Anthony Weiner is an honest Democrat:
S: So, Anthony, I figured it out over the break. You actually do want the federal government to take over all of health care.
W: Only in the sense that the federal government took over health care for senior citizens 44 years ago.
S: You want to expand that for all Americans.
W: Correct. I want Medicare for all Americans.
Weiner wants to destroy the private sector insurance market, which accounts for 15% of the American economy, in order to have government control health-care decisions. At least, as Jazz says, he’s honest … for what that’s worth.
It’s actually worth a lot. I wish we’d see that kind of honesty from the president and congressional leadership.
[Update mid morning]
From the Trojan Horse’s mouth: they plan on a slippery slope. Gee, what a shock.
[Early afternoon update]
More honesty from the left: the history of the “public option“:
Following Edwards’ lead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton picked up on the public option compromise. So what we have is Jacob Hacker’s policy idea, but largely Hickey and Health Care for America Now’s political strategy. It was a real high-wire act — to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative. It had a very positive political effect: It got all the candidates except Kucinich onto basically the same health reform structure, unlike in 1992, when every Democrat had his or her own gimmick. And the public option/insurance exchange structure was ambitious.
But the downside is that the political process turns out to be as resistant to stealth single-payer as it is to plain-old single-payer. If there is a public plan, it certainly won’t be the kind of deal that could “become the dominant player.” So now this energetic, well-funded group of progressives is fired up to defend something fairly complex and not necessarily essential to health reform. (Or, put another way, there are plenty of bad versions of a public plan.) The symbolic intensity is hard for others to understand. But the intensity is understandable if you recognize that this is what they gave up single-payer for, so they want to win at least that much.
And winning is all that matters to them.
Besides the fact that Medicare did not take over health insurance for thev over-65 set (Medicare supplements, anybody) I saw that interview and Weiner was very clear – his plan is not the President’s plan.
I also saw that interview and watched Scarborough baulk three times when asked the question “what value does private insurance provide?”
I saw that interview and Weiner was very clear – his plan is not the President’s plan.
So? There are lots of different hills with slippery slopes, but they all slide to the same place.
I also saw that interview and watched Scarborough baulk three times when asked the question “what value does private insurance provide?”
So Joe Scarborough isn’t that bright, either. Who knew? What’s your point? Anyway, I didn’t know that it was Scarborough who was being interviewed.
My point is that private insurance as currently structured is not bringing any value to the table.
Sweet Lincoln’s Mullet! If medical insurance isn’t a value, why make everyone buy it?!
Titus – because unless you’ve got a hundred grand cash under your matress, should you get sick you’ll need insurance from somebody.
Chris, that was a rhetorical question designed to illustrate how ludicrous your assertion is.
Chris – and even that amount of cash won’t help you when there aren’t enough good doctors to heal you, should you get sick or injured.
More importantly Tom, when the Government controls whether or not you can get care, a hundred grand will only help you if it is given as a donation to a Democratic Congressman. Just ask former GM car dealerships across the country.
Chris, are you like 12 years old or something?
No, I think he’s just a typical Leftist — if a thing does not fit his perfect vision of how the world must be, then it’s of no value whatsoever.
21 minutes to blowup, impressive even for you.
The government is not going to control how many doctors there are, or whether or not you can get care. That’s not in the bill, that’s not in the plan, that’s not what a single-payer system does.
if a thing does not fit his perfect vision of how the world must be, – not me. Look in the mirror.
Tell you what – I’ll answer the question that stumped Scarborough. There are three factors that a company can compete on, whether it’s selling cars, milk or insurance. Those factors are cost, quality (to include service) or convenience.
Right now, the private insurance industry is competing on convenience, in this case defined as “the only game in town.” They are the equivalent of the gas station on the side of the road that advertises “last gas for 50 miles.”
Should we get a public option, they would have to change their competetive model to compete on either cost or quality. Since in the short run that would hurt profits, the insurance companies are against health care reform.
Curt – not sure that’s a blow-up. I thought it was a simple statement of fact.
Should we get a public option, they would have to change their competetive model to compete on either cost or quality. Since in the short run that would hurt profits, the insurance companies are against health care reform.
He wrote this, but I bet he still doesn’t see how liberty is be trampled on or how the slippery slope works.
