The president and his allies are hoping to reform the US health care system, which represents roughly 17% of the domestic economy. They’re doing so with little open debate and next to no transparency – a recent, closed door White House meeting with senators included 23 Democratic politicians and the Senate’s lone socialist. And the president wants a bill on his desk by August.
So I think it’s right to ask, as the WSJ has – what’s the rush?
It’s not hard to see why Democrats are trying to hew to this full-speed-ahead timetable. Their health overhaul will run up a 13-figure price tag at a time when spending and deficits are already at epic levels and hook up the middle class to an intravenous drip of government health subsidies for generations to come. These are not realities that Democrats want the American people to mull over for very long.
This is especially true for the majority of Americans who are generally satisfied with their coverage and doctors but worried about cost. They might get scared off if they were allowed the chance to realize that Democrats will do almost nothing to restrain rising health spending. Based on the leaks so far, this year’s legislation will hone in on traditional liberal concerns of social equity — covering the uninsured.
Give credit where it’s due for good intentions, but once the government fills the space previously occupied – however imperfectly – by market competitors, the market players get shouldered out. You can’t compete with the feds.
Employers on the edge will look to save costs by terminating health benefits for their employers, safe in the knowledge that the government will be there as a safety net. Their competitors will lose market share to companies that can provide equal goods and services at lower cost, leading them to join the exodus. As the pool of insured gets smaller, the risk to those remaining is spread less broadly, causing rates to rise for everyone and increasing the tendency to fall back on government health care. In a classic vicious cycle, eventually only the rich and very rich will be able to afford private health insurance.
The end result will no doubt be a much “fairer” system. But without some way of getting a handle on spiraling costs, it will not be – cannot be – a less expensive one. And it may not retain the same quality of care that insured Americans have gotten used to. How do you add 14 million otherwise uninsured people to the rolls and save money without imposing innovation stifling procedural restrictions or rationing?
The Democratic Party has been begging for the chance to fix the US health care system ever since the “crisis” was first revealed to us in 1993. Now the voters have given them the power to do so.
But it’s only fair for them to take the time and explain to us how this is going to work, what it’s going to cost and who is going to pay for it.
We’re going to end up in a two-tiered system with those able to afford it with pvt ins and flying to off-shore/overseas specialists while the rest/maj. wait in long lines for expensive, inferior care–just like in the UK–and with boot-leg pvt clinics springing up with the Govt turning a blind eye just like in Canada once the gen. public gets fed up and the tide begins to run the other way.
Unfortunately, it will take several generations for the system to totally break down and the tide of public opinion to turn–lots of needless suffering in-between.
Everything is rationed.
Right now the market functions to ration healthcare based on the patients access to wealth- cash, insurance, credit, golf memberships etc.
When the feds take over the rationing will be based on the patients access to time (unemployed and disabled have the most, rich children of capital second, workers last) and government influence (funny how the former list and the latter are so similar).
Which one is more fair may be open to debate, but no matter how much money is thrown at it, it can’t ever possibly transform medicine into unrestricted superabundant high-quality immediate high-tech best-drugs on-demand at walking distance in a good neighborhood with nice staff a pretty office and new magazines or cable tv in the waiting room.
The funny part is that in the end the same people will still pay for it. There aren’t enough riches amongst the rich to pay for it, the poor can’t pay for it because they haven’t the money. That leaves the Chinese or the minority of US residents that work and pay taxes. My bet is the Chinese aren’t ready to pay just yet.
Potosi Joel/
Amen, brother. Funny how nobody would ever say in public that every last citizen should be able to live in a 40,000 sq ft home like Bill Gates, or eat and drink the same quality/quantity fare he can afford (think food-stamps and public housing) yet should be able to avail themselves of the same level of health-care he can afford. And who should pay for all this?
One reform that would be easy to implement and would, in my opinion, do a lot to provide more affordable coverage (and therefore more coverage period) would be to allow small businesses to band together, through other entities like associations perhaps, to pool their employees into groups for purposes of negotiating insurance policies for their employees. My company is a small manufacturer. If I could, say through the National Association of Manufacturers, enroll in a group plan I assert I could obtain better rates in the free market and therefore be able to offer my employees better coverage options.
Since Small Business is a huge employer and offers less coverage options at higher prices (both the employer and employee) than large group plans at large entities (business and other institutions), I believe a substantial net increase in the number of individuals covered would be the final result.
This would not add to government burden in any way I can think of.
So why is it not allowed?
I have no answer.
“This would not add to [dependency on]government in any way I can think of.”
T6 you screwed that statement up. I edited it for you, so you will understand why it isn’t allowed by the Wacky Jacks of the left.
The objective is to get 50% +1 of the voting population totally dependent upon the government.
…for them to take the time and explain to us how this is going to work, what it’s going to cost and who is going to pay for it.
Somebody’s dreaming…
It ain’t gonna happen. The left can’t afford for anyone to think about this stuff. If they do we’d be roasting a few political morons of the sheer pleasure of it.
