Jan 05 2009 - Heritage Foundation
by Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.
So, if you have insurance you like, you keep that insurance. If you have a doctor you like, you keep that doctor. The only thing that changes for you is that your costs will go down.
––Senator Barack Obama, presidential campaign speech, Asheville, North Carolina, October 5, 2008
Details kill. If we get too far into the weeds, if we produce a 1,500– or 1,600– page bill, we're going to get hung up on all the details and we're never going to get to the principles.
––Senator Tom Daschle, Secretary of Health and Human Services Designate, Colorado Health Care Summit, Denver, December 5, 2008
When it comes to the deadly details, millions of Americans could be in for an unpleasant surprise. During the election campaign, President–elect Barack Obama promised––repeatedly––that Americans who already had health insurance would not face any changes in their coverage and that their costs would go down, saving the typical family $2,500 annually in premiums.[1]
Jan 01 2009 - Town Hall
by George Will
WASHINGTON –– Health care, says the man most concerned with that 17 percent of America's economy, can be "a nation–ruining issue." As Michael Leavitt ends four years as secretary of health and human services, he offers this attention–arresting arithmetic: Absent fundamental reforms, over the next two decades the average American household's health care spending, including the portion of its taxes that pays for Medicare and Medicaid, will go from 23 percent to 41 percent of average household income.
Dec 29 2008 - Times Union, Albany NY
by JAY BOOKMAN
He's just a dog, you tell yourself. Yet somehow, that utterly rational thought doesn't fend off the choking sensation in your throat as the vet delivers the news.
Just a dog?
He's just the dog who was young and playful back when your kids were young and playful, a dog who grew up as the family grew up, and who, in the last few years, began to turn gray just as you have.
He's just a dog who has always looked more fierce than he really is, which is just what you want in a family pet. He's just a dog who climbs upstairs every night in pain to sleep at the foot of your bed, loyal even in his arthritic old age.
Just a dog? No, no way. But in the end, yes. "We're pretty sure Jackie has lymphoma — cancer of the blood," the vet says. "We'll run some tests, but that's how it's looking."
Editor's Comments:
Bookman has some real problems with logic in this article. He is trying to say that though he didn't want to spend a lot on his dog to keep it alive for a few more months, we don't have that luxury with humans.
We do it all the time.
Tell me that the care of some famous person is not better than that of the common you and me. There is a limit to what each of us is willing to spend on health care. If you are rich and famous, you will search out the best health care professionals, world–wide. If you are somewhat better off than average, you might fly to another city for an operation, as I did. The operation was covered by Medicare but not the travel expenses.
Whether we like it or not, we cannot provide the health care afforded to the rich to all the population at the same quality.
So what to do? Bookman is trying to make an argument for universal health care, except rather than bringing health care up to the level of the rich, it will bring it down to the level of the poorest. Priorities will be set, maybe based on political connections. Wait times will be enormous. And personal liberty to make your own decisions on health care will be eliminated.
He finishes the article with this: "We're also still divided about whether health care ought to be a basic human right in this country. Personally, I think the case is settled. " The only problem with this statement is what is basic? Is basic, take two aspirin and call me in the morning? Or is it a team of best doctors from all over the country deciding on the latest treatments?
It can't be the latter because it is unaffordable to everyone. So like Communism, you can take it down to the level where everyone suffers or you can have liberty and capitalism where individuals decide how much they want to work and accumulate funds to have a better life. You can't have it both ways. bbm
Dec 28 2008 - Times Union, Albany NY
by MICHAEL BRANNIGAN
I spoke recently on the thorny issue of medical futility, a subject particularly agonizing for family and caregivers in pediatric settings. I did so at the invitation of Dr. Tomas Silber, director of the ethics office at Children's National Medical Center in Washington.
The use of interventions deemed medically ineffective squarely confronts us with the most plaguing moral question in health care today: Can we fairly and compassionately allocate limited medical resources?
In health care, the specter of allocation — particularly when benefits are marginal, costs are excessive and others can gain from the same resource — lurks in the background. It is the invisible elephant known as "rationing," setting limits by deciding who gets what and when.
Rationing is irrefutably relevant to health care reform. However, in discussions of reform, rationing appears left out of the equation. Because the "R" word is often perceived as un–American, it can be politically self–destructive.
Editor's Comments:
I gave this a high ranking only because you should understand the disastrous ideas that are floating around.
We don't need to try rationing. It is already a huge failure in Canada and Britain. This is scary stuff to understand that supposedly educated people are proposing such a stupid idea, one that has failed in every other political endeavor. Think gas prices of the 70's. bbm
Dec 26 2008 - American Enterprise Institute
by Jagdish Bhagwati, Sandip Madan
In his characteristically insightful fashion, Clive Crook ("The long road to healthcare reform", December 15) alerts us to the problems that await the likely approach to comprehensive coverage of healthcare by Tom Daschle, the incoming US secretary of health and human services, as suggested by his recent book on the healthcare crisis.
