Will Reform Help Health Care?

Nick Gillespie | June 25, 2009

A Washington Post-ABC News poll from a couple of days ago has some pretty interesting findings about attitudes toward health care reform.

Among them:

Sixteen percent assume their care will get better if the system is changed while 31 percent figure it'll get worse. Half think it will stay the same.

Roughly 80 percent of respondents (plus or minus a few points depending on the specific questions) are very or somewhat concerned that health care reform will reduce quality of care and range of coverage while increasing costs and adding to the federal deficit. They think reform will limit choices of doctors and increase government bureaucracy.

About 45 percent of people are somewhat or very satisfied with the overall system, but over 80 percent are very or somewhat satisfied with their own care.

Much more here.

And in case you missed last night's ABC News health care confab with President Barack Obama, here's the sort of hardball questions and answers that were on display:

Orrin Devinsky of the NYU School of Medicine wondered if Obama would stick within the limits of government-issue insurance if his wife or one of his daughters was seriously ill and the plan didn't cover every possible treatment. Obama replied that he would want the "very best care"—but insisted the real issue was that the system is broken. "Understand that the status quo is untenable," he said.

One woman asked if someone like her 105-year-old mom would have care cut simply because of age limits. Obama said he didn't want that, but that "those decisions are already being made" based on costs and private insurance policies.

He also didn't answer directly who would set limits to care in a new system, or who would enforce them.

"If we are smart, we should be able to design a system in which people still have choices" and waste is reduced, he said.

More here.

My god, what's taken us so long to get such a brilliant solutionizer in the White House! He wants not just the best care for his family, but the "very best care." We can get choice and cut waste, if we are smart. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this? Courage and steel, Obama, courage and steel.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|6.25.09 @ 9:35AM|#

"President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care."

That is called killing the sick. How exactly do government bureaucrats define "don't stand to gain"? Don't worry, I am sure the Obamasiah will let us die with dignity.

|6.25.09 @ 9:44AM|#

LOL, I can assure you the only thing reform will do is MESS IT UP even more!

ER
www.anon-tools.tk

Fascitis Necrotizante|6.25.09 @ 9:44AM|#

|6.25.09 @ 9:48AM|#

This is the Clinton health care conceit, redux:

No problem is unfixable if you put a bunch of smart lawyers from Yale in charge.

So it's just a matter of the right people making the right decisions, the basic structural flaws of the system be damned.

|6.25.09 @ 9:50AM|#

How on earth can the same person both believe that their health care will stay either get better or get worse under reform, and be "concerned that health care reform will reduce quality of care and range of coverage."

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

This is all about who decides - the government, the family, or the providers.

Families already pull care because of futility, and I doubt there's a lot to be gained by having them do so voluntarily earlier/more often.

In Texas (and in some other states), hospitals can pull care in cases of futility, but only after due process, multiple opinions, peer review, etc. It is rarely done. I doubt there's a lot to be gained on this front, either.

The Texas system is adamantly opposed by not only the usual "pro-life" crowd, but by disability rights groups. I wonder if the disability activists are going to oppose the Obama proposal as well, or sell out like NOW did for Clinton's sexual harassment.

Hugh Akston|6.25.09 @ 9:54AM|#

Obama replied that he would want the "very best care"-but insisted the real issue was that the system is broken. "Understand that the status quo is untenable," he said.

Obama said he didn't want that, but that "those decisions are already being made" based on costs and private insurance policies.

These are the responses of a dedicated internets troll.

|6.25.09 @ 10:00AM|#

"Understand that the status quo is untenable," he said. "I mean, how can we as a country just sit back and let people make decisions about their lives? Why, they might not choose the choice we want them to make!"

|6.25.09 @ 10:03AM|#

"The Texas system is adamantly opposed by not only the usual "pro-life" crowd, but by disability rights groups. I wonder if the disability activists are going to oppose the Obama proposal as well, or sell out like NOW did for Clinton's sexual harassment."

