Healthcaredebateblog.com Grey active ultra

Problems with Nationalized Healthcare Already Exist in our Current System greyactiveultra

Many problems that would supposedly arise in a government run healthcare system are already prevalent in our current system. vivese senso duo

For instance, one criticism of the public option is that it would grant healthcare to illegal immigrants. The government already grants healthcare to illegal immigrants. Think medicare and medicaid are never used by illegal immigrants? Think again. Illegal immigrants have found plenty of ways to get a fake social security number. Also hospitals don't deny care to an illegal immigrant who comes into the emergency room. Thus our current healthcare system already covers illegal immigrants.

What about the supposed "death panels" that would arise under government healthcare. Death panels already exist in our healthcare system. If you are beyond a certain age, and are in need of expensive care, medicare can decide whether or not to pay for your care. Also many old folks decide with a "panel" what types of care they will recieve in the future. These "death panels" has been part of our medicare system for years. For more on these "death panels" click here. http://sensoduo.hu/

Another fear many have of government healthcare is that it will cover the cost of abortions. Medicaid already covers the cost of abortions. See here. Granted medicaid only covers abortions in certain cases. These include Rape, Incest, and Life endangerment. http://sensoduo.es/

Finally, many claim that the Healthcare Bill would lead to a Government takeover of the healthcare system. This is already happening through Medicare and Medicaid which continue to grow. Also both programs slowly increase regulation and control of the healthcare system.

Bob Anderson

What's Wrong With Carrying Guns around at a Protest?

by Carl Antony, Aug 18, 2009

Protesters in Arizona have garnered much media attention by boldly carrying guns around at a healthcare protest near the president. This has caused me to ask: What's wrong with carrying guns around at a protest? Nothing, I submit.

First off, it's a constitutional right, I know many of you health care reformers haven't read this Constitution thingy or you'd know that Socializing Medicine is NOT a power of congress, but I digress. The point is, the 2nd amendment grants these folks the right to bear arms. Secondly, these folks believe that the healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional, and are merely carrying guns to show Obama that the constitution is still the supreme law. They are carrying guns to anger liberals and Obama because both despise certain parts of the constitution such as the 2nd ammendment which is the right to bear arms, and Article 1 section 8 which limits congress's powers. This prohibits congress from passing a healthcare bill, or should prohibit congress from doing so, in recent years this part of the constitution has been ignored.

These folks love the constitution, and are merely expressing this love by carrying guns, and opposing socialized healthcare.

P.S. liberals and media, your only encouraging these folks by giving them so much attention.

Is the current Reform a repeat of 1994?

by Mitch Williams, Aug 16, 2009

President Obama is using his political capital fighting for healthcare reforms. Town halls all across the country are overcrowded with protesters as politicians try to build support for the current healthcare bill. The unpopularity of the current reform bill forced Obama to aknowledge the possibility of pulling the plug on the Public Option. This represents a shift in policy for the Administration, which as early as last week was adamant that any bill would require a public option. The question now is whether liberal Senators will vote for a healthcare bill without the Public Option.

Another problem for democrats is whether they can defend a healthcare bill that relies on Co ops. Support for the bill is unlikely to increase dramatically without the public option. Although some moderate republicans may support such a bill, many liberal Democrats are likely to jump ship. Progressive Democrats have promised to oppose any bill that does not include a public option. Which begs the question, is this a repeat of the failed reforms of 93/94?

There are many similarities between the two reform efforts. For instance, both efforts were pushed during the first year of newly elected Democratic President. The same interest groups that opposed reform in the 90's are coalescing today. They include conservatives, libertarians, doctors, and insurance companies. Both sides are pumping cash into T.V. advertisements to gain support. Now we are seeing criticism of the current reforms from the left, just as we did in 93/94.

What's next?, if we continue to follow the 93/94 playbook we will see Democrats divided. The result will be a Republican resurgence, and the weakening of Democratic control. Republican control of the congress, and the house will follow, and Obama will have to play the centrist to keep his job. However, it would be surprising to see history repeat itself with such accuracy, even though it has thus far.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

Obama the doctor? A Good Way to Make a Bad Situation Worse

by Carl Antony, Aug 13 2009

When reading about the house healthcare bill, one notes that Obama, and congressional leaders plan on making many laws, while repealing one law. The Law of Supply and Demand. Though the current healthcare bill may sound appealing on paper, in practice it would be an economic nightmare. I am not making the argument that the current healthcare system is good. What I am saying is that the current congressional healthcare bill will make a bad situation worse.