My apologies for the dangling preposition.
How is convenience a factor separate from cost and quality? No matter how “convenient” a good or service is, if I’m saving money by going out of my way to get it elsewhere, at the same quality, then I’ll go elsewhere. Conversely, if the quality isn’t up to par, then it’s hardly a convenience to go the cheaper route. So what you have is a set of tradeoffs, depending on where you decide to put the point where more quality isn’t cost-effective.
The beauty of a free market system is, I’m the one who gets to make that decision, not government (I’ll disregard the unreasoning hostility directed toward insurance companies; if you don’t like your insurance company, get a different one, or go without! Nobody compels you to use insurance, let alone use a specific brand). The very notion of an unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrat deciding for me where I must put the cost-quality decision point is frankly abhorrent when it comes to something as inconsequential as the car I drive – am I supposed to be happy about the idea when it’s applied to my health?
The argument is pathetic. Basic economics states that when prices are high, supply fails to meet demand. There is no aspect of life not impacted by this. What we have is too few doctors for too many health-care recipients. The way to fix that (and lower price!) is to increase the number of doctors available, and increase the number of treatments available. That’s why tort reform is the best way to “reform” health care, and expanded student loans for those going into medicine and biochem comes a close second. No production, no prosperity. Know production, know prosperity.
OK, here are some thoughts on health care plans:
1. Health care is often sold as “think of the children” (or poor adults,etc). It is essentially a “we must provide free care to everyone” argument, and different people draw different lines of where the free care starts.
This sounds like an admirable argument, but it has one critical failing: the supply of doctor’s time. None of these arguments increase the numbers of doctors. None of them increase the amount of time doctors can see patients. So the total health care possible is fixed under all these plans… we are simply arguing about how to allocate the doctors time.
Through these plans, we cannot increase the total net health care, we can only change how it is divided up.
2. The government wants to be the decider for how health care is divided up – for obvious reasons. First, all of a sudden everyone in industry wants to be there friend. There friends will do well for a while – those that don’t donate and become friends will have their portion of the bill cut (heart surgeons, it will be decided, are overpaid) while the friends will get higher pay (global warming therapists will have their pay doubled).
That sounds bad, but it doesn’t end there! Once the power that is available from the vendors has been used up, someone will realize that the only way to create more power for themselves is to decrease health care supply. If you are the decider on how to allocate scare resources, you want them more scarce. You would never want to decrease your power by increasing supply.
Now, now, you say – my friend X would never do that, and he is going to run the health care program. OK, but that just means that person Y can now outspend him in the campaign – because person Y can bank on the additional resources that will come his way when he decreases supply. Person X, being a good guy, can’t. He has to use whatever resources are left over, and ignore the largest source of power remaining. Obviously, he loses. The only stable result is that total health care available decreases under a government plan.
3. If you really want to increase the total health care available, it can be done. There is another “think of the poor children/adults” issue in this country where we have decided to heavily bias the market – food production. We approached that from two sides – we provided food stamps, and we subsidized farmers. This was an outrageously successful program! We have similar (or worse) ratios of rich money/poor money when compared to the rest of the world, but no one starves in the US. Food is plentiful and cheap.
My recommendation for a health care plan: Health stamps and subsidies. Model the health stamps after the food stamps program. They can’t be spent on non-healthcare. For the subsidy, pay all the costs of medical school for anyone that wants to go. Pay them a salary, based on passing each semester.
If you increase the number of doctors, health care costs will go down. Nothing else will work in the long run.
Mr. Gerrib,
You have no way of knowing the future, so you have no way of knowing what is or is not in “the plan” — because “the plan” is not just words in various versions of various bills inside the Beltway. Rather “the plan” is written in the minds of our public overlords, like Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel.
IRONY ALERT: “Emmanuel” means “God with us”
More like “vidscreen [1984] with us”
Leland – I actually do understand the slippery slope. I think, based on the actual, documented experiences of real-live people in other countries, that it’s a bogus argument.
R Anderson – so you’ve never dashed in a 7/11 for something rather than go to the grocery store? That’s the Marketing 101 example of convenience.