People have a bad habbit of looking at the disabled as less than human. Take someone who is say mentally handicapped and physically handicapped and dependent on the state for support. That person shows up with cancer, I gaurentee you that a lot of people in this society would argue against treatment on the basis that their life isn't worth as much as someone else's. I find it hard to beleive that a government run health system wouldn't reach just such a decision. Then of course the question is where does that end? Once you start killing people and thinking that you can judge what life is worth saving and what is not, it is pretty hard to stop.

Twisted Nerve|6.25.09 @ 10:04AM|#

Relax, the solution to proper rationing of of our communal heath resorces has already been identified. Once the new National Palm Flower initiatve has been fully instituted, your entitlement to treatment will truly be in your own hands.

|6.25.09 @ 10:05AM|#

"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to care for our families, to ride out the storm of partisan politics, and to outlive the menace of recession, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of The Chosen One's administration -every man, woman, and trangendered of them. That is the will of Oprah and the nation.
The AMA and Insurance Lobby, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native spoils, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip Socialized Medicine and all the odious apparatus of Communist rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Congress,
we shall fight on the broadcast networks,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in high definition, we shall defend our grasp on the reigns of power, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the hospitals,
we shall fight on the urgent care centers,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the school nurse's office;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this administration or a large part of it were misguided and down in the polls, then our friends in Hollywood, armed and guarded by the agents and publicists, would carry on the struggle, until, in My good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

creech|6.25.09 @ 10:12AM|#

All this crap is inevitable, given the proclivity of Americans now to demand a free lunch. Who will make health care choices?
Why, your local Democratic committeeman (or someone else who can pull strings to get you the "very best care" vis a vis some poor sap who still remains a libertarian. So, if it is inevitable, maybe we should advocate for a bright line: hit age 80 and you no longer get subsidized care. If your family wants to keep Aunt Susie on the feeding tube, or whatever, you are welcome to pay for it.

|6.25.09 @ 10:15AM|#

"If we are smart, we should be able to design a system in which people still have choices" and waste is reduced, he said.

Choices:
1. Suffer
2. Die
3. Become politically connected so you can recieve 21st century health care

|6.25.09 @ 10:16AM|#

hit age 80 and you no longer get subsidized care

Make it 30. Not only does it guarantee the "idealistic young" (i.e. college kids being supported by Mommy and Daddy) will be a majority of the voters forever, but we get to make cool Logan's Run references.

Neuroskeptic|6.25.09 @ 10:18AM|#

""Understand that the status quo is untenable," he said. "I mean, how can we as a country just sit back and let people make decisions about their lives? Why, they might not choose the choice we want them to make!"

Do people choose not to get insurance and then not be able to pay for their health care? If so, they are clearly insane, and need to be locked up for their own health (except who would pay for it?)

Things are a little bit more complicated than choice vs. socialism, you know.

|6.25.09 @ 10:21AM|#

John McCain's health care plan. First we learned he's going to tax health care benefits to pay for part of it. Now the Wall Street Journal reports John McCain would pay for the rest of his health care plan "with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid."

Eight hundred and eighty-two billion from Medicare alone. Requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both.

John McCain. Taxing Health Benefits, Cutting Medicare. We Can't Afford John McCain.

That was then. This is now. From the Washington Post.

President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.

http://patriotroom.com/article/obama-campaign-ad-comes-back-to-haunt-him

What a lying sack of shit he is. It would be nice if we had something beyond a state run media. I would love to have seen Dianne Sawyer run that campaign commercial for dumb ass and then ask him why he lied in the campaign. He would have shit his pants. But of course that kind of confrontation will happen sometime on the other side of never.

Hugh Akston|6.25.09 @ 10:23AM|#

Do people choose not to get insurance and then not be able to pay for their health care? If so, they are clearly insane, and need to be locked up for their own health (except who would pay for it?)

Obama replied that he would want the "very best care"-but insisted the real issue was that the system is broken. "Understand that the status quo is untenable," he said.

|6.25.09 @ 10:27AM|#

Do people choose not to get insurance and then not be able to pay for their health care?

They make that choice when they don't make something of themselves. The disabled, people with congenital defects, etc. are the only ones I have any compassion for. And the enormous amount of tax dollars we spend already would be more than enough to give them grade-A care if not for the able-bodied who are content to let everyone else pay for them.