We know that the current healthcare system leaves 40 million people uninsured. This is not only unethical, but also is extremely costly in the form of long term consequences to people who don’t get early care. In other words, those who aren’t covered end up going to the emergency room when their illnesses become worse. This puts an extra cost on those who are insured, because they indirectly pay other peoples care. Obama and many congressmen say therefore, the government should offer assistance to those who need this care, thus eliminating any unfairness, and lowering costs in the long term.

Unfortunately government intervention is not guaranteed to produce these desired results. Conservatives argue that in places like Canada, and Great Britain, Government insurance has resulted in healthcare rationing. This results in situations where someone must wait to receive medical care. In other words, those who aren’t treated in time end up going to the emergency room when their illnesses become much worse. This puts extra cost on the healthcare system as a whole.

Does this previous sentence sound familiar, it should, look at the italicized sentence in the first paragraph and you will see they are pretty much the same. One can see that both a public option healthcare program and a private one result in individuals not being able to get the care they need, and this results in higher costs.

Liberals would respond by saying that higher costs are not a foregone conclusion, and individuals will not face rationing. The basic economic law of supply and demand refutes this claim as you will see:

Economic Roadblocks to the Current Healthcare Bill

As the demand for healthcare increases because millions suddenly become insured, the supply of doctors stays the same, and this results in a shortage of healthcare unless prices go up. Look in your basic economics textbook and you will see this law:

IF DEMAND INCREASES, AND SUPPLY/PRICE STAY THE SAME A SHORTAGE WILL RESULT.

Thus people will have to wait for critical surgeries. The only way to avoid a shortage, and the resulting waiting lines for healthcare, is for the supply of healthcare to increase. The only way supply would increase is if people pay more for healthcare. Thus more people insured equals higher costs.

Basic Economic Rule # 2:

ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, DEMAND AND PRICE MOVE TOGETHER

More people insured equals higher demand, therefore a public option means healthcare costs will go up.

You may say, wait a minute, doesn’t the public option make healthcare cheaper? They answer is no, because even though you may pay less for healthcare as an individual, you will pay more for it indirectly in the form of higher taxes.

Solution to this problem? “Keep costs down” through government price controls. This is something you will hear Obama touting lets “keep costs down“.

People should look back to the 1970’s to remember what price controls did at gas stations. The results were a shortage, rationing of gas, and long waiting lines. If you want the rationing of healthcare and long waiting lines for medical procedures, use price controls to “keep costs down”.

Basic Economic Rule # 3:

PRICE CEILINGS RESULT IN A SHORTAGE

There you have it, three basic economics principles explaining why the proposed public option, and current reform bill are fatally flawed. The current congressional plan will result in a shortage, healthcare rationing, and higher prices.

PAUL KRUGMAN, the noted economist, must be ignorant of these three basic economics laws and how they apply to government run healthcare. Or else he wouldn’t so adamantly support such a program.

Here’s a free economics lesson Paul:

IF DEMAND INCREASES, AND SUPPLY/PRICES STAY THE SAME, A SHORTAGE WILL RESULT

ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL, DEMAND AND PRICE MOVE TOGETHER

PRICE CEILINGS RESULT IN A SHORTAGE

I suspect Paul is not really ignorant of these basic economic laws. What’s ironic is that his own economics book has these laws in it! He is just too busy playing the puppet for the New York Times to acknowledge these economic facts. Oh how nice it must be to be deep in the pockets of a major newspaper. It’s a lucrative job, and pays well. If you don’t mind suspending all integrity and any knowledge you gained from your education.

False Arguments made by Politicians

Another common sound bite you’ll hear many Democratic leaders saying is “Why are insurance companies so afraid of competition from the public option, can’t they compete with government healthcare?” The statement itself is flawed, because Insurance companies won’t compete on a level playing field with the Public Option.

For the “Competition” to be fair you would have to grant the insurance companies all the advantages of the public option.

These include:

Taxpayer subsidies,

Government mandate, and requirements to get on the public option

Lack of concern with making a profit.

This would be like asking “why can’t you compete with me in a footrace?” while giving yourself a huge head start from the beginning.

