The anti-health care reform side makes a couple of interesting points.
First, they claim that the percentage of uninsured is so small that it doesn't justify major changes to the health care system.
Then, they claim that the uninsured now get treatment, in emergency rooms, etc.
Now, they claim that their are too many uninsured and that the health care system can't absorb the new patients.
Somehow, we have too many uninsured and do anything about, and too few to make it worthwhile.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Joe Wilson makes a fool of himself
Joe Wilson proved to the world that he is an rude, idiot. There is a long history of hissing, booing, bored looks, etc. during Presidential addresses to Congress. But you don't shout out "You Lie".
Technically, as I understand the bill, Obama didn't lie. I have read that the bill excludes illegal aliens. The problem that Joe Wilson might have been raising was that Democrats do not want IDs checked for medical care, and they want to re-classify many or almost all illegal aliens as legal.
If the Democrats has someone like Ted Kennedy around, they would give on the issue to get a few opposition votes. Details like this can always be changed later. Get to univerals coverage now, worry about illegal aliens later.
Obama has already said he wants to fix immigration, no wonder a lot of people think they will be paying taxes for illegal alien's health care. Make it clear, no one that enters the country illegally, even if later made legal, will be covered, with proof of ID required. If that's what you mean, say it. Otherwise, a lot of the voters will were needed to elect those moderate Democrats will vote Republican, if this passes.
Technically, as I understand the bill, Obama didn't lie. I have read that the bill excludes illegal aliens. The problem that Joe Wilson might have been raising was that Democrats do not want IDs checked for medical care, and they want to re-classify many or almost all illegal aliens as legal.
If the Democrats has someone like Ted Kennedy around, they would give on the issue to get a few opposition votes. Details like this can always be changed later. Get to univerals coverage now, worry about illegal aliens later.
Obama has already said he wants to fix immigration, no wonder a lot of people think they will be paying taxes for illegal alien's health care. Make it clear, no one that enters the country illegally, even if later made legal, will be covered, with proof of ID required. If that's what you mean, say it. Otherwise, a lot of the voters will were needed to elect those moderate Democrats will vote Republican, if this passes.
Teddy Kennedy, Missed by Obama
I was no fan of Ted Kennedy. But one has to admit that he was as effective in the Senate as anyone since Lyndon Johnson.
In the current health care debate, the bills seem to be written by liberal Democrats with not much interest in compromise. The are making demands that prevent many moderates and every conservative from supporting the bill, and worse, some of the demands are not related to what at least I see as the primary objective.
To me, the primary objective is Universal coverage. But liberals will fail to reach the goal, if their demand for a government option isn't met. Also, Republicans have long wanted tort reform, which will help reduce cost due to doctors practicing defensive medicine. But the ties the Democrats have with lawyers prevents that.
Ted Kennedy was a master of negotiating. Everyone gets something, gives something, and a bill gets passed. Today, there isn't anyone in the Senate that's has a clue how to do this, in either party.
The Democrats could pass a bill that provides universal coverage, if they would only give moderate Democrats a voice. Once in place, you can always make changes later.
In the current health care debate, the bills seem to be written by liberal Democrats with not much interest in compromise. The are making demands that prevent many moderates and every conservative from supporting the bill, and worse, some of the demands are not related to what at least I see as the primary objective.
To me, the primary objective is Universal coverage. But liberals will fail to reach the goal, if their demand for a government option isn't met. Also, Republicans have long wanted tort reform, which will help reduce cost due to doctors practicing defensive medicine. But the ties the Democrats have with lawyers prevents that.
Ted Kennedy was a master of negotiating. Everyone gets something, gives something, and a bill gets passed. Today, there isn't anyone in the Senate that's has a clue how to do this, in either party.
The Democrats could pass a bill that provides universal coverage, if they would only give moderate Democrats a voice. Once in place, you can always make changes later.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Link to a good blog on health care
Dave Winer has a good note on health care here.
I would add that the sole purpose of for-profit health care providers and insurance companies, just like those in any other industry, is to make a profit. Increasing profits means increasing sales, or services provided. Doesn't matter if the services are cost effective, or even work, as long as they turn a profit. Actually, as long as they don't get sued, the treatment can have a negative effect. There are many examples of this.
Doctors are afraid of lawsuits, plus they now perform many types of tests in-house, such as x-rays, blood tests, etc., so they have every incentive to perform every test and treatment that insurance will reimburse. Where is the decision made for cost effectiveness?
One other thing, Dave touches on, is the overall cost. I find that often, people make arguments in a debate designed to convince people that already agree with them. More often than not, liberals and conservatives think differently. If you want to convince a conservative, make a conservative argument (same with liberals). Dave mentions the cost of health care, but I want to expand on that.
In the US, most businesses of any size pay huge sums for employee health care. Sometimes, they compete with other US companies that do not offer insurance. They can keep better employees, but with a higher cost due their providing insurance. For highly skilled employees, its a no-brainer, the business has to provide insurance. But what about lower skilled jobs, where employee retention isn't so important?