I know it's not "choice vs. socialism" because people like you decided that choosing between the two should be made impossible. It's all socialism now.

Who the fuck says we "can't care for our families?"

I'm with you, John, but I believe Warren was satirizing Obama via Winston Churchill.

|6.25.09 @ 10:29AM|#

"I'm with you, John, but I believe Warren was satirizing Obama via Winston Churchill."

I know he was. But I thought the first sentence was actual Obama and he just ran with it. Hell, you can't tell the truth from the satire with this clown.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 10:40AM|#

You know, the entire thing is fucking horrid but this part...

"He also didn't answer directly who would set limits to care in a new system, or who would enforce them."

...bothers me the most. If these parts of the program have not yet been set, then why in the fuck should I think it's a good thing? It really shows the haphazard way that this is happening.

|6.25.09 @ 10:42AM|#

Who cares, Kyle? By defintion they will be the "right" people.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 10:47AM|#

Yep. They know what's best for us. Always.

God damnit! It's literally like someone trying to distract me with a pretty, shiny object! Maybe I'm in a mood or something but I haven't felt this insulted in a long time.

Are most people really too stupid to see what's being said!?

|6.25.09 @ 10:47AM|#

"Who cares, Kyle? By defintion they will be the "right" people."

That is right. Governmnet bureaucrats are enlightened philospher kings who will never make a mistake, act awfully, or deny care out of spite or some PC obsession. Nope. I for one welcome our new wingtip wearing overlords.

|6.25.09 @ 10:51AM|#

Would you believe a salesman trying to convince you to buy a car that hasn't been designed yet?

Or would you think that everything he said was a convenient lie?

|6.25.09 @ 10:52AM|#

Are most people really too stupid to see what's being said!?

Yes. And the rest know exactly want's being said and don't give a shit. They are happy to see a hated class of people dunned for the benefit of another.

"Paging Dr. Bergeron. Dr. Harrison Bergeron, please pick up the white courtesy phone."

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 10:55AM|#

"Would you believe a salesman trying to convince you to buy a car that hasn't been designed yet?

Or would you think that everything he said was a convenient lie?"

Depends. If there were a 100% Money back guarantee with no strings attatched then why not? I've don't stupider shit with my money. However, just because I act like an idiot doesn't mean that everyone else be forced to do so.

Is it really so hard to let people choose for themselves?

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 10:58AM|#

"Yes. And the rest know exactly want's being said and don't give a shit. They are happy to see a hated class of people dunned for the benefit of another."

You know, I don't drink but I could use a shot of something right about now.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 10:59AM|#

And J sub, I'm not attacking or coming down on you in my post. After rereading it struck me as like I may have been. I apologize if you took it that way.

|6.25.09 @ 11:03AM|#

John | June 25, 2009, 10:21am | #

That is just a beautiful slam.

That said, thepatriotroom.com is a site screaming for a re-design.

|6.25.09 @ 11:07AM|#

Is it really so hard to let people choose for themselves?

What is it they are choosing, exactly? Either cough up the cash or die without healthcare? That doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

|6.25.09 @ 11:14AM|#

And J sub, I'm not attacking or coming down on you in my post. After rereading it struck me as like I may have been. I apologize if you took it that way.

No offense taken. There's enough in this world that offends me that I don't need to go looking for reasons.

Obama doesn't know what the fucking plan is yet but he does know it will be, like rainbow shitting unicorns, wonderful.

Hobbes|6.25.09 @ 11:15AM|#

The poor are poor because God made them so. Whether or not they suffer from their poverty should not be a concern for a god-fearing man.

|6.25.09 @ 11:17AM|#

What is it they are choosing, exactly? Either cough up the cash or die without healthcare?

Sounds to me like Obama is proposing that we both cough up the cash and die without healthcare.

|6.25.09 @ 11:18AM|#

On the upside, it seems that BO was willing to take real questions, if not answer them. I did not expect that.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 11:18AM|#

Actually, that's pretty much the choice.

See, I have coverage. I pay for it out of my own pocket which costs me a pretty penny and I don't work at the highest paying job. I got caught hard with no coverage once and saw how quickly it can bite you in the ass. This was my decision.

