherwise and running for public office. And btw, that was a neat trick - you never did respond to my response to your assertion that Pelosi makes no money off the poor.-admin]

Anglican Peggy
July 31st, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #43

Now I normally don’t feel sympathy for car dealerships but I have been thinking along the same lines as you. However i may personally feel about car salesmen and dealership sales managers, there are regular people employed by car dealerships from mechanics to secretaries. Heck even the salesmen have a right to earn a living (and the person who buys from one without a smart game plan has only themselves to blame)

The owners of these businesses should not only not have to worry about government interference in their operations, they should also not have to worry about government actually harming their businesses. This is what has happened again so soon on the tails of having numerous dealerships summarily shut down by Washington bureaucrats.

Its not only that they have advanced the government gobs of money which may never be paid back. But they have also sunk money into advertising as well. Who know what else they have done or spent in preparation for the big event? How many dealerships have looked to this opportunity to jump start their sales again? Surely they have been preparing for it in many ways.

And when they are left holding the bag? Who knows how many jobs will be lost.

I never thought I would see the day when I felt sympathy for these folks but I do now.

And, yeah you are also right another thing. If the government can’t run Medicare, the VA or a car buy back program, how in the hell can we trust them to run universal health care? Government is the problem as usual. Its never the solution.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 2:06 pm | #44

T, maybe I’m wrong, but I just hear Pelosi condemning huge salaries for insurance executives while, for example, their companies deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. Thanks for pointing out that even non-profit corps make money from the market.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #45

Bender (and Ezekiel), sorry to confuse your names. I don’t have socio-economic stats, but the Cash for Clunkers program has moved a lot of cars, and I don’t think they’re mostly luxury cars. The rich don’t drive clunkers anyhow, do they? (Well, except old Volvos!)

Clunker Cash Coffer Catastrophe Causes Congressional Consternation, Conservative Contumely
July 31st, 2009 | 2:37 pm | #46

[...] The Anchoress comes to the same question as mine but starts with Nancy “She Whose Face Could Scare many Buffalo” Pelosi and finishes with Humphrey Bogart. [...]

T
July 31st, 2009 | 2:51 pm | #47

Ken,

I believe that you are wrong in this sense:

The large corporate profits and salaries are a strawman for Pelosi. Go back to my quote of Thurow regarding condemning globalization. They really condemn capitalism, albeit indirectly. So Pelosi condemns unusually large profits. Who is to determine what an unusually large profit is? Her? Has she condemned George Soros who did tremendous damage to the British pound for the wealth he amassed? Does she condemn Hollywood stars and sports figures for large incomes for the work they do, much of which could easily be deemed unnecessary or tangential? Curiously enough her condemnation is reserved for those CORPORATE types; Ben Roethlisberger, Eddie Murphy and Jessica Simpson aren’t raping the country or the “poor,” but corporate executives who are are responsible for thousands of jobs and the health of the corporations are the targets reserved for her ire.

And even that is selective. How about Jeffrey Immelt who is paid $25 million dollars a year, who sits elbow to elbow with Obama and who has run GE corporation into the ground? Not a peep from our socialist congressional democrats. On the contrary, remember the furor over the retirement package for Jack Welch, the FORMER chairman of GE. He was the CEO who built GE into a strong, well run corporation on which thousands of employees depended for their livelihood and many stockholders depended for their future retirement. He was villified by the ruling class and the press for being rewarded for his successful tenure.

This is all selective Democratic rage, and it’s diverted away from those who fit the Democratic-socialist narrative, but directed toward those who are useful in feuling the fire of the Democratic class-struggle facade.

It’s no wonder that socialism has been referred to as “shared poverty.” But remember, from the point of view of the ruling class, it’s shared poverty for thee, not for me.

dry valleys
July 31st, 2009 | 2:54 pm | #48

On about Gatesgate again- this really is just light relief from a blogger that always makes me laugh.

I don’t normally think much of libertarians but this one is great.

dry valleys
July 31st, 2009 | 2:55 pm | #49

Just stuck it in to try & stop people getting too angry.

Though I myself probably go the other way & never really speak my mind because I’m too obsessed with being polite & leave everyone thinking I go round blandly agreeing with everyone when I don’t, in fact, but half the time I haven’t got the stamina for a long fight.

But you might like a click on the above anyway.

T
July 31st, 2009 | 3:14 pm | #50

Ken,

A response to your comment on the denial of pre-existing conditions. Now, admittedly, there may be some way this can be revised, but the concept is, unfortunately sound.

The idea behind insurance is to collect premiums from those who don’t need it and to distribute them to those who do, when they do. Think of the fire insurance on your home.

The problem with NOT denying pre-existing conditions is that people would only register for health insurance when they needed it, thus guaranteeing that the company would be paying out way more in benefits than it collected in premiums. (Imagine buying life insurance only AFTER one has been diagnosed with a terminal illness).

Can’t stay in business that way, and as a result, the company fails and NO ONE gets health care coverage.

The idea is to pool resources from those who don’t need it for those who do. To do that you need both a carrot (this is what we will pay for, and this is what it will cost) and a stick (if you don’t get it when you don’t need it, you can’t get it if you do). And you needf to guard against those who would game the system.

