Category Archives: Health Care

health care semantics

Posted on by

For the past couple days, I’ve been engaged in a very long and lengthy discussion with someone with whom I am “barely acquaintance” (as she likes to say)… about the topic of Health Care.  Fortunately, I am incredibly well-prepared to discuss the topic having given a speech on health care only a few weeks ago.   We didn’t agree on much, but to my great surprise, it turned out to be a rather amiable discussion… peppered with various challenges, counters, accusations, and, best of all, compliments.

One of the points that really stuck with me was an issue I think has gone largely un-noticed in the debate over universal care, and that is: what kind a problem is universal care?  You see, the primary proponents of universal care are in almost complete agreement that the lack of universal care is a HEALTH CARE PROBLEM.  Now, this argument was made during the course of the conversation and it (metaphorically) struck me how this semantic ‘slight of hand’ is going almost completely un-noticed by many on the right who’s jobs it aught to have been to discover this flawed line of reasoning.

You see, nobody claims that there is a fine dining “problem” because not everyone can afford dinner and a bottle of wine.  Nobody claims that we have an aviation “problem” because not all people can afford a plane ticket.  Nobody can reasonably claim that we have an entertainment “problem” because not everyone can buy a new television set.    But for some reason, many on the left say we have a health care problem because insurance companies won’t sell insurance to people who cannot afford it.

By now, you have undoubtedly arrived at the rhetorical question:  Is this really a Health Care problem or is it a problem of some other kind?  And your instincts would be correct!  What the left referrs to as a health care problem is really some form of social “problem” — especially to those who think that our society should insure everyone.  A Health Care problem would be defined as bad care or ineffective care.  Failing to give coverage to all is only a problem if you assume a-priori that SOCIETY should pay to cover everyone.   They wrongly claim that the problem of the uninsured is a health care problem when it really isn’t.

The problem here is that many on the left who want to see society change to align with their own social vision are not really being honest about their intentions.  The left is trying to enact sweeping social changes under the guise of economic reform.  If the American people knew that the left wanted to fundamentally change the underpinnings of our society… the American people would have said no to any attempt to pass this bill.  However, when social changes are promoted under the guise of “competition” and “cutting costs” and the many other market-based principles that most Americans believe are best for society, it is often hard to see the underlying agenda.

an open debate forum…

Posted on by

I have not found a clearer explanation of the fundamental underpinnings of  the current health care cost “crisis”.

Medicare and Medicaid reimburse doctors a small and shrinking portion of the fees they charge. Private insurance on the other hand, provides a larger reimbursement, and uninsured individuals who do not qualify for the government programs pay full price. These prices are much higher than they would be in absence of the government programs because medical providers have to recoup their costs somehow. And because the pool of Medicare and Medicaid recipients continues to grow, prices keep going up…

So while private citizens pay the lion’s share of taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid, we are also cross-subsidizing these government programs through higher insurance premiums than we would otherwise pay.

This is a primary reason medical care has become more expensive.

Now, I have many liberal friends… and perhaps one of them can enlighten me… where is the error in this argument?

“Let them pop a pain pill” – Marie Antoinette

Posted on by

Monica Crowley has found a useful analogy to explain just how out of touch congressional democrat leadership has become on the health care debate.  What’s the analogy, you ask:  Marie Antoinette (portrayed beautifully by Kirsten Dunst in her recent film) and the French Revolution.  Now, you may laugh, but I think in a limited sense, this analogy helps one understand not only the enormity of Washington’s foe-paw, but also the level to which the American public is angry… and we are REALLY ANGRY.  Here is just a snipped from Monica’s article:

Democrats’ “Let Them Eat Cake” Moment No. 1: This week, Mrs. Pelosi and her deputy, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, wrote an op-ed in which they called everyone who opposes their plan for socialized medicine “un-American.”…

Earth to Democrats: Displaying contempt for the American people when you are being paid by those people to serve their interests is generally not a good political move.

Democrats’ “Let Them Eat Cake” Moment No. 2: This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit grew by $181 billion in July alone, to $1.3 trillion. The massive spending, bailouts and collapsing tax receipts (individual tax receipts fell by 22 percent and corporate tax receipts fell by a staggering 57 percent) have led Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to ask Congress to raise the $12.1 trillion debt limit, so the government can spend and borrow even more.

If you were rational, you would see in these numbers an impetus to restrain spending. But among Democrats, such rationality doesn’t exist….

Democrats’ “Let Them Eat Cake” Moment No. 3: Mrs. Pelosi and her gang used the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill to sneak in funding for three luxury jets for their personal transport. Total projected cost to you: hundreds of millions. These are the same people who profess a love of the environment, a desire to minimize America’s carbon footprint, and concern about spending.

To put Marie Antoinette’s phrase in a more popular vernacular, it might sound something like this:

“let them pop a pain pill”.

stupid, stupid doctors.

Posted on by

This is some great criticism…

With his example of the red and blue pills, and another about whether a child’s hypothetical tonsils should be removed, President Obama unwittingly presents the real problem with his plan for reform. Here is a well-meaning government official who so fails to grasp the problem in health care that he can present such absurd oversimplifications and suggest that this sort of thing is the real problem — doctors simply lack the common sense to make obvious medical decisions. President Obama wants us to solve this problem by putting himself and other government officials in charge of rescuing medicine from the medical profession. If medical doctors with a decade of schooling cannot distinguish between good cures and ineffective ones that must be discontinued, then by gosh, we’re lucky that the good folks from the government can.

Doctors aren’t stupid, Mr. Obama.

via Take the red pill, Mr. President | Washington Examiner .

Government Care Costs MORE

Posted on by

Did you all see this latest study?  Outta control.

Since 1970, Medicare and Medicaid’s combined per-patient costs have risen from $344 to $8,955, while the combined per-patient costs of all other US health care have risen from $364 to $7,119.

Medicare and Medicaid used to cost $20 less per patient than other care. Now they cost $1,836 more. (And that’s even without the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.)

In fact, if the costs of Medicare and Medicaid had risen only as much as the costs of all other health care in America, then, instead of costing a combined $807 billion last year, they would’ve cost a combined $606 billion. That savings of $201 billion would have amounted to more than $1,750 per American household last year alone.

via GOV’T CARE COSTS MORE – New York Post.

what populations were you referring to?

Posted on by

Did you guys read the latest interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bater Ginsburg?  Sort of alarming if you ask me:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

As Ed Whelan opines over at The Corner:

Gee, Justice Ginsburg, would you like to tell us more about your views on those populations that “we don’t want to have too many of”?

If Scalia had said something this outrageous there would be impeachment hearings going on in congress today.    Liberals are so forgiving of their own, aren’t they?

NOT controlling costs

Posted on by

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare’s costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

What more of a tease do you want!  Read the whole thing (time allowing)

Whatever you do, don’t take Obama literally…

Posted on by

A little gem on the Corner Blog:

AP:

Obama said Monday, addressing the American Medical Association. “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

He didn’t let up.

“If you like what you’re getting, keep it,” Obama said. “Nobody is forcing you to shift.” . . .

White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.

Right: It will just set in motion a chain of events that will cause you to lose your current insurance. Nothing to worry about.

via You Might Not ‘Literally’ Keep Your Coverage – Ramesh Ponnuru – The Corner on National Review Online.