If someone wants to make the choice to not pay for their own healthcare, while knowing the consequences doing so entails, then let them do as they choose.

To take it a step further, I have no problem with them being refused treatment if they don't have coverage. It's not my first choice, but if that's what it boiled down to, I'd be ok with it. I'd prefer that they be treated and then billed. Though setting that up is trickier.

The bottom line is that healthcare is available right now. Either you choose to have it, or you don't. If the government wants to cover everyone, let them. Just give me the chance to opt out and don't tax me or steal money from me to finance it.

|6.25.09 @ 11:19AM|#

That's not what it sounds like to me. To me, this sounds like the same thing as public schools: you don't have to send your kids to public schools, but at least there's the option.

This is what civilized societies do. they provide a baseline of necessities to ensure that the most disadvantaged have a chance.

it's not particularly fair to assume everyone has the privilege you do.

kc|6.25.09 @ 11:19AM|#

John --
"People have a bad habbit of looking at the disabled as less than human."

Precisely why my husband and I choose to include our minor son (who has Down Sydrome)on our private health insurance (for which we pay 100% of the premiums, we're both self-employed). And why this "disability advocate" is adamantly opposed to "Obamacare" - it will only be a matter of time before that choice is no longer an option.

|6.25.09 @ 11:23AM|#

This is what civilized societies do. they provide a baseline of necessities to ensure that the most disadvantaged have a chance.

Define "necessities" please.

Hobbes|6.25.09 @ 11:23AM|#

This is what civilized societies do.

We stopped being a civlized society when the courts decided that fags could marry.

|6.25.09 @ 11:29AM|#

They make that choice when they don't make something of themselves. The disabled, people with congenital defects, etc. are the only ones I have any compassion for.

Yeah!

And the children of people who don't make something of themselves, fuck them too. Nobody forced their deadbeat parents to pro-create.

Hobbes|6.25.09 @ 11:30AM|#

And the children of people who don't make something of themselves, fuck them too.

Finally, someone else who sees the light.

|6.25.09 @ 11:31AM|#

P Brooks - let's not play semantic games, please. But, if you insist:

The condition or quality of being necessary.
Something necessary: The necessities of life include food, clothing, and shelter.

Pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty.

now, we already provide for, via minimum-level welfare programs, food, clothing and shelter, do we not? We do this in the interest of making sure people survive. Do people not need healthcare to survive? I believe they do.

|6.25.09 @ 11:34AM|#

This is what civilized societies do. they provide a baseline of necessities to ensure that the most disadvantaged have a chance.

So many undefined terms, starting with "society", and continuing through "baseline", "necessities", "most disadvantaged", and "have a chance."

All told, a pretty sentiment that is semantically null. Is it from one of Obama's speeches?

Hobbes|6.25.09 @ 11:35AM|#

now, we already provide for, via minimum-level welfare programs, food, clothing and shelter, do we not?

Yes, but these programs are misguided and allow those people to continue to follow the wrong path in spite of "signals" that their situation provides to them.

We do this in the interest of making sure people survive.

Only God can make sure who does or does not survive.

Do people not need healthcare to survive? I believe they do.

Then they should work to provide what then need to survive.

|6.25.09 @ 11:37AM|#

now, we already provide for, via minimum-level welfare programs, food, clothing and shelter, do we not?

We also provide healthcare coverage through minimum-level welfare programs. Ever hear of Medicaid?

And of course, the problem is, that no one expects welfare recipients to live in mansions, drive Maseratis, and eat foie gras on the taxpayer's dime, yet the proponents of government-paid healthcare demand that everyone receive top-level care on the taxpayer's dime.

|6.25.09 @ 11:38AM|#

And the children of , fuck them too. Nobody forced their deadbeat parents to pro-create.

We can discuss this as soon as you specifically define "people who don't make something of themselves".