Even the Aflac duck wouldn’t sign someone up for disability insurance if they were only applying for it after they were disabled.

Bertha
July 31st, 2009 | 3:14 pm | #51

I am heartsick, yes. Surprised, no. How can anyone NOT be surprised at the direction of the governement health care plan? The Catholic Church and other folks warned that Roe v. Wade would inevitably lead to further denigration of human life. Many Americans, convinced that our unborn children were just “blobs” and “potential” humans, felt safe that born-real people would not be discarded like unnecessary trash. The right-to-life predictions of 1973 seemed so far fetched. The elderly denied care for their ailments? The value of handicapped citizens questioned? Terminal patients encouraged to end it all as soon as possible? Well, here we are.

LibraryGryffon
July 31st, 2009 | 3:25 pm | #52

The milage of the clunker for the CFC program is it’s original average estimate. So I have a 10 year old Mitsubishi that’s lost about 10% of its MPG, but CFC doesn’t seem to take age into account. So my old decrepit care won’t be eligible (now that they’ve alloted another $2Billion(!!) for the program.

Can’t afford the repairs, can’t afford to replace it.

My husband is retired Navy. I had to deal with Tricare as my primary during the Clinton years, and it was horrid. One of the reasons I’ve worked hard to get a good job so I can afford better. Anyone wanting to take that choice away from me better watch out.

newton
July 31st, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #53

Preach it, Anchoress!

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #54

Anchoress, I apologize for never joking around. Sheesh. I can’t remember anyone else here taking the same tone in a debate, but I’ll take your word for it they do. And as to my not finding this a friendly place, I don’t find an unfriendly place either. I find it, as you indicated, a place for civil, i.e. respectful, if sometimes contentious, debate.

“As to the rest, I am cynical, on and off, and I’ve admitted it and rued it”

OK, I haven’t been reading you for long, so I just hadn’t seen that. And, OK, you’re completely cynical about Nancy Pelosi (I don’t entirely blame you). I’m completely cynical, as you know, about Sarah Palin. I’ll trade you Palin for Pelosi for 24 hours, and the most cynical person wins the fair-minded prize. I will admit not to praying for Palin’s good, but then I figure you guys have that covered.

“And btw, that was a neat trick – you never did respond to my response to your assertion that Pelosi makes no money off the poor.-admin]”

I respond to every argument I see in good faith, at least is I have something new to say. (I noticed today I missed one from Alia on the birther thread, but no one’s writing there anymore). Are you referring to this?: “[Yeah, cause heaven knows middle class people don't take vacations, dine out, drink wine (or, maybe pick grapes as grad students) or eat Tuna, for that matter (I do recall that Pelosi's interest in something regarding fish affected some sort of fishing law a few years back.)" Something about a fishing law? I don't know what I'm supposed to say to that.

[No, I was talking about my point that the resorts, the dining establishments and the wineries all exist by the sweat of the working class who are often the poorest of the working class. And it might be noted that these folks (particularly the resort employees, from housekeeping to room service to bartenders and so forth) and the food service folks have been hugely hit by the recession and the double-whammy of President Obama, Maxine Waters and the rest demonizing the very sound business practice of taking good clients out to dinner, and on jaunts, or of taking their own business training "off site" as a reward for productive members. These participants are not all fatcats, you know. My very middle class husband occasionally enjoyed a three day trip somewhere, as a little perk for his excellent and hard work at his often-60 hours a week job, and the trip usually included training and the chance to relax and be entertained. Good for business, good for the hotel/resort/dining industries. These things helped provide jobs and stimulate the economy all around. Obama and the Dems in congress did a swift and early job crashing that industry and it is still not recovered, but didn't I read something about one of the gov't agencies just spending $700,000 at the Arizona Biltmore for a three-day jaunt to soothe the nerves of these executives? Ah, yes, I did. Thank God for the government - since they won't let private industry spend such monies without the threat of demonization, it's a good thing they have our tax money for the purpose. Am I cynical? Yeah, sadly. Hard to keep up! See? That's a joke. Sometimes, we kid around, around here...friendly-like. And btw, no, I do not pray for Palin. I pray for Presidents. The rest of the politicians are on their own, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not particularly a Palin-ite. Like Camille Paglia, I think she's a woman with a lot of political talent, but she also made some mistakes and needs to do some work before she's ready to even consider a run for the WH. (Obama wasn't ready for the WH, either, and it shows.) I also believe that if Palin had a D after her name and hadn't given birth to Trig, she'd be a goddess to the Democrats, because she is everything the feminist narrative says a woman can be. But since she has that R after he name, and that "burden" of a kid, why...she must be destroyed. I do bristle at how she has been treated - the viciousness we saw from the left and the press last autumn was like nothing I'd seen in 40 years of politics-watching- and frankly if I ever DID see someone on the left treated as harshly as she is (besides Presidents who are in a different league all-together) I would defend them. In fact, I have done that in the past, even defending Hillary Clinton's cleavage from some right-wing prunes. There are lines that should not be crossed, and there should be some consistent standards as to how pols and their families should be treated. All of them got crossed or broken where Palin was concerned, and someday people on the left will be honest about that. But I think you have also been here long enough to see me suggest that there is the danger of a Cult of Personality forming around Palin that could rival the sick Cult we've seen around Obama. I am wary of all of them. -admin]

Elizabeth Anne
July 31st, 2009 | 4:40 pm | #55

Ken – I don’t know for certain but I’d be willing to guess the survey’s YOU’RE referring to are for active military. And I’ll happily say that the military runs the absolute best system out there – totally the ones you went if, say, you’re in a jeep that hits an IED, or if you get shot in a combat zone. But when it comes to the long term managed care provided to vets, it’s a nightmare.

