it was a bit much but i think the "rushing" it a justifiable concern. Personally, i think it's prudent to take your time in such a huge issue and make sure it's done right. I want to be the czar of czars.
True, but that doesn't mean it isn't right for the public to be aware of all the facts of the bill and be able to voice their support/criticisms before the bill is passed. You're right -- we are a republic. But we are (supposedly) a democratic republic. So, the Right can argue that Obama wanted to speed up the vote to hide facts. The counter-argument, to me, is that they wanted to speed up the vote to prevent the Right's misinformation (e.g. "death panels") from clouding the debate. Or, as BigBenito pointed out, to get the vote in while Democrats have a majority of the seats. Is there any way to resolve which of those perspectives is more correct? The next question is why propose a bill that only takes effect in 2013. There may very well be practical reasons for it, I don't know, but Sowell seems to make a fair (if cynical) point. Maybe the reason is to postpone implementation so that any negative effects won't disturb Obama's reelection.
Why rush? If this truly is the biggest crisis in America then certainly we can spend some time discussing options and pin pointing the root cause of the problem. Not just throw made up numbers around with a lot of zeros at the end to sound alarming. Heck most of the congressmen and senators don't even know what the heck is in the proposed bill, including the president himself... Listening to doctors and other people in the or aligned with the medical field there are a few things that can be done to correct most of the problems... 1. tort reform - the trial lawyers are killing the medical field. there is no perfect world and sometimes things go wrong. this is not to say that doctors don't sometimes make mistakes, they are human, but the fear of lawsuits forces them to run tests to c.y.a. and the cost of malpractice insurance raises the cost of medical service; its basic economics. 2. reform the law that prohibits shopping for medical insurance out of state - this alone would reduce the costs tremendously just by the nature of the free market. you already do this for car insurance etc. 3. encourage people to have personal accountability and not to use medical insurance for every little ailment - a cold is not a medical emergency and should be cash flowed. medical insurance should be used for the big ticket items, as it was intended, to keep people from going bankrupt when a major medical emergency crops up. not to run to the doctor every time they get the sniffles. 4. shop around for care the same way you would for other things - if people paid more attention to the costs involved and had more of an out of pocket association with them it would make a huge difference. as it stands now most people have no idea what the true costs or procedures are and do little to shop around for rate comparisons.
I love this “why the rush” strawman. Healthcare reform has been debated and studied for the last 40 years.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell082509.php3 The Great Escape Odd's article is so all over the map, because the guy basically reprinted his February article. (Where he blames the economic collapse on Obama.... This author isn't biased at all. At least I'm assuming the 6th & 7th paragraphs are doing that, there appears to be a typo.)
we have had substantial tort reform in Texas since 2003. it hasn't done jack crap to bring down medical costs.
Perhaps you only started paying attention recently, but these things have been under discussion for years. What exactly do you consider to be an appropriate time frame? And since when is setting a deadline called "rushing"?
So you think it's politically beneficial to him to enact a $900B program that has zero benefits to the people before the next election? You think it helps his re-election effort for him to say we reformed health care and no one sees any actual benefits to it? Really?
This whole "why rush the legislation argument" belies the fact that practically every new President tries to rush in legislation early in their term. Did GW Bush really need to get tax cuts passed in the first few months of his term? Every new President comes in with a certain amount of political capital that they want to expend before the blush of the election fades. I agree this may not always be a good thing but it happens and Obama is no different than GW Bush or Ronald Reagan in trying to rush a major piece of legislation early in their term.