As most mothers tell their children at least once LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

I'm sorry, RC Dean, is that a substantive retort? I am perplexed because all I see you doing is being an irritating pedant. If you wish to argue against the premise, please do so, but I'm not inclined to drill down through words until they become vacuous concepts. Words are what they are. If you have a problem with them, define them differently and tell the rest of us, please.

alan|6.25.09 @ 11:40AM|#

Make it 30. Not only does it guarantee the "idealistic young" (i.e. college kids being supported by Mommy and Daddy) will be a majority of the voters forever, but we get to make cool Logan's Run references.

There is no such thing as a cool Logan's Run reference.

|6.25.09 @ 11:44AM|#

I had a girlfriend who told me, "I want you to be happy."

So I dumped her.

I think her definition of what would make me happy was different than mine.

alan|6.25.09 @ 11:46AM|#

|6.25.09 @ 11:46AM|#

And the children of people who don't make something of themselves, fuck them too. Nobody forced their deadbeat parents to pro-create.

Abortions are legal and condoms are cheap.

You don't own me. Poor kids don't own me. I am not your serf. I don't owe you a portion of my labor. I can agree on government services that will benefit me, even indirectly, but I am not going to happily submit to being stolen from to pay for other people's poor choices.

alan|6.25.09 @ 11:47AM|#

That is:

I haven't seen something so syntaxically precious nor attitudinally smug since the Dark Ages of the God Emperor Joe. Fuckin' tags.

|6.25.09 @ 11:53AM|#

I apologize, alan, if you're having a hard time following. And, yet, your response is a mere ad hominem.

I can agree on government services that will benefit me, even indirectly, but I am not going to happily submit to being stolen from to pay for other people's poor choices.

So, you're willing to "steal" from other people for your benefit, but when they come around asking for a return favor, it's "Fuck you Jack, I got mine".

THAT'S precious.

alan|6.25.09 @ 11:58AM|#

I can agree on government services that will benefit me, even indirectly, but I am not going to happily submit to being stolen from to pay for other people's poor choices.

You might want to get that problem looked at, by a legislator, or lawyer, or maybe even, optometrist. That quote wasn't from me.

|6.25.09 @ 12:01PM|#

Kyle @ 10:47:
"God damnit! It's literally like someone trying to distract me with a pretty, shiny object!"

Not to get off subject, but have you noticed the thing that's being voted on this week while we're all focused on health care?

Cap and Trade on Friday in the Senate.
I'd recommend that you call your representatives and tell them to shove Cap n Trade up Al Gore's global warming hole.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 12:01PM|#

"You don't own me. Poor kids don't own me. I am not your serf. I don't owe you a portion of my labor. I can agree on government services that will benefit me, even indirectly, but I am not going to happily submit to being stolen from to pay for other people's poor choices."

Preach it my Stevia lovin' brotha!

It boils down to this...

Life is like a game of Checkers. Sometimes you make the wrong move and get jumped.

Unfortunately, we're not all born equal. And even more unfortunate, we're not all born with equal opportunity. We have Medicaid that is supposed to be in place to help the disabled which I have no problem with. Well, I'd have no problem with if it weren't being abused. An honest reworking there would be nice but I don't expect it from this or any other administration. However, the simple fact that you and I or any other person in the country may not be on "level" ground is in no way a reason to take away from me to give to them.

I am very far from privileged, yet I still manage to have my health covered. It's a choice I make, just as it was a choice for me to work hard and come up from poverty. Others can choose the same or not. Being made to suffer for their choices though, is something I don't like.

Rhywun|6.25.09 @ 12:02PM|#

alan,

I believe you mean "syntactically". Please shut up before you embarrass yourself any further.

:)

|6.25.09 @ 12:04PM|#

I'm sorry, RC Dean, is that a substantive retort? I am perplexed because all I see you doing is being an irritating pedant.

If pointing out that your pretty sentiment contains nothing to guide actual policy is irritating pedantry, then I, sir, am proud to be an irritating pedant.

Words are what they are. If you have a problem with them, define them differently and tell the rest of us, please.

No, you used them, you define them. You wouldn't like my definitions, trust me.

I can agree on government services that will benefit me, even indirectly, but I am not going to happily submit to being stolen from to pay for other people's poor choices.

The true sentiment behind the "general welfare" clause.