[Thank you, Elizabeth Anne, for validating my experience with long-term managed care to vets. I will not go into the plight of a family-member in long-term care -the details are painful and private - except to say my family had to repeatedly fight with doctors to give him rather simple (and inexpensive) care they would have preferred to withhold from him because by their measure, his life seemed pretty crappy. And he was in much better shape, for instance, than Terri Schiavo. He could move about in his wheelchair, eat, talk (limited), get jokes, enjoy music, magic tricks, parties and birthday cake and magazines and small hobbies; it was the life he had, and he was entitled to it, and he was further entitled to not have to justify his existence to a board of accountants. When you have had a doctor ask you if someone you love is really worth keeping alive, you understand where Obamacare is headed, and it chills to the bone. Numbers crunches do not take love, and the intangibles that the "unuseful" bring to our world, into consideration -admin]

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #56

T, I agree that some people do try to game the health insurance industry, but a lot of those people are poor and are just trying to get by as well as they can. And others are just young and don’t think they need insurance yet for the routine disabilties that come with age, and then they get diagnosed with something big and they’re out of luck. All of which of course is one reason for requiring everyone to carry insurance, an idea conservatives don’t like.

Conservatives don’t want bureaucrats denying them certain health care options, but then the AFL-CIO reports that “in 2007, the CEOs at the top seven for-profit, private insurance companies pocketed an average of $14.2 million in total compensation,” all the while effectively denying a lot of people those same options.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 4:49 pm | #57

Elizabeth Anne, thanks for telling me something I didn’t know.

Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 5:39 pm | #58

The milage of the clunker for the CFC program is it’s original average estimate.

I’d like to get a new car, but my 2002 Ford Focus doesn’t qualify. Even if it did, any qualifying new car would be too expensive, even with the subsidy — I can’t afford to save that much. It’s hardly a deal to have to spend $20,000 to save $4,000.

Bender
July 31st, 2009 | 5:54 pm | #59

I can’t afford the “savings” of healthcare “reform” or healthcare financing “reform” either.

Last year, I spent probably ten dollars on healthcare expenses (I bought a bottle of ibuprofen), which was entirely out-of-pocket. TEN DOLLARS. FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. And for that high level of care, I only had to spend an additional $1,200 or so on employee contributions to the heath plan provided by my employer (which contributed who knows how much extra), plus another few hundred dollars for the personal injury portion of my car insurance.

Nearly every year of my life, my burden on the healthcare system has been ZERO. In other words, I’ve already been subsidizing others for a while now. And now Obama calls me selfish and wants to punish me with increased premium payments??

Fine. Maybe I’ll start working toward getting my money’s worth then. Maybe I’ll start going to the doctor four or five times a year, rather than once every four or five years. And I won’t be alone, as perfectly healthy people (and your typical male) start flooding the healthcare system because they are tired of paying into it and getting nothing out of it. That will help reduce costs and increase quality and quantity of care, I’m sure.

T
July 31st, 2009 | 6:30 pm | #60

Ken,

It’s not just the poor whoi game the system, it’s human nature; which of us would choose to pay for something if we can figure out a loophole to get the same thing for “free”? In fact, the poor already have access to govt support such as the CHIP Program and Medicaid; those more likely to game the system are those who could have paid but made the decision not to. As the knight guarding the Holy Grail said (in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) they chose poorly.

Now I am admittedly a traditionalist and throughout my life I was never without health insurance except for a short time between jobs when I and my family had to be covered by the social programs I mentioned. And that was the only time in my life I haven’t paid for my own coverage. Why? Because having medical coverage for myself and my family is the responsible thing to do.

Why, I ask, should my tax dollars be put to use just because some uninsured person chose to buy the BMW I could never afford because I was paying for health care? Or moreso, to cover someone who has put his health care money up his nose instead? To do that and expect government coverage is, in itself, is gaming the system.

As for the salary of insurance execs; get off the class warfare carousel. As I mentioned above, they are responsible for their companies and for thousands of jobs. If they’re doing their jobs, then they deserve what they can get; if they’re not, that’s not the fault of the insurance industry. It’s because our corporate system has become too inbred; that can be changed, but no one is addressing that (but that’s another discussion for another time).

