A very simple problem arises when people attack Obama's health care proposals. If you are afraid "the government might have death panels," "the government might make you wait weeks for care" etc. etc., you then have to show why this either doesn't happen or won't happen if we keep the current system, with insurance companies in control of funding health care.
We know that insurance companies do exclude people because of pre-existing conditions, they do revoke coverage if you get sick, and they do put lifetime caps on the care that they will fund. We also know that they have to pay huge CEO salaries that dwarf even the President's annual paycheck. So if you are going to argue against Obama's plan, just please tell me what you are afraid the government will do and why you think you don't have to worry about United Health or whoever your private insusre is doing the same darn thing.
I'm not saying that there aren't any arguments that can be made against Obama's plan. What I am saying is that you can't make these arguments without comparing what you are objecting to with present reality.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/10/simple-test-for-arguments-against.html
The death panelists would be presidential appointees. They wouldn’t be elected. And they wouldn’t be subject to Congressional advice, consent, or oversight.
Indeed, the whole point is to insulate them from the democratic process so that they can make unpopular choices that politicians are afraid to make.
By contrast, insurance companies, to stay in business, need to please their customers. They don’t have to please all their customers all the time. But they are responsive to those whom their policies affect in a way that death panels are not.
What do you think the ideal health care setup would look like? Do you see any need for change with the way things are now?
ReplyDeleteThere have been proposes for change, such as allowing competition between states, as well as tort reform.
ReplyDeleteAnother option I've seen, one which is in the plan, (I think) calls for the formation of "co-ops," which would enable groups of small businesses to pool their purchasing power.
ReplyDeleteIt is rather interesting to count how many planks of the communist manifesto have been implemented gradually in a Fabian style. One Fabian symbol was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Quite fitting all things considered.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanvision.org/article/a-window-into-the-socialist-soul/
I'll point out a few issues here:
ReplyDelete1) I'm not certain how you know that "death panels" would be presidential appointees since there are no death panels. But if they were instituted under a health care reform bill, then Congress could change that legislation later on if they wanted to if they did something unpopular and there was a public uproar over it. Oversight, advice and consent, etc, could be required.
2) Presidents and congressmen also need to "please their customers" if they want to be re-elected, no less than insurance companies need to do so. In fact one could argue that they would be even more responsive.
3) I'll also point out the majority of Americans get their health care insurance from their employer. Insurance companies therefore are not as concerned with me as their customer but my employer. So I don't think the argument that health care companies would be more responsive to consumers is necessarily true for most Americans.
SH: The death panelists would be presidential appointees. They wouldn’t be elected. And they wouldn’t be subject to Congressional advice, consent, or oversight.
ReplyDeleteVR: You wouldn't happen to know where this is in the bill, or what Obama statement this comes from?
SH: Indeed, the whole point is to insulate them from the democratic process so that they can make unpopular choices that politicians are afraid to make.
VR: If they are Presidential appointees, and they did something like this, it would fall back on the President's head politically. If someone were victimized in such a way, they would run straight to FOX News and tell their story. I certainly would.
The present system is prohibitive for people of modest income who don't have a large enough full-time enployer to provide coverage (I know, since almost all my work has been part time for the last 19 years--full time in total, but part time per employer), there are pre-existing condition exclusions, people get dropped by their insurance companies when the get sick, and there are lifetime caps on what insurance companies will pay for a person's care.
All Obama's public option can do is deny payment, not deny care. To actually deny care you have to have a single-payer system in which the health care and health payment are provided by the same governmental entity. Now, if the denial of payment is tantamount to the denial of care, then we already have death panels. There are treatments the companies won't pay for, and people die as a result. If denial of payment is distinguishable from denial of care, then nothing short of a full and complete single-payer system will do that.