So, you're willing to "steal" from other people for your benefit,

No, he's willing to contribute to a common pool for everyone's benefit, but does not support wealth transfers.

You struggle with the English language, don't you, Take America.

Hugh Akston|6.25.09 @ 12:04PM|#

TAO!, it is reasonable to want to benefit as much as possible from as little cost as possible. It is honest for Nutrasweet to admit as much.

Not everyone lives by the MoveOn.org Code of Moral Righteousness.

|6.25.09 @ 12:09PM|#

THAT'S precious.

You are assuming I give a fuck what a thief thinks of my behavior.

And what R C Dean said... learn to read.

|6.25.09 @ 12:15PM|#

RC Dean - no, I am not going to sit here and slog through the dictionary for your benefit. I will just assume that your handwaving about "lack of substance" on the words I used is just that: handwaving. you can either reply with counterpoints or I'll consider it settled.

No, he's willing to contribute to a common pool for everyone's benefit, but does not support wealth transfers.

A distinction without a difference. Besides, who is to say that the public option is a wealth transfer? Do you consider the "public options" of schooling to be a wealth transfer?

Hugh Akston - fine and fair. Then you shouldn't expect the uninsured to adhere to some moral code, either. If you're willing to get maximum benefits for minimal cost to yourself from the government, well, likewise with the uninsured, then.

PC|6.25.09 @ 12:17PM|#

"This is what civilized societies do. they provide a baseline of necessities to ensure that the most disadvantaged have a chance."

"Define "necessities" please."

Well from my usual trips to the grocery store, it means necessities like being 400lbs and buy a ton of food with your government debit card.

angry person|6.25.09 @ 12:18PM|#

So basically all of you want to keep clutched in your miserable little hands whatever you have rather than allowing a single taxplayer dollar to assist others that might not be as fortunate. And maybe you're okay with paying for war, but then not for healthcare? Get your priorities straight.

Paul|6.25.09 @ 12:19PM|#

The government is going to introduce competition to reduce healthcare costs! You know, just like the U.S. Postal service inserts competition into the package delivery industry.

alan|6.25.09 @ 12:20PM|#

Rhywun | June 25, 2009, 12:02pm | #

alan,

I believe you mean "syntactically". Please shut up before you embarrass yourself any further.

:)

I'll sue Google over this one! I actually double checked because I am not using a browser with a built in spell checker now and I got this:

Did you mean: define: syntaxically

I thought it looked queer, but who am I to question those who first do not do evil?

As for Please shut up before you embarrass yourself any further. Are you kidding? Apparently, you have never seen one of my more drunken and lusty postings. That, good man, is not even remotely possible.

|6.25.09 @ 12:21PM|#

Just because someone abuses the welfare system, PC, is not an argument for its elimination. After all, if your neighbor called the cops at every little noise in the neighborhood, would you consider that an argument for the elimination of police protection?

I also want to reply a little more deeply to this contention that there exists such a thing as a "common good" that benefits everyone equally. There is no such animal. Even military protection, indirectly, benefits the wealthy more than the poor, because the wealthy have more to lose. So too with fire protection and the police.

It seems to me that a public option in healthcare is no different than a public option in school: did private schools evaporate after public schooling came about?

|6.25.09 @ 12:22PM|#

You know, just like the U.S. Postal service inserts competition into the package delivery industry.

I know you think you're being cute, but the Post Office actually is very competitive on package delivery. you could look it up.

Rhywun|6.25.09 @ 12:26PM|#

Do you consider the "public options" of schooling to be a wealth transfer?

Public schooling is perhaps the largest transfer of wealth in America. Not everyone has little ones, you know.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 12:28PM|#

"So basically all of you want to keep clutched in your miserable little hands whatever you have rather than allowing a single taxplayer dollar to assist others that might not be as fortunate. And maybe you're okay with paying for war, but then not for healthcare? Get your priorities straight."

First and foremost, my priorities are just fine.

Second, this to me boils down to the same principle as many other taxes and acts of theft by the government.

All I want is the choice to keep my money if I so choose. I want the same thing for EVERYONE. I hate being at the mercy of or having to pay for another persons stupidity regardless of whichever field or version it comes from.

