Posted by
Jeff S on Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:17:32 PM
Funny that we even need to have this debate. How can the abject failure of like systems in other nations not simply be enough for any American to think that we should forego what has been proposed. The reason that Americans haven't done so is that you don't much hear of these failures. We, as conservatives do but we have our ear to the critical ground provided by our favorite pundits. However, if you are less inclined to be in the daily political debate, you are not going to hear much of these failures. You do hear much of what Obama has to say.
Before I tackle another issue or two regarding other ramification of the proposal. In a recent speech, President Obama noted:
"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans," (source)
I think that perhaps one thing in such a statement has not been addressed with this that we've heard from the now President that he'd also said frequently as a candidate, that is to say; why on earth do we want our government competing against the private sector? We've noted the result that it will gut the industry to the 'benefit' of the government system but what we haven't done is conceptually pointed out that under any circumstances that the government should never compete with the private sector.
While the health insurer industry is big and has lots of money. What they don't have is a trillion dollar budget with the unlimited capacity to spend on whatever it thinks is important. The government has no constraints. No matter the amount of money in a big corporation, it will always fail against the government if the government wants to make it fail, every time.
What we haven't done is pointed out that the government has chosen an industry to fail and is looking vote on taking it down. Think that the industry is evil? What if your industry is targeted? Perhaps the mobile phone industry, a favorite whipping post of the left? If they decide you are going down for the 'benefit of the people', you're going down.
Obama can suggest that it will be along side other choices but putting it along side the others will make them fail.
What of the cost of the program, that unlimited budget that cost to the American taxpayer. We're led to believe that it will not be a difficulty at all. According to Obama:
"I know there are some who believe that reform is too expensive, but I can assure you that doing nothing will cost us far more in the coming years," Obama said. "Our deficits will be higher. Our premiums will go up. Our wages will be lower, our jobs will be fewer and our businesses will suffer."
First, why hasn't anyone called Obama on the massive straw man argument? Have not any conservative leaders not been educated enough in debate to recognize that it would be easy to kneecap the argument if you pull away the garbage that is not at all related to the discussion. Did anyone notice that he gave a fictitious set of circumstances that materially has noting to do with it? Wages lowering? Jobs fewer? Whether or not such a thing would happen, it has nothing to do with the governmental cost of the proposed plan.
Has anyone noticed that it's not overly hard to debate the Great Orator given 30 seconds to think about any one thing?
Still, he says nothing about the cost. In speaking of the Canadian system, we've been told that it take only 10% of GDP versus U.S. healthcare, which comprises over 15%. There is a key difference between these statistics. One of them is managed by private, for profit corporations that do not incur wasted expenses. They are programs that normally cost the user about $20 a month. The statistic from Canada is one that represents cost to the government. That 10% of GDP is over half of the Canadian Federal budget. In fiscal year 2006, the estimated cost was 148 billion dollars against a 248 billion dollar budget.
This is why the Obama canard is put forth. It is, as has been de rigueur for the Obama Administration, a use of smoke and mirrors. He never did address the problem of cost. He used what is oft charged of the Republicans, fear. He painted a bleak picture to which he is the savior with the divine answer.
We are told that the Canadian system works, in supporting the system recently, the Denver Post recruited a Canadian to defend the system. Her are some gems from the article (source):
- In answering the charge that Canadian care decides when you get care, the writer said this:
"If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost."
Did you know that if you have a non-life threatening issue requiring an MRI, the wait might be well over a year due to the woeful availability for MRI clinics? So, if your not dying, good luck. My late wife had some issues that were not life threatening but living with the symptoms she had, 14 months would not have been acceptable. You can have, just not right away. I should note that while the charge that insurers can refuse them, my wife had a very rare malady that was an orphan disease. She had plenty MRI's. I call the charge of the writer, baloney.
- Regarding a similar issue:
"However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists."
Why is there a shortage? If the system chases good care providers out, what's the use of having the ability to pay for it? If I have a million dollars on a desert island, I have little more than kindling.
- Further on that point:
"If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care."
Why aren't they available at home but available in the States. Remember the disparity in the spending in GDP between Canada the U.S.? That 4%+ difference? Might those fancy machine and services that we have that they don't. Having that ability is going to incur a cost. I might point out that no one is complaining about it either.
With my wife, I had to pay thousands of dollars in additional expenses out of pocket. Sounds like lots. Her care cost hhundreds of thousands of dollars. Since she passed of something not related and the treatments were effective and quickly done, I was willing to pay a mere $3000 out of pocket. Yes, I could have it all paid for but I think I got quite a deal. Perhaps we might be willing to pay for that expertise. I am.
...Oh, I should point out that the writer was a Canadian Clinical Psychologist. Apparently that's the best the Post could do.
I think that we need to be very certain of ourselves that if we push against this movement with what small house of cards Obama and the Democrats have placed this debate upon and with the level of evidence that can overcome it, that winning the Healthcare debate should be easy. It's not yet but I'm hard put to find someone trying terribly hard in our leadership.