I don’t have an unreasoned hostility to health insurance companies. As a rational consumer, I want quality goods at the cheapest price. If a non-profit can provide a the same good to me at a lower price, why wouldn’t I use the non-profit?
The problem with your basic economic argument about too few doctors is that it isn’t supported by the data. If we had a doctor shortage, you’d see even more foreign doctors coming to the US. Nor does it account for the lower spending on health care in other countries.
The problem with your basic economic argument about too few doctors is that it isn’t supported by the data. If we had a doctor shortage, you’d see even more foreign doctors coming to the US. Nor does it account for the lower spending on health care in other countries.
Um, Chris, what planet are you on? The vast majority of doctors where I live (Chicago) are foreign nationals! You can tell we have a shortage in two ways: First, prices are going up – the unequivocal sign of a shortage. Second, doctors from all over the world are rushing to the US to practice – could be caused by other things, but points to a shortage.
As for your “other country” argument, the reason they have lower aggregate spending is because the artificially limit supply. If you increase the cost (in waiting time) of health care, only the slackers and idle rich can afford care. Anyone that actually works for a living has to go without.
And if you talk to me about going outside the government’s health plan, then you better be including those costs in country X’s “health care spending” number. Flying from Britain to the US for your cancer treatment makes US care more expensive and Britain’s cheaper, according to your numbers!
not me. Look in the mirror.
No, Chris, you are the one who wants to force everyone to purchase the product you think they should buy.
Um. Both Canada and Britain have a problem with denied care and horrible long lines for doctors. In many places in Canada (hey, I know real people who live there!) they wait months or more just to get a family doctor to go to. And there’s no other choice. They cannot go find someone else if they want to, unless they come down here. Which they do — in droves.
Drug development is supported by our “horrible” system. The other countries get the benefit without the risk or cost.
I always wonder how great this country would be if the government(s) would all get out of the way, since I think it’s so great here in *spite* of what they all keep doing to kill it.
David – I live in Chicago too, and most of the doctors I see were raised in the USA. Be that as it may.
When you discuss waiting lists, you need to factor in the 40 to 50 million Americans without health care – they have an infinite wait time. Although, these thousands of people in LA who slept in their cars to wait for health care might consider a waiting room an upgrade.
Stick “medical tourism” in your Google – you’ll see all kinds of articles about Americans going to India and Mexico for health care. You’ll also find, if you actually talk to Britains that they like their system – not that this plan bears any resemblance to British health care.
Silvermine – I also know real people in Canada, and they explicitly tell me that they have no complaints with Canadian health care. They like their health care. Since Canadian care varies by province, what province are your real people from?
Drug development is supported by our “horrible” system. I’ve repeatedly asked this but never gotten an answer. Why should we have to subsidize the rest of the world’s R & D?
…you need to factor in the 40 to 50 million Americans without health care – they have an infinite wait time.
What do you mean, they don’t have “health care”? They may not have health insurance, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have health care. And many of the “Americans” in that number are not in this country legally.
Stick “medical tourism” in your Google – you’ll see all kinds of articles about Americans going to India and Mexico for health care.
That means nothing except that they’re trying to save money. It’s like saying that there’s an appliance “crisis” because Americans purchase products from China.
Chris Gerrib – No, actually, I try not to buy food inside of “convenience” stores (or gas stations for that matter). The price-quality point doesn’t meet my standards. I buy the same junk food for much less in bulk at Sam’s Club and take a handful as I run out the door. That’s a perfect example of what I mean by demanding my own individual right to determine my own economic situation.
Those 40 to 50 million uninsured still get treated Mr. Gerrib. I was one of them when I had a consulting job with the Air Force a few years ago. I got bit by a poisonous animal just the wrong side of a given fence, and instead of getting treated on-base I had to drive myself over to a doc-in-the-box (which was a bit of an adventure, but I got there). I had a prescription from a doctor (foreign-born, incidentally) by the end of the business day. Fortunately, while I lacked medical coverage (and had to pay a few hundred dollars out of pocket for the doctor fee), I did have remaining time on a prior drug insurance policy, and was able to start taking my pills that evening.
No, the reason health care and meds “cost” less in other nations is because they use price controls, and on medicine we pick up the tab by paying for the amortization on the R&D. Gut that, and we’re AGAIN mortgaging our childrens’ future lives (or simply not having children) to pursue our own immediate gratification. Talk about “unsustainable courses of action!”