But the fact that Governor Mitt Romney's similar reform in Massachusetts ran into the difficulty of finding doctors and other healthcare workers for the newly insured, and that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had to abandon similar efforts in California because of high costs, raises the question of why Mr Daschle and President–elect Barack Obama have not yet recognised that the systematic and comprehensive embrace of international transactions in medical services can make a big impact on both these problems.
Dec 23 2008 - Seattle Times
by Greg Vigdor
WHEN President–elect Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, he did so with an overwhelming mandate for change. In his acceptance speech on Nov. 4, he pledged to listen to the American people — but he also said he would ask the public to join in the remaking of this nation.
If the issue of health care is any indication, our president–elect is making good on that promise. And it couldn't come at a better time. Despite spending more on health care than any nation, the United State lags behind most of the Western world on leading health–care indicators. The problems in our nation's health and health care lie at both the individual and systemic levels — and both must be addressed.
Editor's Comments:
Government is the answer? NOT. bbm
Dec 13 2008 - Seattle Times
by DAVID S. BRODER
WASHINGTON — On the same morning that President–elect Barack Obama introduced Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader, as his prospective secretary of health and human services and his point man on health–care reform, a panel of key constituency group leaders met to assess the prospects for success.
Taking the microphone, in turn, at a Washington hotel were the head of the Business Roundtable, speaking for leading corporations; the CEO of Pfizer, the giant pharmaceutical company; the president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the trade association for that industry; and spokesmen for the National Federation of Independent Business, the small–business lobby, and AARP, the senior–citizens organization.
All of them agreed that major health legislation has a much better chance of passage in the next Congress than when Bill and Hillary Clinton tried back in 1993–94. And so did John Harwood of CNBC and myself, the two journalists invited to be on the panel.
Editor's Comments:
Broder seems happy to have another entitlement program that will go broke in a few years. God help America. We already are in so much debt that we should be bankrupt now. This will only exacerbate the problem. bbm
Dec 13 2008 - Seattle PI
by ANN MCFEATTERS
When Barack Obama talks about America's deplorable health insurance problems, he speaks with undeniable passion. So what is he proposing?
For starters, he wants a national dialogue. Shades of Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration plans to encourage Americans to have house parties focused on health care, the most expensive in the world but far from adequate. Then Obama wants a national conclave in Washington. At least the meetings will be open and public, unlike Clinton's task force.
Obama has nominated Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, to head the Department of Health and Human Services and also develop policy to improve health care. Daschle is a smart choice because he knows how to write legislation that can get through the Senate. Obama called Daschle the original no–drama guy known for speaking softly but leading boldly.
Editor's Comments:
Ann says without realizing she is killing her arguments, "A group representing 27,000 emergency room doctors announced two days before Obama nominated Daschle that emergency rooms are already stretched beyond capacity, that long waits for help are going to get longer, that the state of emergency care is serious." Welcome to universal health care. If that is what you want, just try the local emergency room. Thanks, but no thanks. bbm
Dec 09 2008 - Town Hall
by Phyllis Schlafly
You are sitting in a doctor's waiting room with eight other sick patients, and the nurse announces: The doctor will see all of you now –– at the same time. That's how the Boston Globe recently described shared visits that are being used to cope with the long waits now customary in Massachusetts.
Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama are planning that the new Democratic Congress' first order of business will be to extend the Massachusetts health–care mistake to all 50 states. Like other legislative rush–acts (i.e., the 2007 amnesty bill and the 2008 bailouts), details are currently withheld to avoid giving members of Congress and the public adequate time to analyze the bill before the vote is called.
If Kennedy succeeds in his goal of using the Massachusetts plan as a model for national health care, average Americans will no longer get immediate access to medical care. They will have the long waits and massive new taxpayer costs that the Massachusetts plan has produced.
Dec 04 2008 - Investor's Business Daily
by INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Socialized Medicine: "Consensus" has become one of the scariest words in America. It means officials have reached agreement on how to fleece the public. And it's being used in the same breath as "universal health care."
"Consensus emerging on universal health care," screamed the headline of the Web version of a Monday Los Angeles Times story.
"After decades of failed efforts to reshape the nation's health care system," writes Times reporter Noam N. Levey, "a consensus appears to be emerging in Washington about how to achieve the elusive goal of providing medical insurance to all Americans."
Typically, a "consensus" in Washington indicates that both parties have conspired to hustle the taxpayers. In this case, the meaning of the word is being twisted to make it appear as if all of Washington is united in an effort to create a national health care system.
The alleged accord, says the Times, has been reached by "leading" business groups, medical facilities, physicians, unions, insurance companies, "senior lawmakers" and "members of the new Obama administration."
Nov 27 2008 - Town Hall
by Amy Menefee
As Americans reflect on their blessings this Thanksgiving, will they count the U.S. health care system among them?
Politicians, the media, and probably most people would say no. But if we alter the question, directing it toward the individual and away from the system, the answer changes drastically.
A startling majority of Americans – 77 percent – said the quality of their own health care was “excellent” or “good” in a recent study.