Conservatives will say that we should let the companies battle it out in the marketplace. If the economic benefit to the company is greater than the cost of insurance, then companies offering insurance will win. If not, they lose. This is the classic Wal-mart vs. Safeway battle for grocery sales.
But what about international trade? How can US companies compete with foreign companies when the foreign companies have a lower cost of business, even if they have to pay a payroll tax for health care? In my opinion, conservatives should work to reduce the barriers to economic growth, and the cost of health insurance for employees is a significant barrier to growth, especially employment.
I would add that the sole purpose of for-profit health care providers and insurance companies, just like those in any other industry, is to make a profit. Increasing profits means increasing sales, or services provided. Doesn't matter if the services are cost effective, or even work, as long as they turn a profit. Actually, as long as they don't get sued, the treatment can have a negative effect. There are many examples of this.
Doctors are afraid of lawsuits, plus they now perform many types of tests in-house, such as x-rays, blood tests, etc., so they have every incentive to perform every test and treatment that insurance will reimburse. Where is the decision made for cost effectiveness?
One other thing, Dave touches on, is the overall cost. I find that often, people make arguments in a debate designed to convince people that already agree with them. More often than not, liberals and conservatives think differently. If you want to convince a conservative, make a conservative argument (same with liberals). Dave mentions the cost of health care, but I want to expand on that.
In the US, most businesses of any size pay huge sums for employee health care. Sometimes, they compete with other US companies that do not offer insurance. They can keep better employees, but with a higher cost due their providing insurance. For highly skilled employees, its a no-brainer, the business has to provide insurance. But what about lower skilled jobs, where employee retention isn't so important?
Conservatives will say that we should let the companies battle it out in the marketplace. If the economic benefit to the company is greater than the cost of insurance, then companies offering insurance will win. If not, they lose. This is the classic Wal-mart vs. Safeway battle for grocery sales.
But what about international trade? How can US companies compete with foreign companies when the foreign companies have a lower cost of business, even if they have to pay a payroll tax for health care? In my opinion, conservatives should work to reduce the barriers to economic growth, and the cost of health insurance for employees is a significant barrier to growth, especially employment.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy Exits
With the passing of Ted Kennedy, Obama loses certainly the most effective liberal Senator, if not overall. Obama would have benefitted greatly from having a robust Ted Kennedy in the Senate during the health care battle.
The NY Times has a major piece here.
I did learn something significant from the NY Times article. I was not aware that Senator Kennedy has served in the army during the Korean war. Also, has family got him a cushy job, similar to President George W. Bush during Vietnam. From th times article:
Suddenly draft-eligible during the Korean War, Mr. Kennedy enlisted in the Army and served
two years, securing, with his father’s help, a cushy post at NATO headquarters in Paris. In
1953, he was discharged with the rank of private first class.
Dan Rather lost his career because he became obcessed with Bush, instead of reporting the facts. Its not just liberal journalists like Rather, but all journalists take sides instead of reporting the news. Maybe Rather should have reported on how most if not all powerful familes kept their kids out of war, Bush, Kennedy, all of them.
The public might today believe the media when they talk about Republican BS on health care, like death squads, if they attaked all politicians with the same vigor, not just those with opposing views.
The NY Times has a major piece here.
I did learn something significant from the NY Times article. I was not aware that Senator Kennedy has served in the army during the Korean war. Also, has family got him a cushy job, similar to President George W. Bush during Vietnam. From th times article:
Suddenly draft-eligible during the Korean War, Mr. Kennedy enlisted in the Army and served
two years, securing, with his father’s help, a cushy post at NATO headquarters in Paris. In
1953, he was discharged with the rank of private first class.
Dan Rather lost his career because he became obcessed with Bush, instead of reporting the facts. Its not just liberal journalists like Rather, but all journalists take sides instead of reporting the news. Maybe Rather should have reported on how most if not all powerful familes kept their kids out of war, Bush, Kennedy, all of them.
The public might today believe the media when they talk about Republican BS on health care, like death squads, if they attaked all politicians with the same vigor, not just those with opposing views.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Bias in the Media Haunts Obama
In my opinion, the entire main stream media is biased. Fox is very conservative, MSNBC is very liberal (both are good for their business), and the rest are slightly liberal (CNN and the networks). Anything that gets close to a debate becomes a name calling shouting match. The network participants (I refuse to call them journalists) take sides instead of moderating the shouting matches and calling foul when the truth is stretched by the guests.
I would much prefer that all the media players allow all sides of any debate to make their points, one at a time, then have journalists point out when either side spews BS. This will never happen. The old William F. Buckley debates on PBS were great. My favorite was where Buckley debated against Ronald Reagan (each on a team) on the merits of giving the Panama Canal back to Panama while Cater was President. More often than not, it was liberal versus conservative.
I believe that most of the liberal media, minus Fox, turned on Hillary Clinton early in the recent campaign and actually became boosters for Obama. Fox, weird as it may be, actually supported Hillary, after years of attacks on her.
Obama's media supporters made a horrible mistake. They should have created an outlet for honest debate before the health care push, where BS on any side were called out. With the history of the debate over HillaryCare, they should have expected a vigorous response from partisan Republicans. Maybe Obama's advisors should have developed a plan earlier.