I actually do understand the slippery slope. I think, based on the actual, documented experiences of real-live people in other countries, that it’s a bogus argument.
So you claim, but I don’t see anyone taking your claim seriously in this forum. Then there is this claim:
If we had a doctor shortage,
We do.
you’d see even more foreign doctors coming to the US.
That’s happening.
Why should we have to subsidize the rest of the world’s R & D?
I think Chris just proposed that we declare war on all countries who refuse to pay their fair share for American made drugs. I don’t know of any other way for us to force other countries to do so. Perhaps he thinks we should also declare war on China for all the theft of intellectual property they are doing. It’s pretty massive.
Yours,
Tom
BTW, my Dad’s health insurance paid for life saving surgery. Mine paid for finger saving surgery. Any bum who says insurance companies provide no value is perfectly welcome to go soak his or her head.
Yours,
Tom
Rand – if American medical tourism means nothing, then neither does (mostly spurious reports of) Canadian and UK medical tourism. BTW, Canada’s Medicare does pay for its citizens to come to America to get treatment for some problems.
Did you read the linked article? Do you want to argue that those uninsured or under-insured folks have “health care?” Or that they are all illegals?
Tom DeGisi – why would we declare war? How about just stop paying? Unless you seriously think elected governments want to watch people die, guess what – they’ll figure out a way to increase R & D expenditure.
The 7/11 provides value too or it wouldn’t be open. More to the point – you have private insurance. Why shouldn’t I have the option to pay into a public plan?
R Anderson – yes, but if you didn’t have several hundred bucks in your pocket that treatment would come out of my pocket. The money to pay for people who don’t have health insurance comes from higher rates charged to insured people.
To add insult to injury, going to the emergency room is vastly more expensive than seeing a regular doctor. Lastly, emergency rooms do not provide ongoing care. So, we’re paying to amputate a diabetic’s foot but not for insulin.
To be fair to Chris, I don’t think he was saying we should go to war. I think – and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong – that he was saying we should simply stop sending meds over if they’re going to dictate what we can sell them for, to our detriment. And if that’s what he’s arguing, then I’d have to agree. The free ride’s done; it’s over, over there.
Why is it so much more expensive to treat in the emergency room than at a regular GP’s office? Because the ER doc, in addition to all the regular-ailments readiness a GP has, also has to be able to treat incoming casualties with seconds counting and the patient possibly in shock. In short, they’re a short step removed from being an Army medic, with the additional training that implies. It’s ridiculous to misuse so highly trained a medical staff on something a GP can handle just as easily, for less – yet we see that on a daily basis. Which is why so many of us are now realizing that fixing the doctor shortage is probably the best way to drive down the costs of health care (overall; this doesn’t get into medicines, but a similar approach would work there as well).
Why shouldn’t I have the option to pay into a public plan?
Stop evading, Chris. You want other people to pay into your public plan. I thought you read HR 3200. Did you understand it?
If you wanted to pay into a non-profit, you’d have run with Kaiser by now.
Titus – Kaiser isn’t in Chicago. The House bill calls for the public option to be self-sustaining, AKA “not subsidized by the goverment.” At any rate, considering my salary, I’ll be paying my fair share for a public option.
As far as other people, yes I do think it’s fundamentally immoral to deny decent health care* to American citizens. So if that means more taxes, I’ll pay.
*”Decent health care” does not mean “go to the emergency room.”
Rand – if American medical tourism means nothing, then neither does (mostly spurious reports of) Canadian and UK medical tourism.
They’re not spurious reports — they’re real. And that’s different. They don’t do it to save money, they do it to save their lives.
*”Decent health care” does not mean “go to the emergency room.”
Well in that case, what does it mean? Access to OTC drugs, but wait, you don’t want us paying for that anymore either.
Do you mean more flouride in the water supply?
Maybe you think decent care means easy access to Chiropractors or health spas? Perhaps the government can pay for everyone a membership to their choice of Bally’s, LA Fitness, or 24-hour Fitness. All fine and good if I can keep my Lifetime Fitness plan.