I’m not a big fan of insurance companies or corporate culture, but not because I envy people their success. If you want to berate insurance companies, then do so after you speak to the widow who just received the life insurance check that she wasn’t cheated out of, or talk to the husband whose wife just had a life-saving hysterectomy at age 60. Why shouldn’t they deny that—she’s past child bearing years and doesn’t have all that long to live anyway? But they don’t deny that coverage because that’s part of the coverage the company obligated itself to in exchange for receiving the person’s premiums for all of these years.

Pam
July 31st, 2009 | 7:25 pm | #61

Did anyone else notice that all during SENATOR Boxer’s unfortunate (for her) encounter with the gentleman who is the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce, he repeatedly addressed her as “Ma’am”–and somehow SENATOR Boxer never even so much as hinted that he should address her as SENATOR!

Pam
July 31st, 2009 | 7:41 pm | #62

Me again. Regarding military medicine–I have spent my whole life, nearly 65 years connected to the military in some way or other. My Dad was a career officer, I put in 5 years in the Air Force and married a career Navy man. I have to say that the two times I needed surgery, I had absolutely fabulous care and I will be forever grateful. That said, the military also illustrates a major problem with “free” medical care, and that is, when something is “free” it tends to lose value in the eyes of the recipients. Waiting rooms at military hospitals are heavily populated with people who would not be there if they had to pay even the slightest fee for the service they were getting. People go to the clinic for such things as the common cold and expect all sorts of attention and medication. It clogs up the system and believe me, it’ll be a whole lot worse if the entire country goes to socialized medicine. I believe I got the great care I did because I really needed to be there. Some of those who complain (not all, but some) are people who basically wasted the hospital staff’s time and taxpayers’ money.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 8:42 pm | #63

Anchoress I note that it was ABC of the so-called in-the-tank-for-big-government mainstream media that broke $700,000 junket that story. But I really don’t see your point. I don’t see Obama winking at that sort of thing. As for business dinners and the like, rewarding clients and good employees is great if you can afford it. Otherwise, it’s best have to reward them in the form of contracts and paychecks, not taxpayer money.

So Palin needs to do “some work” before she’s ready for national office — you do kid around, don’t you?!! But I’ve never bought the notion that Democrats want to destroy her because she lives out her pro-life convictions. I will grant you that some have been hypocritical it not viewing that as a feminist choice, but then the family values folks have been hypocritical in not criticizing her. As for the viciousness of the media and the leftwing blogosphere, I don’t read those blogs, so maybe they were vicious, but the press gave her what she deserved. She set herself up for ridicule as both a pretender to the vice-presidency and as a whiny, narcissistic, self-declared pit bull.

Yes you did say you’re wary of the Cult of Palin. I’m not sure how well the Cult of Obama is holding, but it doesn’t hurt it that he’s such a likeable guy.

Does Pelosi own businesses that pay lousy wages? If they’re not living wages, I agree she deserves criticism for it. But is she denying them health care?

“[“Liberals have always held that personal affairs should remain personal affairs.” – well, that’s nonsense.

Did you forget John Kerry and John Edwards outting Dick Cheney’s daughter as a lesbian (as though that was a bad thing) or the whole movement to “out” gay republicans?”

How does that make them inconsistent for attacking corporate greed? And what else did actively gay Republicans deserve?

“Liberals have disallowed pub owners from deciding whether or not they may cater to a smoking clientele.”

I think that’s going too far, but their argument is that the people working there are being exposed against their will, i.e. that smoking in public is, well, smoking _in public_, and as such not a private act.

“And as for Bush’s “flat out unconstitutional” moves, which ones of those, exactly, has Obama rescinded and saved us from?”

You can look that up. Obama has gone back to military tribunals in some cases after reviewing that program, but they’re legal now. They weren’t when Bush began them.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 8:54 pm | #64

T, of course I agree that it’s not only the poor who game the system, but a lot of folks make too much for Medicaid but have trouble affording insurance.

And I’m not into class warfare. I don’t begrudge the guy who got rich selling imported caviar at prices I can’t afford. The guy who makes umpteen times more than his struggling employees — employees who may work just as hard, who may be using the gifts God gave them to as full an extent as he does — he’s another story. That guy could try a self-imposed Jubilee Year.

“But they don’t deny that coverage because that’s part of the coverage the company obligated itself to in exchange for receiving the person’s premiums for all of these years.”

I don’t follow. They’re to be praised for keeping their side of a legal bargain?

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 9:01 pm | #65

By the way, T, I’d be interested in seeing you and others here respond to Paul Krugman’s NY Times column today, the one entitled “Health Care Realities.”

T
July 31st, 2009 | 9:58 pm | #66

Ken,

You wrote:

“I don’t follow. They’re to be praised for keeping their side of a legal bargain?”

You miss the point. This indicates that you either really don’t understand the situation, or you’re trolling and baiting me. I believe the latter, so I’ll comment this one last time. Then, you’re on your own.

The point is NOT that insurance companies should be commended for keeping their part of the contract. That’s what expected, but there are many justifications for excluding such a surgery from the contact in the first place. They don’t do that! And do you know what? You know that; that’s how I know you’re trolling.