I already donate to charities when I can. I'd like to be able to do so more often but one of the things that keeps that from happening is the fact that I'm being robbed and my money is being put to use doing either stupid or useless things. Or worse yet and being used to fund things I strongly disagree with.

It's not about greed. It's not about being heartless.

It's about being free and having liberty.

Hugh Akston|6.25.09 @ 12:29PM|#

Hugh Akston - fine and fair. Then you shouldn't expect the uninsured to adhere to some moral code, either. If you're willing to get maximum benefits for minimal cost to yourself from the government, well, likewise with the uninsured, then.

First of all, I didn't say "I do..." I said, "It is reasonable to..."

It is also reasonable, when I refrain from stealing from other people, to expect that they refrain from stealing from me. That is the principle by which I operate. In governing circles, I am what is referred to as a "mark".

And maybe you're okay with paying for war, but then not for healthcare? Get your priorities straight.

Seriously? What the fuck are you talking about.

Stretch|6.25.09 @ 12:30PM|#

"One woman asked if someone like her 105-year-old mom would have care cut simply because of age limits."

Yes, how much money does she want from me? Should we spend an infinite amount of money trying to keep her alive?

|6.25.09 @ 12:30PM|#

No you dimwitted troll. If you've read anything around here, you'd know that most of us are pissed about having to pay for the 'war' too. There are already taxpayer dollars going to healthcare for the less fortunate.

Plus, we're not saying that we're not going to help people with what we have. We just want the CHOICE to do it how we want. We know how to spend our money better than a politician in Washington.

|6.25.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Public schooling is perhaps the largest transfer of wealth in America. Not everyone has little ones, you know.

That's superficially appealing, and snappy, rhetoric, but ultimately bankrupt, if you think about it.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who extolled public schooling to ensure that the populace was educated enough to make informed choices? I am sure I am going to hear a lot of crap about how the public is stupid, but I am used to libertarian misanthropy already...

Anyway, Rhywun, I suppose you're going to tell me that you went to private school on your own dime, and therefore don't owe those poor kids in the ghetto who cannot afford that option a damn thing. "Fuck 'em! Let 'em be ignorant!"

PC|6.25.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Take America On! | June 25, 2009, 12:21pm | #

"Just because someone abuses the welfare system, PC, is not an argument for its elimination. After all, if your neighbor called the cops at every little noise in the neighborhood, would you consider that an argument for the elimination of police protection?"

Just because someone abuses? Please buddy I worked in a supermarket for the first five years I was able to work. I was jealous of the welfare and WIC families for all the stuff they had, we couldn't afford anything like that, and the vast majority were fat. Something is definitely wrong there, that's not a necessity, that's waste. And the system encourages them to spit out kids. Stupid me for realizing that if I had a kid at a young age, or two to five in most cases, my chance of upward mobility would be greatly hurt. So we have to pay for others stupidity. Wouldn't it be more for the "common good" for them not to spit out so many kids that they cannot afford, versus me to pay for their inability to care about the "common good". We are punishing the people who make smart decisions. That does not help the common good, it only causes society to regress.

"It seems to me that a public option in healthcare is no different than a public option in school: did private schools evaporate after public schooling came about?"

See we have a problem in health care and now we want the government to f it up. I am glad you brought up education, in which performance in public schools decrease more and more as the beuracrats in Washington gain more control over the system. The correlation will be the same in health care. We haven't even tried things like moving the tax credit from the employer to the individual, from the guy who cares about saving money to the person whose life is actually in danger, but instead we are just going to throw more money at the problem like we do for education and will most likely get the same result, higher costs, less quality.

|6.25.09 @ 12:33PM|#

Jenny opens a lemonade stand. She sells it for 1 dollar a glass and pays for the lemons and water herself. Sandy opens a lemonade stand across the street. Sandy's older brother successfully threatens Jenny with a baseball bat to turn over 20% of her profits to Sandy. Sandy sells her lemonade for 90 cents.

Is Sandy actually competitive?