On paper, it could save 1% of our total health costs, but without universal coverage, victims of malpractice could stand to be broke out of medical bills. Not a great idea with the status quo. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/across_state_lines_explained Allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines would not work as advertised. While it may help the young and healthy, it will have a devastating impact on the insurance market for everyone else (and none of us will be young and healthy forever). * premiums would rise for many people, * benefits would be less-generous, * more Americans would likely become uninsured over time. This policy approach fails to provide the incentives necessary to transition insurers to a 21st Century business model that values care coordination and high value care over underwriting and marketing. Without substantial additional reforms, the proposal to sell insurance across state lines will not work for most Americans. For the complete policy paper, please click here. For a brief summary of the findings of the paper, please click here. The brief itself is fairly easy to read. We already do this. In fact, some lobbyists want to pass laws banning cigarettes and transfats. A shrill libertarian crowd would consider this fascist nannystate-ism. Problem with shopping around for care is that when the need is critical, emotion trumps reason. Even by resorting to pure theory, individual customers face an increasingly combersome billing system where dominant regional insurers hold all the leverage to bargain for a lower price. Individually, you will not be able to bargain the same, let alone cheaper, price an insurer gets for critical care.
I'd say he's a little different in that he's pushing a lot more through. He already got the stimulus and cap and trade. Not to mention the impending withdrawal from Iraq and closing of Gitmo. If he gets health care this year, it will have been the biggest first year from a new president in memory.
I see your point. So the next (natural) question I have, is why this program would only take effect in 2013. And if that's not true, then where did Sowell get the 2013 date from -- what's he referring to?
I'm willing to take on Durvasa's challenge although I don't think I am in position to decide if I am reasonable. I am pretty unreasonable when it comes to Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Rather go through the original article though I will address the original poster since this seems to address his opinions which the article was a jumping off point. As I stated in my previous post practically every president does this. They want to capitalize on the political goodwill. As for what is in the bill yes there is some confusion which should be expected to a bill that is still being written. That said Obama laid down the principles of what will be in the bill and those are now going to be the basis of the bill. I believe this question goes to the context of this article as "the liar" in this regard is presumed to be Obama and the context of this is one where a Congressman called him a liar. Two problems with that how can Obama be lying about something that is still being written? Everything is up in the air moment so any assertions of someone lying about what's in the bill don't hold. You can't claim that someone doesn't know about something and at the same time claim they are lying about the content. Second. Is that while the bills are still being written there is nothing so far in them that would be "death panels", provide health care to illegal aliens, or pay for abortions. Those calling Obama liars are basing that off of their own extrapolations which can hardly be applied to Obama. It would be the equivalent of me saying that Morey is lying if he says that he doesn't want to trade Yao just because I'm extrapolating that there some possibility of trading Yao. This has already been addressed by other posters but to summarize where tort reform has been used it hasn't led to a reduction of health care costs. Also I've noticed you (Odds On) have stated an interest in protecting individual liberty and relying upon individuals rather than the goverment to look out for your interest. Why then would you want to limit the greatest power available to individuals in our society to protect themselves? Torts are the way that we as individuals can hold other accountable without relying on government regulation. By limiting torts you are limiting that power. I haven't thought or read enough about this to consider how much of a difference this could make but am open to it. That said I find it an odd position to take (no pun intended) given your previously expressed interest in States Rights. You do realize that such a law would be a huge blow to States rights as it would shred the ability of states to individually regulate their health insurance industries. Agree and I would say what is more needed is better education of when and when not to go to the doctor. In our society we both over use and under use the medical system. While we shouldn't be running to the doctor everytime junior has the sniffles we should still be getting regular checkups and more preventive medicine. I agree in principle with that but it would be difficult ot carry out. Should doctors advertise how much procedures will cost? Today hysterectomies 25% off or buy one get one free! With certain routine procedures that might work but given all of the variables of medicine probably impossible to come up with comparable prices on most procedures.
