People need to take a deep breath and relax. I know its hard to do, but there's some things that are just beyond the pale, even for politicians, and I am especially ashamed of Fred Thompson, who was actually my second choice for President during the last election cycle, behind Giuliani (and he actually quickly became my favored choice).
Yet, the nonsense being promoted by him and others, such as Rush Limbaugh, claiming that a new government medical policy would pressure senior citizens to opt to end their lives by denying themselves nutrition and hydration is just nuts. Never mind the idea that Democrats might or might not support such an idea. The plain fact of the matter is, it would be politically insane to promote such a policy, even behind the scenes in a small item buried in thousands of pages.
For another thing, no doctor or hospital would put up with that. In fact, not only would it be against the Hippocratic Oath, it would be going against their own financial best interests. It just doesn't make any sense.
There is one potential problem with senior care if the bill were to pass as is, but it revolves more around a one-size fits all approach to elderly care, especially regarding plans to establish government financed homes that would be staffed mostly by nurses. Of course, it might well turn into a bureaucratic nightmare, and probably would at the least be inefficient and expensive. But that's a far cry from an insane plot to knock off old people to save money. So unless there's something specific that might lead to such a policy, or encourage it in any way, conservatives need to tread lightly. There is such thing as political backlash. I would think they would not need me to remind them of such lessons they have already been taught numerous times just over the course of the last decade.
Besides, how bad can government run health care be? I have my own two ways of looking at it. Either it ends up pretty good, or with mixed results, in which case it can always be improved upon over time. Or, it can be a failure to one degree or another, in which case it can be revisited with a better set of policies once it contributes to a return to power of Republicans. But at least the groundwork is being set down, whatever the case.
I would prefer to see a system where doctors are relieved of their debts and insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are not taxed, though still subjected to reasonable state regulations with federal oversight. Those things in itself would do more to reduce the cost of health care than anything currently on the table. As for reducing the level of bureaucracy that also adds to the expense, that would be a given. It would have to be reduced to make up the difference in lost tax revenue. Government would reform the medical system by getting out of it while expecting results. If the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, for example, don't keep prices low, or reasonable, there are always price-gouging and other such laws, and there can still be assistance for the disabled, elderly, and poor.
In fact, if businesses in general were not taxed, while all individuals were taxed at any equal rate-with no end of the year tax refunds for anyone-then over time the majority of our tax and economic problems would wither away, provided there was an understanding that minimum wage would have to be raised and certain regulations would have to remain in place, while certain others should be loosened or abandoned all together.
That is the kind of thing Republicans and conservatives need to promote. Leave the horror stories around the campfires and come back down to earth for a while.
4 comments:
Hmmm... I lived for 30 years in the US, and now 5 years in a country with government-run health care (although, people forget that Canada has private health care too. My father-in-law is currently being treated by private physicians. He's also rich.) Honestly, the truth is that both systems suck in different ways. It's just the US system sucks more.
Rufus, do you mean Canada has private health insurance companies? I know Britain has them, in addition to the government option (NHS) though I'm not sure about Europe in general.
I think it will eventually get to the point here where there will be a move to adopt a constitutional amendment specifically designating affordable quality health care a constitutional right. The longer it goes without things being settled here, the more likely is that eventuality, though it will probably be some time-say twenty of thirty years-before it gets to that point.
Once it does, though, it will be a steamroller that will be next to impossible to stop.
You've got to figure, this debate has been going on for sixty years now (Truman was the first President to call for some kind of health care reform, in his case I think he actually called for socialized medicine or something like it), and the calls get consistently stronger and louder. It's only a matter of time before it all comes to a head. It will happen eventually, it's only a matter or how, when, and to what degree.
Personally, I think the longer it goes the more like it will be completely a government run system.
Yeah, there's what's called 'supplementary insurance' here that you can get from say Blue Cross Canada, and then there are a handful of private clinics. Supposedly- and I've just heard this from Claire- you can get almost any treatment done privately, if you can afford it.
Also the health card doesn't cover everything. So, they say something like 30% of the health care in Canada is private. And, actually, the Canadian laws limit the private option more than in just about any country with universal health care. Holly and Greg, who sometimes post on my blog, live in Austria, and there's basically a dual system there. They've said that the private insurance companies are giving the govt. option a real run for its money. Indeed, the insurance companies do not go out of business when there's a government option. Probably for the same reasons that there's public transit but people still buy cars.
Now, eventually, Canada will most likely have a dual system, with both private and public insurance and clinics. Everyone sort of sees that coming, but there's a lot of patriotic fervor around the health care system, so it's just as hard to get reform here as there. But, a lot of people here see Canada eventually becoming more like the US and the US becoming more like Canda, and if a dual system could capture the benefits of both systems and avoid some of the problems, it could really be a lot better.
But, you know, for someone like my father, who's got his little lobster boat and works for himself, a health card would be great- he spends more on health insurance in Maine than he does on anything else. It's almost too much for him. And he's a huge Rush Limbaugh fan, always votes Republican, etc. But he's all for a public option. I think it's the one area where he really agrees with Democrats. For someone like him, the politics of it are pretty irrelevant.
I'm under the opinion there will be no public option. The Senate Finance Committee leaders, from both parties, meet about weekly with Obama. The deal was cut.
The insurance companies will care for the young and healthy. The government will pick up the tab for the rest.
Post a Comment