Having just taken advantage of the health coverage my employer provides, a nationalized system scares me to death.
I got an appt. with an orthopedic surgeon within 3 weeks of calling, had a surgery date 2 months later and completed P.T. 3 months later.
With a nationalized plan, I’d have to wait 2-3 months for that first appt, then another 2-3 months to get the results, then yet another 2-3 months for surgery.
I know this to be true because I have a friend in the U.K. who is going thru it right now. She needs a hip replacement like I did and by the time she gets it, she will have been “in the pipeline” for nearly one year.
One year of degenerative and horrifying pain.
Costs do need to be controlled – my surgery and recovery will cost over $60,000 by the time it’s all done.
But access and cost need to be balanced. And the government has proven time and again that’s not a combo it has any ability to attempt, let alone master.
All I can say is:
“Open Wide for Chunky”
(with a nod to that old candy commercial)
All I can say is:
“Open Wide for Chunky”
(with a nod to that old candy commercial)
Kris, Amen to that. We have friends in the UK and the horror stories are legion.
Recent study published reported the average uninsured in the US is more satisfied with their healthcare than the average Canadian.
Useless comment.
What report? Published by whom and when?
Links? Facts? Details?
Ron,
I believe he his referring to this one:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395928
Respects,
“This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care… The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care.”
Which would seem to indicate to me that if most uninsured Americans are happy with their healthcare, most Canadians must be happy with theirs too. Not that I would necessarily agree that most Canadians are happy with theirs. Still, it would be nice to see the actual study though as opposed to just an abstract, eh.
Obama care can only be Medicare/Medicaid, extended to the entire population. There is no achievable alternative to “contain costs” other than that. Think you hate your PPO saying your experimental treatment isn’t covered? How much will you like it when your gov’t bureaucrat tells you your MRI won’t be for three months? There, that feels so much better, I’m sure.
CBO studies show that 1/2 of the price run-up in health care costs is due to improvements in technology. My wife’s hospital just spent $1.2M on a surgical robot. One of the main uses will be low side effect prostectomies. I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but from where I sit, that isn’t a technology improvement I am willing to ration.
OldT6Flyer,
What you propose is not only allowed, it works pretty well in Ohio:
http://www.cose.org/
Several of the small companies I’ve worked for have provided health insurance through COSE.
The Obama administration and Democrat-controlled Congress seem to me to be like immature young adults who have just gained access to their trust funds and are determined to spend it all before Mom & Dad find out.
Massive bailouts, government expansion and new social programs will be nearly impossible to de-fund once the grownups return.
“….and are determined to spend it all before Mom and Dad find out.”
LOL! That’s a classic, Steve! How sadly true. File under: “Wish I’d said that.”
How much of the cost is for defensive medicine? I went to the Emergency Room a while back because I cut my leg and needed some stitches. I didn’t need an EKG and a heart sonogram. Granted I am on the large side, but I had just had both tests done within the past month AT THE SAME HOSPITAL.
Put the brakes on the lawyers and see how much that reduces health costs.
Jim,
So true, if you examine the plan proffered by the Administration and the Democrats, there is NO language in there regarding Tort Reform or ANY thing on waste, fraud or Abuse. Oh and nothing in there about prohibiting campaign contributions. Change You can Believe In.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
“…take the time and explain to us how this is going to work, what it’s going to cost and who is going to pay for it.”
Yeah, kinda like the spendulus bill. The idea is to shove it down our throats BEFORE anyone has a chance to understand the ramifications.
There is no escape from the “2 out of 3″ rule when it comes to health care. You can design a system that achieves 2 out of the following 3 things:
1. Cheap
2. Quick
3. Good
Ours is quick and good, but is not cheap.
UK is cheap and good, but is not quick.
Russia is cheap and quick, but is not good.
I dare you to name a system that achieves all 3 at once.
Navig8tor/
I suggest you re-evaluate your characterization of medicine in the UK as either “Cheap” OR “Good” if total budgetary costs and/or medical outcomes/success rates are considered, but your overall point is certainly well taken.
The Dem’s want to push this into Law because they understand that come next year they have to all go into “Campaign Mode” and go back to their constituents (a few of whom actually vote) and decry all the spending and the huge deficits as if they were all budget hawks! So this is it, that is why in a short 120 days or they have moved so quickly to throw out the free markets and the capitalistic underpinnings of our country. Oh, and that Constitution thing over there, just kind of ignore it, you know it’s so yesterday, outdated and non-European (it’s just another reason they don’t like us over there). Ya, know!!
You couple this program with their Crap-n-Trap program to “Save the Earth” from the global climate change and we will have the most imposing tax structure in the world. And when the wealthy and those who can afford it move out of the country the “middle class” will be right and truly screwed.
Scary.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
Here we go again. Lawyers designing a medical system. We don’t have doctors designing the court system.