There we go! Now let's talk. 1. I agree with this one... If we are going to protect every citizen with affordable health insurance, then we need to make it affordable for doctors to have malpractice insurance as well. How we go about lowering their bottom line is the question. What sort of tort reforms do you propose that haven't been addressed yet? 2. Agree... creates more competition and therefore lowers prices. 3. Agree... but we can't force people to be healthy. Some people are healthy by nature (like myself), some stay healthy because they have a condition/bad genetics, and then you have naturally lazy people that don't consider good health a priority. This last group is our problem. They need a pill to address these issues. The more demand for pills, the higher the costs. How do we promote healthier lifestyles through government policy? 4. This goes along with your second argument. The problem is, and we can all agree, is that there are some fatal (pun intended) flaws with our current system. The insurance companies already "ration" care... it's how they make money. This automatically raises costs because people are willing to pay a higher premium to just get coverage. They don't feel like paying $25 per ice chip on a hospital visit. I love hypotheticals so here we go... Mr. OddsOn is a single man (no working wife to get coverage through) with bad previous health issues. Mr. OddsOn works at a company for 15 years and has the company policy. The economy goes bad and he loses his job. Mr. OddsOn pays COBRA for a year while looking for another job. The economy is still bad and he can't find anything. 366 days go by, he loses his policy and then Mr. OddsOn starts to feel sick. He doesn't have a new policy because no insurance company will pick him up due to his previous conditions. He goes in for a simple checkup, pays a little out of pocket (since it's not too bad to see a GP on a checkup or you can go to a "doc in a box" clinic) and then gets referred on to a specialist after some blood work was done. The blood work comes back and you have leukemia. You have no insurance. You have leukemia. Now I realize that this is a pretty extreme hypothetical, but it could happen to anybody. Here is my point for a public option and you can call me a sheep and an idiot if you please: 1. If we don't allow insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing health issues (this both parties agree on), then they will raise premiums... IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN REMAIN PROFITABLE. 2. We have to have a public option and make insurance mandatory (just like car insurance) to keep the supply of buyers high and create competition against the insurance companies to keep prices lower. The public option is mandatory to fight against the monopolies that certain states have. I will admit that your point of buyers being able to go across state lines would also break up a monopoly. But why can't we do BOTH?! Nobody would be forcing a citizen to go with the public option. If I could afford better coverage than what it offers, then I will do so accordingly. If the public option is set up to where it loses money (you know that certain businesses will take short term losses to corner a market and drive away competition), then the government would have to cut other spending to make up for that. We shall see what the people we elected can come up with. Best case scenerio - Public option works. Insurance companies receive more premiums because of the mandatory nature of insurance. We now have a system to pay for emergency care of people that would otherwise not have any insurance. Nobody goes broke because they need medical care and the system works for the rest of Mr. OddsOn's lifetime. Worst case scenerio - Public option stinks (because Obama lied about it) and people are denied or delayed medical care because of "death panels." Insurance companies go broke because they can't compete with the government and we are all stuck with the public option. Many skilled doctors leave and chose another line of work because they can't make much money. However, everybody still has health insurance because it's mandatory. So the question remains... do we risk the future of insurance companies and possible "bureaucracy"/rationing of healthcare (many will argue that this already exists today). Which is worse... The worst case scenerio that I typed up there or today's system?
Great point. It is simply one of many recycled red herrings thrown out by the party of NO. The article is just a laundry list of these herrings, as far as I can tell. I don't sniff a new thought in any corner of it. All stale fish. Meh. judoka, I would agree with your response for the most part. I also think people underrate the fact that the current healthcare tidal wave threatens to complete swamp our economy, just plotting its expanding chunk of GDP -- we are ramping up our competitive disadvantage, and the sooner we alter that course, the better.
The article you started the thread with gave us permission to do so. "The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them." If he thinks you have no credibility, why listen to anything you have to post?
No - that part is correct. Much of this is expected to be phased in over time, but I think it wouldn't be fully in effect until 2013 or 2014. I'm not sure exactly the reason for that date. There is a lot involved in setting up the exchanges, changing the regulations and requirements for health plans which will take time for insurance companies and doctors/hospitals to adjust to, etc. The biggest thing is if there is a public option or insurance exchanges - that would take an immense amount of work/effort to get set up. So the simple explanation is that this just takes time to set up. Whether there are other reasons for picking 2013 or not, I don't have any idea. But I think it actual hurts him politically because the best impact from reform is when people actually feel the results.