Instead, it appears that Obama's camp and media supporters believed even the most partisan Republicans would roll over. Maybe they made the mistake of underestimating the dislike for Bush among voters, and thinking the election victory was all due to love of Obama.
What has happened is that Republicans, those with no plan to provide health care to millions of people, are spewing BS about ObamaCare, and there is no unbiased source of news to call foul. Of course MSNBC will play to a liberal audience (and Fox to conservatives), but that's preaching to the choir. Obama needs to win the minds of the independant voters.
Obama's supporters should encourage CNN and the networks to quickly develop programs with a moderated debate, where facts by all sides are checked. No shouting when its not your turn to speak. Where journalists don't participate, but verify the debate points of the guests. Obama is losing the middle ground, and a biased media isn't helping.
Shouting matches with biased journalists as participants make people afraid of any change.
I would much prefer that all the media players allow all sides of any debate to make their points, one at a time, then have journalists point out when either side spews BS. This will never happen. The old William F. Buckley debates on PBS were great. My favorite was where Buckley debated against Ronald Reagan (each on a team) on the merits of giving the Panama Canal back to Panama while Cater was President. More often than not, it was liberal versus conservative.
I believe that most of the liberal media, minus Fox, turned on Hillary Clinton early in the recent campaign and actually became boosters for Obama. Fox, weird as it may be, actually supported Hillary, after years of attacks on her.
Obama's media supporters made a horrible mistake. They should have created an outlet for honest debate before the health care push, where BS on any side were called out. With the history of the debate over HillaryCare, they should have expected a vigorous response from partisan Republicans. Maybe Obama's advisors should have developed a plan earlier.
Instead, it appears that Obama's camp and media supporters believed even the most partisan Republicans would roll over. Maybe they made the mistake of underestimating the dislike for Bush among voters, and thinking the election victory was all due to love of Obama.
What has happened is that Republicans, those with no plan to provide health care to millions of people, are spewing BS about ObamaCare, and there is no unbiased source of news to call foul. Of course MSNBC will play to a liberal audience (and Fox to conservatives), but that's preaching to the choir. Obama needs to win the minds of the independant voters.
Obama's supporters should encourage CNN and the networks to quickly develop programs with a moderated debate, where facts by all sides are checked. No shouting when its not your turn to speak. Where journalists don't participate, but verify the debate points of the guests. Obama is losing the middle ground, and a biased media isn't helping.
Shouting matches with biased journalists as participants make people afraid of any change.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Se. Grassley Loses Credibility
Dave Winer just Tweeted about a comment Sen. Grassley made about "Death Squads", here . Dave in turn links to MSNBC, which quotes The Huffington Post (neither are exactly unbiased). So I kept following the links to a video on YouTube, here. The video is edited, but I think there's enough there to say that the story sticks.
I've always respected Sen. Grassley. But he is now spewing BS.
The Republicans don't acknowledge there is a problem with having 45 Million (or whatever the exact number is, its large) people uninsured. There is no Republican plan to see that health care is available to all.
I hear them say these people do have health care, at an emergance room. Works for broken arms, not so much for non-emergancies.
I would like to ask the Republicans a few questions.
First, if the British NHS is so bad, why does their Conservative Party not try to convert to an American-style system? The British Conservative Party supports the NHS, except for a few token radicals. They spend less than half of what the US spends per person, and live longer. Is their another country with a single payer system that has citizens wanting to convert to a US-style sytem?
Second, if ObamaCare is so bad, will the Republicans go on record today for eliminating it when they next regain control of the Congress? I doubt it, because no one can vote to take millions of people of the health care rolls. I would think that if its so bad, the Republicans would go to their graves fighting it.
For the Democrats, they should be honest and pony up to their desire for a single payer, rationed system. That will happen, if ObamaCare is enacted, because its the only way to pay for all the uninsured, and keep cost low. I think the argument on a government option is wasted effort, once everyone is covered the writing is on the wall.
I've always respected Sen. Grassley. But he is now spewing BS.
The Republicans don't acknowledge there is a problem with having 45 Million (or whatever the exact number is, its large) people uninsured. There is no Republican plan to see that health care is available to all.
I hear them say these people do have health care, at an emergance room. Works for broken arms, not so much for non-emergancies.
I would like to ask the Republicans a few questions.
First, if the British NHS is so bad, why does their Conservative Party not try to convert to an American-style system? The British Conservative Party supports the NHS, except for a few token radicals. They spend less than half of what the US spends per person, and live longer. Is their another country with a single payer system that has citizens wanting to convert to a US-style sytem?
Second, if ObamaCare is so bad, will the Republicans go on record today for eliminating it when they next regain control of the Congress? I doubt it, because no one can vote to take millions of people of the health care rolls. I would think that if its so bad, the Republicans would go to their graves fighting it.
For the Democrats, they should be honest and pony up to their desire for a single payer, rationed system. That will happen, if ObamaCare is enacted, because its the only way to pay for all the uninsured, and keep cost low. I think the argument on a government option is wasted effort, once everyone is covered the writing is on the wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)