Posted on 06/15/2009 6:02:45 AM PDT by Scanian
As President Obama tours the country advancing his universal healthcare initiative, there are some dirty little secrets that he and his minions in the media don't want Americans to know.
On Sunday, George Will during the panel discussion on ABC's "This Week," exposed some inconvenient truths about this controverial subject that would likely change much of the public's view if they were regularly made aware of them.
After host George Stephanopoulos opened the roundtable segment, Will marvelously cut to the chase:
GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS ANALYST: [T] this is now a single issue argument about whether or not we’re on a slippery slope to a single-payer system. That is, it’s about the so-called public option. And the president has said, “If you are starting from scratch” -- he said this very recently -- he would go to a single payer. That is, government as the single provider of health care.
Now, there are four arguments for the public option. One is, in the president’s words, it will keep them honest. To try to preserve the government as a lagoon of honesty, you can argue, refuted by anybody who reads any budget of any administration.
Bullseye, for all one need do is look at the totally absurd economic assumptions in Obama's 2010 budget, and one would have to agree with Will. But I digress:
WILL: Second, he says, it will play by the same rules as the private insurers, and therefore, won’t drive them out of business. If you play by the same rules, as you said to the secretary, what’s the point?
Exactly. If the rules of the private insurers are sound enough to be adopted by government, why change things?
WILL: Third, it’s necessary to give what Secretary Sebelius said a choice to the consumers.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Bump for later reading.
I have a question?
If health care is too expensive, why would health care ‘reform’ *increase* the cost?
After listening to this I am convinced that health care will suffer like the mortgage companies did.
Obama said that he does not want coverage denied? It reminds me of the same cries about Loans being denied.
Is there anything besides the military where government is better or less costly than the private sector?
Most of the cost savings being proposed are just cuts to service.
Reform = increase.
Its all about the kickbacks to the politician’s cronies.
Gonna need whole new beaurocracy, buildings, cars, staff.
Gonna need new computer systems and applications.
Don’t worry, they will end up reducing costs. They will put a gun to doctor’s heads and say, accept this $200 for this procedure. Then HMO’s will say to doctor’s, hey, you took $200 from the government, but charge us $1500 - lower your cost. And then, health care quality will be forced to be reduced. If you have 1 doctor on staff per hospital now, then you will have 1 per county.
when Medicare was enacted health expenses were a part of the compensation package but since then those expenses have increased 4 fold. why is it that whenever government gets involved prices go up?
Our founders recognized that there was certain areas where government should be involved but the economy was not the place. Prohibition is a perfect example of social engineering. Al Capone and the Chicago Gangs, (including Obama) prospered but it took Elliot Ness to fix things!
Assembly line medicine....everyone gets 2 aspirin and a “call me next year” prescription....for all diseases.....and the gubmint can tout treatment for all...with a dramitically reduced cost.
Once again, Will distills the argument to the meat and potatoes, and exposes the government position for the sham that it truly is.
It’s “more cost effective” to treat 400 people with headaches than one person with a defective heart valve.
Will’s a wee bit off. There’s not as much choice as he thinks. You get what you employer gives you. Of course, you can opt out and pay twice as much on your own.
Speaking of employers, they’ll be dropping healthcare benefits faster than you can measure if there’s a public option.
Question to you. Do you think government intervention causes the price of anything to decrease?
Govt. regulation always adds cost. In this case, govt. becoming even more involved in healthcare automatically adds costs for everyone. And by also being the entity that makes the rules by which the game is played, they can manipulate regulations causing the private sector to jump through so many hoops, costs fly out the window.
So not only will private insurers have to deal with the research and development costs inherent in healthcare, they will also have to deal with govt. regulation and manipulation costs.
Now cost is only secondary to the problem that once govt. enters an arena it does not leave. Govt. grows it does not shrink unless we shrink it. Think about the Dept. of Education if you need an example. Now don’t tell me they are doing a better job with less money. Private schools and especially homeschools educate far better with much less money. But you’ll never get them to admit that helping private entities is better than continuing to fund public schools. It will be the same way with health care.
We need less govt. mishandling not more.
Bingo!
If this atrocity passes, we’re going to see a healthcare bubble, another boom-and-bust within a decade.
Regarding the 1300 insurance providers that Will spoke of...the argument that the government is going to be “just another alternative” is ludicrous...since when does a solitary player get to set the rules of the game?
Those of us with half a brain know that this will go the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in that the federally-subsidized healthcare provider will make it so hard for the private sector to compete. Then the troubled providers will have to be “bailed out” and the insured will be transferred to the government plan.
Expect it to go they way of the mortgage crisis or the automakers.
And that’s exactly what they want.
Then pay for it.
With money.
REAL money.
I’ve see your/this comment on other threads IIRC - I think I understand what you’re saying now...
if the problem is that it is too expensive, a reform intending to address that problem should not be more expensive.
that is so true - but i think by “reform” he is not attempting to address the cost problem he describes as what necessitates “reform”. Classic lib tactic.
The first act of any health care reform is to stop the abusive lawsuits. Second, lower the numbers of people who take profits from services provided; you have a doctor and patient....then you have twenty administrators.
800 lb gorilla no one wants to talk about - this is all about the “undocumented workers”.
From the government’s point of view - need to quickly treat these people good, then give them amnesty, coming soon. That will make room for the next 50 million guests. This will provide the “growth” that everyone is waiting for. More folks to buy from walmart, more folks to buy cell phones, more need for big government. Good times. Let the little people pay the tax burden.
They will drive doctors out of the profession. Not many will take out loans and go thru all the training to be a doctor if the end result is that they are expected to work for street cleaner wages...
That is correct. 150K in loans ater 12 years of studying. Gotta keep recertifying and taking courses forever. Gotta watch your back with the lawyers. Gotta look out for getting sprayed with HIV blood. Forget it.
No worries - government always has the answer - free tuition for minority medical students which will swear on a stack of bibles to become general practitioners or abortion doctors.
This topic is pissing me off....
Go to the head of the class....the next step will be PAs or (physicians assistants), then RNs (registered nurses), then LVNs (licensed vocasional nurses), then AAB (any able body) to treat the masses....waiting rooms will be DMV take a number style....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.