It’s all a matter or managing risk. The company takes certain risks; one is that it will have to pay for some care that they would rather not pay for. Liberals, on the other hand, criticize them for not paying for a pre-existing condition, a risk that is predictable and that they should not take. This latter is like driving across a bridge that has been condemned and closed to traffic. You know what you’re going to get.

You also wrote: “I don’t begrudge the guy . . . who makes umpteen times more than his struggling employees”

In fact you do! Umpteen times? Struggling employees? Your language evinces your envy. And what liberals totally ignore is the fact that the man who now makes the umpteen dollars is very often the one who takes the risk in the first place.

Now let me relate a parable that even you might understand. When Columbus sailed the Atlantic, just about every learned person on earth already knew the earth was round. Columbus didn’t prove that. The reason that people didn’t cross the ocean was because they believed that there were sea monsters. Well, Columbus left and returned. When the first guy does it, he was lucky. After 20 ships do it, people start to think that maybe there aren’t sea monsters after all. After 100 ships do it, everyone knows that there aren’t any sea monsters.

The point? Read carefully now, Ken, and slowly. The first sailors who took the risks became the colonial rulers; the most recent hundred. who faced no risks, became the colonists (Thanks, again, to Lester Thurow).

The first sailors get all the glory and go down in history because they are the one who took the risks and had the most to lose. So, too, in business; Jobs and Wozniak built a computer empire from their garage because they took a risk when computers were large, room sized vacuum tube machines. Bill Gates took a risk because IBM believed that all of the profit was in the hardware and he saw a different future. Both of these visions worked out to the tune of vast fortunes for their visionaries, but it didn’t have to work out that way. All three could have just as easily been anonymous mid-level employees for some company.

Insurance companies take these risks all the time. They can’t avoid them and they know that; their job is to manage those risks so that they can pay the necessary claims while still meeting payroll, paying off loans, and rewarding investors with dividends. The fact that they piss off people like yourself is just an added bonus.

Ken
July 31st, 2009 | 10:31 pm | #67

T,

I’m really sorry you think I’m trolling, but you have me wrong.

You write that “there are many justifications for excluding such a surgery from the contact in the first place. They don’t do that! And do you know what? You know that,” but I don’t know how you know what my experience with catastrophic prohic health claims is, and just today I read, in the Krugman column I asked your reponse to, that “Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient’s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.”

And I don’t know how “umpteen times” and “struggling employees” indicates envy on my part. Does it indicate envy on the part of rich liberals who make the same arguments? You don’t know me or my history. I consider myself a very fortunate guy, and I had a physical today for a lousy 15 bucks.

And I agree that to the Wozniaks and Gates’ go the spoils. But which insurance company head today came up with the concept of selling insurance? And which insurance company head today doesn’t know that if he takes a risk and it fails and gets him fired, he won’t have a golden parachute?

“The fact that they piss off people like yourself is just an added bonus.”

I’m sorry you feel that way. I was really enjoying our discussion.

John Bey
July 31st, 2009 | 11:46 pm | #68

Concerning healthcare, this week we marked the 44th anniversary of the creation of the Medicare program. With former President Harry Truman — a strong advocate for national health care — at his side, President Lyndon Johnson signed the program into law.

Today, we hear strong echoes of that debate: inefficient and costly government. Putting the government between the doctor and the patient. Socialized medicine.

Although Medicare now is widely seen as a successful program for helping Americans access health care, it was very controversial when it was passed. The same arguments against health care reform today were made then. Some leaders from Bob Dole to Gerald Ford fought the program and voted against its creation.

Before Medicare was enacted, 44 percent of seniors were uninsured and, of those that had insurance, most had coverage only for hospital care. Before Medicare, seniors had limited choices for their health care. They could deplete their savings, seek assistance from their children, look for charity care, or forgo the medical care they needed.

Within 11 months after President Johnson signed Medicare into law, almost 20 million Americans had enrolled in the program. Medicare has virtually eliminated uninsurance among older Americans, and today fewer than one percent of those age 65 or older lack health insurance.

Today, Medicare covers 44.1 million beneficiaries with an overhead of approximately 2 percent. Medicare’s low administrative overhead and efficiencies of service have helped Medicare’s costs grow at a slower rate for the past five years than private health insurance for the same benefits, despite seniors’ higher need for services. While Medicare may not be perfect and every year the government makes some changes, it has been a godsend for millions of seniors. It provides basic, affordable, universal health care to a population abandoned by private industry decades ago. We can and should make improvements to Medicare, especially as health care — technology, practices, the role of pharmaceuticals — has evolved.

This year, we are debating the next stage of health reform that would fix the broken health insurance system. Some have voiced concerns that America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, the health care reform legislation currently being considered by the House of Representatives, would weaken Medicare. In fact, the opposite is true. Our legislation would benefit seniors by strengthening this successful program.

The bill would eliminate the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Each year many senior citizens face the Medicare doughnut hole and are forced to pay their drug costs after Medicare reaches the limit of what it will pay. The legislation would provide them with immediate relief, by cutting brand name drug costs in the doughnut hole by 50 percent and ultimately eliminating the doughnut hole (too slowly, I think, but nevertheless really eliminates it). The bill would eliminate co-payments and deductibles in Medicare for preventive services, to ensure diseases are treated at the earliest stage and to keep people well. The legislation goes further to create new Medicare incentives to encourage physicians and hospitals to coordinate medical care and therefore eliminate duplicate tests, x-rays, and labs.