Here's a simple question that politicians should be asking: Why should the American people trust government to run healthcare, when government can't run Medicade and Medicare efficiently?

Another claim you’ll hear in the news is that “Healthcare reform will help small businesses” Again this is a half truth. Although proposed healthcare reform may help control costs for small businesses initially, any advantage gained will be lost when these same businesses are taxed at higher rates to pay for such a program.

Perhaps the dumbest thing about the current house bill, is that those who refuse to be covered by insurance, will be fined. That’s a great way to help out a poor unemployed guy who can’t afford insurance, give him a fine! I’m glad the Democratic Party looks out for the little guy. Why is it even called a “Public Option” if it is mandated by fines. A more appropriate term would be Public Mandate.

General Thoughts on Healthcare

I understand that the U.S. healthcare situation right now is bad. However, it’s quite possible that bad as our healthcare situation is, it is the best option of many worse ones. There are times in life when one doesn't have a good option, but must choose the less worse one. For example, if you have cancer you have two options: Take chemo and suffer but live longer, don't take chemo and die earlier. As we can see, the best option is to take chemo, although no one would really call it a good option.

Finally, it’s possible that high healthcare costs could, drop. Prices have a way of lowering after a massive run. Witness the run up in home prices, stock prices, and oil prices. All three saw a massive drop in value during this past year. Imagine all Americans eating better, and exercising more. This is not such a wild possibility, as evidence shows that more people are working out and watching their diet. As the society grows healthier, the demand for healthcare diminishes, prices will drop.

In summation, both a public option, and private healthcare system have flaws. Because we cannot see the future, we don’t really know if healthcare will get better or worse under either plan. Even if basic economics favors a private plan, evidence shows major problems in both the public and private healthcare systems. Given this uncertainty of outcomes, it logically follows that we should go with the less expensive option, if for no other reason than it simply costs less.

by Carl Antony

Permalink

We need Reform, Carl is Dead Wrong

By Bob Anderson, Aug 14 2009

I wonder if Carl has even read the bill that he is so vociferously opposed to. How could he be so against a bill which I doubt he has even read? Granted, it is 1000 pages, but before he makes such a bad judgement of the bill he should read it.

I'll say this, at least he admitted to some of the extraordinary failings of the current healthcare system, such as the 40 million uninsured, and lets not forget the extra tens of millions who are underinsured. It's easy to say that one is content with the current healthcare system so long as one is insured, but try being one of the 40 million who aren't. We live in a country where decisions about ones health are determined by the size of ones bankbook. If thats not a moral issue, then I don't know what is. The so called "Moral Majority" are so concerned with hot button topics like abortion, that they can't see that our countrie's healthcare system forces women with breast cancer to go without the care they need, just because they are uninsured. Since the Right hasn't shown any viable alternatives to the current congressional healthcare bill, then they are by default defending the status quo.

Carl speaks of the healthcare rationing that would supposedly occur if reform were to pass, I got news for you Carl: healthcare is already being rationed by the uninsured. They are rationed by the decisions they must make every day of whether they will eat or go to the doctor. If they aren't already facing a shortage, then I don't know what a shortage is. I guess to call lack of healthcare a shortage is faulty, because for a shortage to exist there must at least an amount of something. For the poor and uninsured there is no healthcare at all.

All the neoconservatives cry out in terror about the horrors of "government run healthcare" well guess what? We've had government run healthcare for years look at medicare and medicade. Also, veterans healthcare hospitals are "government run healthcare" facilities and they have some of the best healthcare in the world.

Carl asked:

"Why should the American people trust government to run healthcare, when government can't run Medicade and Medicare efficiently?" Well the answer is simple: the new healthcare system is going to be different, completely different from medicare and medicade. Obama has stated publicly that the new healthcare system will focus on eliminating much of the waste and inefficiencies in Medicare/Medicade and the current healthcare system.

I can't disagree with Carl on one point, charging uninsured folks fees for being uninsured is the dumbest part of the healthcare bill. However, Carl is dead wrong to think that we should avoid reforming healthcare because it will be more expensive than the current system. The current system is indeed very expensive, though these expenses may not always be measured easily in monetary terms, it is an indesputable fact that those who become gravely ill because a lack of insurance pay the highest price of all. That is more expensive than a public option.

By Bob Anderson Permalink

Comments