The Council for Excellence in Government, in coordination with the Institute of Medicine, Accenture and Gallup, conducted the study to find out what real Americans think about health care. “The American Public on Health Care: The Missing Perspective” was released in October.
The “missing perspective,” indeed.
Nov 26 2008 - Town Hall
by Tony Blankley
As President–elect Obama's apparent choice for health and human services secretary and as White House health care czar, it is a fair guess that Tom Daschle's view on health care legislation may be decisive.
So it is worth reading his book "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health–Care Crisis," in which the gracious former Senate leader lays out without equivocation both the policy he recommends and the tactics for how to pass it.
He proposes setting up a board to establish standards for health care delivery in the United States that would be modeled on how the Federal Reserve Board and Securities and Exchange Commission oversee banks and corporations. Technically, it only would oversee the public health systems (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, etc.), which provide about 32 percent of health care nationwide.
Nov 25 2008 - Seattle PI
by SCOTT BARNHART AND AMY HAGOPIAN
Taxpayers are now left holding the bag for $1 trillion in debt incurred by capitalists run rampant, brought about largely by a frenzy of deregulation over the past decade. These bailouts are as dramatic as a pandemic of influenza resulting in the Department of Health declaring marshal law, closing schools and restricting travel.
Some estimate a pandemic flu outbreak could cause up to a million deaths in the U.S. We argue the financial cost of government bailouts of unregulated corporate excess could cause even more death than a pandemic flu. The poverty, stress and violence caused by loss of jobs, ruination of retirement plans and slashes in health and education secondary to the unraveling of the nation's financial system will be associated with significant increases in rates of illness and death. The current and anticipated bailouts may avert a collapse of the economy but does not eliminate unsupported levels of debt transferred to U.S. taxpayers.
Editor's Comments:
"marshal" law? And they writers are professors? Give me a break. bbm
Nov 23 2008 - Times Union, Albany NY
by MICHAEL C. BRANNIGAN
A fundamental axiom in ethics is that the means to achieve a noble goal must be dignified as well. Otherwise, the means can become a moral minefield.
President–elect Barack Obama's ambitious plan for health care reform has noble goals: insuring our 46 million uninsured by expanding eligibility for public programs, enabling affordability for low–income families, offering income–related subsidies, and containing medical costs; mandating coverage despite pre–existing medical conditions; promoting employer–sponsored benefits; and improving health care delivery.
Nov 22 2008 - Investor's Business Daily
by INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Health Care: Sen. Ted Kennedy, recovering from cancer surgery, made a splash when he returned to Capitol Hill last week. Good for him — but maybe bad for the future of U.S. medical treatment.
The 76–year–old Kennedy, who had a malignant brain tumor removed in June, reportedly said he was ready to work on an economic–stimulus package — and health care reform. While the damage from the former is likely to be only temporary, the harm from the latter will have negative effects for generations.
Nov 22 2008 - Seattle Times
by DAVID S. BRODER
WASHINGTON — Things are looking up for substantive reform of America's troubled health–care system.
No one who knows the history of such efforts, from Harry Truman's administration through Bill Clinton's, needs to be reminded of the difficulties that inevitably confront any plan to overhaul one–seventh of the U.S. economy and bring quality medicine to millions of the uninsured.
But developments at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue last week — and across the country — pointed up both the urgency of the problem and the prospects for seeing significant action.
Editor's Comments:
Dumb idea. The health care solution of the Democrats can only bring us more bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security. bbm
Nov 14 2008 - Seattle PI
by SCOT LEHIGH
Victory has more than just a thousand fathers. It also has scores of kibitzers, claimants and counselors.
Nothing demonstrates that quite so clearly as the advice President–elect Barack Obama has received since his election.
One can scarcely open The New York Times without being pounced upon by another full–page interregnum ad urging action on this issue or that.
"Now What?" asked a mysterious Repower America ad the morning after Obama's victory. The answer came four days later in a second full–pager: It's now time "to Repower America with 100 percent clean electricity within 10 years."
Editor's Comments:
Ah, isn't it wonderful. US government bankruptcy will come even sooner. bbm
Oct 30 2008 - Town Hall
by Peter Pitts
A new survey from the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest shows that there is an “idealism gap” among young voters when it comes to their support for government–managed health care. While a strong majority –– 83 percent of those polled –– believes that America’s healthcare system is in need of reform, just 49 percent support paying for a new government–run health care program through taxes.
These results weren't surprising. With tens of millions of Americans uninsured and costs through the roof, change is obviously –– and urgently –– needed. But voters are rightly skeptical of paying for a massive overhaul of our system.
Oct 29 2008 - Investor's Business Daily
by INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Health Care: It's simple, really. Republicans want to empower consumers and the private sector. Democrats want government running the show, and Nov. 4 may grant them their wish.
Get to know the term "single payer." You may hear a lot of it if Barack Obama wins the presidency and his party gains unstoppable majorities in the House and Senate. It's not on the candidate's or party's lips at this point, but it's in their hearts and minds.