By passing the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, we would provide stable coverage that cannot be taken away. The bill would ensure Americans always have a source of coverage even if you are in between jobs, lose your job, or your job doesn’t provide it. It would ensure families have stable health costs that won’t threaten their finances. Americans would not have to worry about leaving the hospital with bills too big to pay because their benefits have run out. Moreover, the bill would set an annual cap on out-of-pocket health expenses in order to eliminate cases where one disease forces a family into bankruptcy. (It is worth noting that 60 percent of family bankruptcies involve a major health expense.)

This week, it is instructive not simply to commemorate the creation and success of Medicare but to remember the long struggle that led to this successful program. The program is so successful that some do not even think about its operation by our government. One American wrote a letter to President Obama saying, “I don’t want government-run health care. And don’t touch my Medicare.” Another told one of my Congressional colleagues at a town hall to “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

More than 40 years ago, Congress and the president were right to enact Medicare.

I predict that more than 40 years from now, today’s cries of “socialized medicine” and today’s political chatter about who is benefiting from the debate will have faded. Instead, it will be noted that we did the right thing by finally ensuring that all Americans have health care security, a goal that has eluded our nation for a century.

Stephanie
August 1st, 2009 | 2:29 am | #69

Wow are there a lot of comments!
Cash for clunkers- well, the program did as intended, if it went broke. Dealers and the car companies knew what the limit was-and part of the reason behind suspending the program is so that they don’t go on accepting cars after all the money is spent. It was only ever possible to fund 250,000 exchanges, so if the gov’t is saying “wait- we’ve exchanged the 250,000 already” then they’re doing the responsible thing.
Veteran health care-my father in law has been using it for decades, and has been very happy with it. I’ve read a few commentators who have had good experiences, and a few who’ve had bad, so it’s hard to make a conclusion based on ancedotal evidence, as you suggest in your comment to Ken (where you state that your family member’s experience invalidates anything he can come up with- first long admin comment, I think)
As far as preexisting conditions, this is a hard one. I know of one boy who was denied coverage for a pre existing condition- he’d had insurance, even the same insurance, his whole life, but then his dad changed jobs, so it was a new contract. His dad had to pay 800/month to cover just him for 3 years before he would be covered for anything- and then, that condition would never be covered. Some states do provide assistance to cover those with high risk-a collegue went without insurance in his 20’s cause he thought he didn’t need it, discovered he had a chronic disease, and got insurance. Later in life when he was uninsured again, he found a state sponsored high risk pool he could join, enabling him to get a personal policy for his wife and kids for less than the cost of COBRA. So in some places the state does already help (this was Oregon, I believe).

Andrew Batten
August 1st, 2009 | 7:11 am | #70

Ken,

OK, I just have to ask–How can something (in this case, military tribunals)go from “flat out unconstitutional” under Bush to “legal now” under Obama?

If Obama decrees that we all have to worship Ba’al, would that too be “legal now”?

If something was a violation of the Constitution on January 19th, I would have assumed it would still be on January 20th. Guess I didn’t get the memo.

Ken
August 1st, 2009 | 8:22 am | #71

Andrew, the Supreme Court invalidated the tribunals in 2005 and then Bush went to Congress lobbying for a redesigned practice and got a bill through. In other words, they aren’t the same tribunals.

T
August 1st, 2009 | 8:50 am | #72

Ken,

Having re-read our series of posts I still suspect that I was being baited, so I will not continue commenting, but that was no excuse for writing in the tone that I did.

Please accept my apology for my snarky and condescending attitude in my previous post.

Ken
August 1st, 2009 | 9:07 am | #73

T, it’s not like I’ve never adopted that tone online myself. Apology easily accepted. Or as the kids say, no problem.

Anglican Peggy
August 1st, 2009 | 4:01 pm | #74

John Bey,

Wow. I may be wrong but I have seen a lot of arguments for govt health care and yours sounds just a wee bit canned. Where did you get that from? Is your “mission” to go around posting it at conservative sites?

Anyway, I wanted to reply in a general way to the idea that if a little of something is good then a lot more of it will be just as good as well as the corollary argument that superficial similarities between events in the past and in the present means that the same outcome can be predicted.

Medicare took only a minority portion of the population out of the private insurance market. The new plan will take a majority of the population out of it and that is just for starters. The private insurance companies won’t be able to compete for long with the so-called “public option” and before long will be priced out of the general market eventually making that public option the only one for almost everyone.

I say almost everyone because private health care will then become priced too high for the average person to afford it ie only the richest people will be able to afford it. So we will have a situation where only the haves will have access to the kind of care that millions of average people can now afford. Instead, the average person will be equally subject to the same bad utilitarian coverage as everyone else.

