Posted on 08/21/2009 11:06:16 AM PDT by JustTheTruth
Obama's whopper on health reform
System would undergo considerable change
Health-care reform supporters claim they are losing public support because of lies and distortions told by opponents designed to scare people.
There's some of that going on. But the most consequential misrepresentation in the health-care debate is actually being told by President Barack Obama and other supporters.
The lie supporters most resent, and with good reason, is that the health-care reform bills have "death panels" or provisions to encourage euthanasia for the old and infirm. Instead, there was a provision to provide end-of-life counseling services.
There's reason to doubt that government should be paying for or involved in such services, but the country needs to continue to have a grown-up discussion about end-of-life issues. The hospice movement is one of the most blessed developments of our time, allowing people to die with dignity in their own homes rather than in an impersonal, and expensive, hospital bed.
The old and infirm have reason for worry about health-care reform, however. One of the premises of the effort is that the amount of overall health-care expenditures in this country is a concern for the federal government. Virtually all the countries that are supposedly our betters in containing health-care costs limit access to some medical procedures on the basis of age and infirmity.
There are not explicit provisions for such rationing in the current health-care reform bills. But there are the mechanisms put in place - government panels to determine benefit packages and medical cost-effectiveness - for such. Moreover, the bills don't fundamentally change the economic incentives driving costs - third-party payers for even routine expenses - so rationing is the only practical way cost containment will happen.
The alleged distortion that most concerns supporters is that the Obama reform constitutes "government-run" health care. Obama protests that's not true. He has a point, but not much of one.
The heart of the Obama reform, supported by virtually all congressional Democrats, is to treat health-insurance companies as national public utilities. The federal government would determine the benefit packages they could offer. Pricing decisions would be strictly limited and profits capped.
An essential element of the reform is also a mandate that people purchase health insurance. If the federal government is requiring people to purchase health insurance, you can bet that politicians and bureaucrats will increasingly treat health-insurance companies as federal subsidiaries, feeling free, even obligated, to meddle in every aspect of what they do.
And then there is the public option, which would be government-run health care. The notion that such an entity can exist without the government showing such favoritism that private competitors eventually die out defies logic and history.
So, the accurate way to frame the opposition point is that the Democrats are proposing extensive government control of health care, which may lead to government-run health care.
The most consequential misrepresentation in the health-care debate is when Obama and other supporters claim that if people like their doctor and their insurance plan, they will get to keep them. The reason for the heavy stress on that reassurance is the belief that health-care reform that jeopardizes what people currently have isn't going anywhere.
The promise is false, however, even by the terms of the committee bills. Existing plans are grandfathered in, but only for five years. After that, they have to meet the new federal mandates, whatever they turn out to be. In the interim, they can accept no new enrollees.
More fundamentally, the Obama reforms completely scramble the health-care market. There will be new governmental mandates, huge new individual subsidies and different tax treatments. What employers will offer after everything is scrambled up and resettles is entirely unknowable.
Simply put, the health-care coverage people currently have would be subject to considerable change. An honest health-care debate would acknowledge that.
The ‘progressives may deny that a ‘Death Panels’ provisions are in the soon to be written bill. But it will be an unintended consequence of social engineering. It does every time it’s tried. When other people pay your bills, they will demand an interest in the outcome.
This administration has dealt more Whoppers than the entire Burger King chain.
Read up a little on Jacob Hacker. He is the Berkley socialist who helped author the healthcare positions of Hillary, Barry, and John in the 2008 primaries. It is his socialist persepctive at work in the current federalization of medicine and care in America.
If you want to see what’s happening, take a look at the hate and panic over at cost.
Diary after diary after diary, by Congress staffers, orgs, media people, all screaming fore new “Selling points” on Obamacare.
The headline stories are ALL by issues groups like MEdia Matters, etc.etc.
They are pulling out EVERYTHING to try and save this National Socialist plan!
Memo to President
To get health insurance costs down, reform/control the litigation against doctors and hospitals. Then get the 40+ million illegals out of the plan.....and let’s see what it costs or whether we even need it at all.
Thank you for listening
“Selling points” are more difficult to find than “Sinking points”. We need to pour it on.
The “death panels” already exist, they are just not given much shrift just yet. There are already review boards within the government-supported health delivery systems, in which the decisions to cover, or not to cover, a given malady is based on a cost-benefit ratio, and the determination is badly skewed by political considertions.
Check VA or Medicaid. Deferred care is denied care.
From what little I’ve watched of the state-run media, they have picked up 0bama’s talking points here and are spouting them with great gusto. They are LYING to us; there’s no other way to put it.
They really are 110% in 0bama’s pocket.
Hey Dems,
Keep your laws off my BODY!
This is a reasonable summary of where we are. My concern is that the whole debate fails to discuss fundamental issues of how the expanded coverage is going to be paid for. One mechanism, visible in other single payer systems, is rationing. This is not a pleasant prospect especially for those who have already paid in their insurance premiums for the availability medical services in the future. It is also a clear threat to the elderly and all for whom the expenditure offers a lower actuarial value. That is a cold hard reality and such cost benefit decisions are already being made by government agencies and insurance companies alike.
A second mechanism is increased taxation. But nobody seems willing to put numbers and rates to the amount of additional tax revenue that will be needed. Again, everyone suspects that this is coming.
A third mechanism, a variant of rationing, is to exclude “ineligible” individuals, i.e., illegal immigrants. This makes sense to many taxpayers, but does not seem to be even discussable among those formulating the policy.
A fourth mechanism is to reduce or control directly or indirectly the expense associated with the delivery of medical care. Beyond the simplistic and easy target of the pharmaceutical companies, the only substantial source of cost saving here is the level of compensation for doctors. Again nobody wants to talk about this.
Like most, I am for providing some level of health care to those who need it. The devil, however, is in the details. To devise anything like a reasonable solution we are going to need a lot more open and candid discussion about this issue than has hitherto been the case.
“but the country needs to continue to have a grown-up discussion about end-of-life issues”
I hate it when people say things like this. It’s irrelevant. We need to continue to have grown-up discussions about Shakespeare, too. Neither subjects should have anything to do with government, let alone the federal government.
Guess we’ll rate at least a GS 3 panel?
“The ‘death panels’ already exist, they are just not given much shrift just yet.”
Just look at the people who make decisions about organ transplants. We can’t have a free market there, Oh God, no. Must be controlled, to ensure fairness and humaneness, or whatever. Either by design or by happenstance, this automatically results in people refusing medical care to people based on quality of life, age, and worthiness. Some old folks, Mickey Mantle for instance, slide by, but he’s an exception.
Most people don’t care, since selling organs shocks them, and without prices the supply must be rationed somehow. Let’s see if they care when someone’s deciding whether to go ahead with procedures as simple as MRI scans.
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.