So, a Canadian going to the US for a hip replacement is proof that “socialized medicine” is Evil, while an American going to India for a hip replacement is proof that we have a wonderful system?
Leland – decent health care means that if their kid needs glasses to go to school, they don’t have to rely on a handout from a missionary. Or if they are diabetic, they can get insulin.
The House bill calls for the public option to be self-sustaining, AKA “not subsidized by the goverment.”
Yet it contains an income tax to help pay for it all.
So if that means more taxes, I’ll pay.
So will everyone else. Just don’t try to cast it as a “choice” like you’re somehow expanding freedom. The whole point of these government schemes is to transfer wealth. Let’s keep that firmly in view.
All fine and good if I can keep my Lifetime Fitness plan.
“If you like your gym membership, you can keep it…”
So, a Canadian going to the US for a hip replacement is proof that “socialized medicine” is Evil, while an American going to India for a hip replacement is proof that we have a wonderful system?
I wasn’t trying to prove that we have a “wonderful system.” Our system sucks. What the Democrats want to do will make it worse.
But yes, our system remains better, because the Canadian is coming here for something that he can’t get without a long wait, whereas the American going to India does to to save money.
decent health care means that if their kid needs glasses to go to school, they don’t have to rely on a handout from a missionary.
They can just rely on the government, comrade.
They can just rely on the government, comrade.
Handouts from government = good.
Handouts from charities = bad.
Titus – Handouts from charities are good – I do charitable work with my Rotary club. The problem is scale – there is no way my club could, for example, raise the tens of thousands of dollars needed for one person’s chemotherapy. The moral question I would ask is “are you okay with seeing your fellow Americans not get the health care they need?”
Rand – there are no waits for elective surgery in America? News to me, since I personally had a 4-week wait for gallstone surgery. More to the point, hip replacement is not an emergency room procedure. If you don’t have coverage, you don’t get it. What’s the wait time for “never?”
Rand – there are no waits for elective surgery in America?
I didn’t say there weren’t.
If you don’t have coverage, you don’t get it.
You do if you have money. Outsourcing makes things like that more affordable.
The problem is scale – there is no way my club could, for example, raise the tens of thousands of dollars needed for one person’s chemotherapy.
Funny you should use that example: before one of my best friends died of cancer at the ripe old age of 24, she had about 9 months of aggressive treatment, and all of it was paid for by charity. And yes, I’m quite sure it was not your Rotary Club.
The moral question I would ask is “are you okay with seeing your fellow Americans not get the health care they need?”
That’s only half the question because it evades the price and not just the monetary one.
Titus – my club raises around $40K a year. So I suppose we could, if we didn’t fund anything else, cover one person. Which begs the question of what do the other folks do?
Regarding my moral question, answer it however you see fit, and feel free to include whatever costs you want to.
Regarding my moral question, answer it however you see fit, and feel free to include whatever costs you want to.
I’m not prepared to throw it all over to Obama so he can give “to each according to their needs.” I thought that was obvious by now.
Titus – my club raises around $40K a year.
It’s going to be able to raise even less once Obama taxes “the rich” for health care.
How about just stop paying? Unless you seriously think elected governments want to watch people die, guess what – they’ll figure out a way to increase R & D expenditure.
So your proposal is that we cease doing medical R & D as a cut off our nose to spite the foreign governments face way to force them to do R & D? That’s not a good plan.
I think – and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong – that he was saying we should simply stop sending meds over if they’re going to dictate what we can sell them for, to our detriment.
This idea has not worked so far. Essentially foreign governments then threaten to develop the drugs themselves. It turns out for many drugs that the most expensive part of developing them is trying to develop a lot of drugs that don’t work. If you know which drug works, i.e., the one you are trying to copy, you can then skip the expensive part, that is developing drugs which don’t work.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that foreign users of American drugs should pay their fair share of the costs. I just don’t know of a way to force them to do so without foregoing the necessary research. We also run into the issue that sometimes we think their fare share is a lower price – for example when we sell expensive AIDS drugs to Africa at low prices.
I suppose the next idea is to have our government do the expensive research, restrict drug company profits and have everyone pay low prices for their drugs. This has just unfairly shifted the costs to the American taxpayer, rather than unfairly shifting the costs to the American drug purchaser.
Yours,
Tom