Our current system allows for more people to have access to coverage with all the bells and whistles than ever would have access under a single payor system* For the minority that cannot be covered or for those whose medical bills exceed their coverage, certain reforms esp some kind of government back stop is more in order. If the government could step in only when absolutely necessary in order to provide some relief for the overburdened or some kind of re-insurance for the insurance companies so that they would be more willing to take higher risks (someone above mentioned state programs which do this very thing) This seems like the plan that would not only preserve the health care that many of us already have, it would also cover the exceptional cases.

And the entire argument for universal care is really an argument from those exceptional cases. We should do something about those cases but enacting a complete overhaul is truly a case of extreme overkill for our situation which will only result in most of us losing the great coverage that we currently have.

(and do not even try to suggest that the private companies can lower their prices to government levels and still be able to both stay in business and provide the same coverages as before. The public option is nothing more than a stop gap trojan horse on our way to single payor via market forces.)

Anglican Peggy
August 1st, 2009 | 4:07 pm | #75

Re: my post above. Just be aware that I accidentally hit the submit button before I was completely finished editing it.

But its really a switch from the usual. More often than not, even though I know should use Word instead, I compose a long post in the combox and spend a lot of time on it only to lose the whole thing before it sees the light of day. So I guess I should be happy that didn’t happen this time!

Ken
August 1st, 2009 | 4:23 pm | #76

Anglican Peggy, when I hear someone say that a public option will price private insurance out of the market, or make it unaffordable to most people, I always wonder how that would happen if governmental care turned out to be as bad as the naysayers predict it will be. Surely you don’t think everyone’s going to jump gov. coverage all at once. Won’t there be a long period in which people can compare? And if most people compare and switch to gov.
care, won’t that mean gov. care is the better option? And if the quality of gov.care then declines, won’t there be companies around, or companies that can be created, when people switch back? I mean competition is good right? There is no political will for single payer, so the public option won’t replace the market, it will compete in the market.

You write that you wish “the government (w)ould step in only when absolutely necessary in order to provide some relief for the overburdened,” but isn’t that just what it’s trying to do?

Jim
August 2nd, 2009 | 12:41 am | #77

We all know what “tort reform” means at this point, i.e., stripping juries of their Constitutional authority to award damages based on their good judgment and the evidence. It’s not insignificant that while insurance companies and their lobbyists propagandize for “tort reform,” they never agree to cap their own profits. Only damages awarded by a jury can be capped, not their profits. The inequity of this scheme is obvious.

cathyf
August 2nd, 2009 | 12:58 am | #78

As far as preexisting conditions, this is a hard one. I know of one boy who was denied coverage for a pre existing condition- he’d had insurance, even the same insurance, his whole life, but then his dad changed jobs, so it was a new contract. His dad had to pay 800/month to cover just him for 3 years before he would be covered for anything- and then, that condition would never be covered

Stephanie, this particular problem was solved on July 1, 1997. As of that date, insurance companies were required to cover pre-existing conditions in as long as the person was covered for that condition in there previous insurance(s) and the coverage had never lapsed.

This situation is a fascinating example of the application of game theory to economic questions. Here is the situation: Before 1997, all companies had to exclude pre-existing conditions from coverage. This meant that people who had a family member with one of these conditions would become trapped in a job where they were no longer a good fit, even if some other company wanted to hire the person. The companies (who are the insurance co’s customers) desperately wanted their insurance co’s to cover the conditions, and kept demanding it.

The problem is this, though. If only one insurance company would accept people with preexisting conditions, then all of the people who were covered by that one company would still be “trapped” but all of the people covered by other companies would have the option of moving to the one company. So what would happen over time is that these people would flow out of the other companies and into the one company, which would make their costs higher. This would mean that all of the other companies could afford to lower their premiums, while the one company couldn’t afford not to raise theirs. Which would drive the one company out of business — and, among other things, leave all of the collected pre-existing condition people without insurance or the ability to ever be insured.

On the other hand, if all of the insurance companies simultaneously had to cover pre-existing conditions, then by the law of averages, as people shift around, the number of expensive pre-existing conditions moving in to a plan are balanced by the numbers moving out. So in this case the insurance companies would be able to supply a valuable service greatly demanded by their customers basically for free to them.

So what happened is that the insurance companies got together and lobbied Congress to pass the law, effective July 1, 1997, which required everyone to cover pre-existing conditions simultaneously. This is a canonical example of the specific type of problem where everyone can be better off if they all do something simultaneously, while if only one party does that thing the one party will be destroyed, so no one individual can be the first one to do the thing. In this very specific class of problem, which is quite unusual, government can in fact make everyone better off by forcing everyone to do the thing simultaneously.

The problem with this example is that people look at this case, where you have a peculiar situation, with peculiar characteristics, and take it as “proof” that whatever government does in any and every situation will have a positive effect.

The pioneer in studies of these kinds of peculiar situations is a guy named Mancur Olson, and the person who did the most important work in the field is a guy named Russ Hardin. (I took a class in college from Hardin, and we used Olson’s seminal work The Logic Of Collective Action as the textbook.) The most important idea from Collective Action work: there are very specific cases where people band together and subject themselves to some particular coercion because they are all better off than if they did not do so. But once these people create this structure, it is a constant danger to them and to others because the collective that they form has enough power to branch out from their value-creating activity into stealing and cheating and all of the more or less gangster behaviors. (As those of us raised in Catholic religion classes would say, all such collective activity is an “occasion of sin” just waiting to happen.)

Stephanie
August 2nd, 2009 | 12:32 pm | #79

Cathyf,

This insurance company in question was Blue Cross. The Blue Cross coverage was provided at the first position by the Blue Cross of Rhode Island, at the second position it came from Blue Cross of TN. In both cases, claims were paid b y Blue Cross of TN (but in the first, they then billed RI). That is how the preexisting condition was able to be excluded, although coverage had never lapsed. Now you may be right and my friend could have fought- but that takes money, which he did not have.

Anglican Peggy
August 2nd, 2009 | 4:39 pm | #80

Ken, oh so that is why Walmart failed to kill off all the mom and pop shops on Main Street! The people didn’t choose crappy no-frills products at cheap prices.

No wait! The super-competitor with all the buying power and chock full of disposable products won out over the pricier competition until there was no option left for anyone who still wanted to shop at those stores. (BTW I am not anti-Walmart or anti-market at all. Just noting a fact here that they demolished their competition and reduced choice.)

You are right, it will take time but it is not entirely up to consumers. I wonder how many of those mom and pop shops decided to cut their losses and go out of business before they lost everything? Or how many attempted to compete with the buying power of Walmart and lowered the quality of the products they provided? (Isn’t this in fact what Obama actually predicts as a desirable outcome? Doesn’t he think that private companies will bring their prices down? But with their higher cost of operations, they would also have to lower their quality to the same standard as the public option.)

Yeah, I think this is also the same thing that happened to American manufacturing vs China. Now even if you would prefer to buy American that option isn’t available, particularly for every day items. I searched for a week for the last set of flatware that I purchased to find a set made in America. I wanted one made in the US because I still had the remnants of a set I had bought for my first apartment at a very affordable price. The pieces I still had were still in great shape 15 years later (The other pieces walked off as opposed to falling apart). I wanted to buy another set made in America because I had purchased other sets made in China over the years at a similar price and I had none that lasted. When I did finally manage to find a set made in America, I had to pay much more than the umpteen other options that were made in China.

I am sure that i am not alone in my preference to buy American whenever I can not only for the quality of the products but for patriotic reasons. But 99% of the time, I either can’t find that option or I can’t afford to spend the extra money. The turnover happened long before I was ready to switch and I would bet it happened before most American’s realized what was going on. In other words, it doesn’t take everyone having to choose the so-called “public option” (which as I said is a trojan horse) to destroy the private option for most people. It won’t even take a majority of people switching to Obamacare to price private health care out of the reach of average people. Once you have one super-competitor in the market, it won’t take long to put most of the private competitors out of business and the ones left will charge much more for what will then be a premium service provided by companies specializing in it. In order for these companies to compete with each other, they will have to offer better and more exclusive services than the next company until only rich people will be able to afford the private option. I wouldn’t doubt that most of these premium private options will stop offering anything like the basic coverage found in the, by that time, only option for average people. Average people will ultimately be forced into the public option like it or not and regardless of the level of quality.

You know kind of like those shops that replaced the mom and pop stores on main street, the boutique stores that I, and I’ll bet a lot of people on this board, most times can’t afford to shop in.

I’ll repeat. The system that we have now allows more people to have better coverage than a system which will inevitably end up as effectively single payor for people with average incomes. This is because the free market is allowed to operate without a government super-competitor. The private companies, who are answerable to both their investors and to their customers to grow the premium money that they collect, are forced by that condition to keep costs at a level that most average people can afford.

And you have to be kidding if you think that the government plan is only backstop to insure the exceptional cases. I can’t even believe you would try to put that forward as a true statement. Our government is planning on becoming a competitor in the insurance market which is a far far cry from what I propose which would be some kind of measure which would only take affect in exceptional cases after the limits of private care had been reached, a safety net only for those who need it only when and if they need it.

Ken
August 3rd, 2009 | 9:07 am | #81

No, Anglican Peggy, Wal-Mart hasn’t prospered at the expense of smaller operations with only no frills products at cheaper prices, nor would they if that’s all they had. I bought a coffeemaker there a few months ago and I had about a dozen models to choose from. And when I’d wanted something really high end, there are plenty of places I could have gone.

People don’t choose where to shop solely on the basis of price, but on the quality of goods and services. And that leads back to my original question: why would people jump ship except for a better deal? People of average means are going to be priced out of a lot of options anyhow, if we don’t alter the system we have now.

You also don’t factor in the fact that companies with large market share and high profitability may choose to cut corners, but don’t have to do so. In this case, each administration and each party will have incentives to keep the quality of care as high as possible, incentives like human decency and the desire for reelection.

Finally, your notion that the public option is intended by “our government” as a trojan horse to destroy the heath insurance industry is simplistic, sounds like regurgitated propaganda, and seems to presume bad faith and even deviousness on the part of the people who are pushing it. In fact, the people pushing a public option come from many walks of life. Some want single payer, and some don’t, and even the ones that do are capable of changing their minds if a limted public option works badly.

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