Dirty Faced Street Urchin|6.25.09 @ 12:33PM|#

[cough, cough, cough]

Please, Gov'nah, support Obama's plan. Have a heart.

|6.25.09 @ 12:34PM|#

OK. I'm done arguing with the useless troll. It can't even attempt to make sense, apparently.

Take America On!|6.25.09 @ 12:39PM|#

I thought I was making plenty of excellent points, thankyouverymuch.

SugarFree, in your "lemonade stand" example, are you claiming that Jenny's stand will ultimately have to shut down? That the only one left standing will be Sandy?

Unless you're an anarchist, your criticism doesn't make sense.

Warty|6.25.09 @ 12:42PM|#

And maybe you're okay with paying for war, but then not for healthcare? Get your priorities straight.

You're not arguing with who you think you're arguing with, I think.

Where did all these retards come from, anyway? Is it because of the Fark greenlight yesterday?

Brett Stevens|6.25.09 @ 12:42PM|#

I distrust bureaucracy.

That means both government and large health care neo-monopolies.

Bring back the neighborhood doctor, and throw out all the malpractice suits.

The reason doctors join corporate health care entities is to avoid these lawsuits bankrupting them entirely.

|6.25.09 @ 12:45PM|#

I know you think you're being cute, but the Post Office actually is very competitive on package delivery. you could look it up.

I was in the process but this item caught my eye and distracted me.

Postal Service Projects $1.5 Billion Year-End Deficit;

FedEx and UPS make a fucking profit.

Take America On!|6.25.09 @ 12:50PM|#

yes, J sub D, there is a postal deficit. That fact does not somehow refute my proposition that the Post Office is, indeed, competitive in terms of package-delivery services.

now, hmmm...why do you suppose it is that the Post Office is losing money? And please don't say they are "government" because that ceased to be the case years and years ago. Could it be that...they have a mission ordered to them by Congress that Congress and the People are not willing to pay for? I could see where that would cost quite a bit of money.

Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 12:52PM|#

"I distrust bureaucracy.

That means both government and large health care neo-monopolies.

Bring back the neighborhood doctor, and throw out all the malpractice suits.

The reason doctors join corporate health care entities is to avoid these lawsuits bankrupting them entirely."

I agree quite a bit with you. Though, malpractice suits should remain an option against actual malpractice. Just like many other things though, malpractice has been severely abused.

Warty|6.25.09 @ 1:00PM|#

yes, J sub D, there is a postal deficit. That fact does not somehow refute my proposition that the Post Office is, indeed, competitive in terms of package-delivery services.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hobbes|6.25.09 @ 1:06PM|#

Take America On is a prime example of the godless communists that are ruining this great nation. I hope he/she gets AIDS.

Rhywun|6.25.09 @ 1:15PM|#

"Fuck 'em! Let 'em be ignorant!"

Yes, because without the state "giving" it to them, parents would be completely incapable of finding a good education for their kids on their own.

mark|6.25.09 @ 1:39PM|#

I'm shocked, shocked! that people have opinions about health care without having had a single economics lesson. Good thing they're not the ones making decisions.

|6.25.09 @ 1:41PM|#

I thought I was making plenty of excellent points, thankyouverymuch.

Good one, Edward!

Take America On!|6.25.09 @ 1:42PM|#

Rhywun - so, again, did you or did you not go to public schools?

Yes, because without the state "giving" it to them, parents would be completely incapable of finding a good education for their kids on their own.

Again, in less you're an anarchist, this criticism doesn't make sense. Couldn't you say "Yes, because without the state giving us police protection, we're incapable of protecting ourselves."

Take America On!|6.25.09 @ 1:43PM|#

Good one, Edward!

Do I even remotely sound like Edward? I think not.

Warty|6.25.09 @ 1:53PM|#

TAO. Oh.

Take America On!|6.25.09 @ 1:57PM|#

ha!

Warty|6.25.09 @ 2:04PM|#

It was a pretty good troll, I must say. Took me longer to catch on than usual.

Xeones|6.25.09 @ 2:30PM|#

Goddammit, TAO.

|6.25.09 @ 2:49PM|#

Somebody has taken my job!

>shuffles back to the welfare office

alan|6.25.09 @ 3:17PM|#

Yeah, TAO, I agree it was a great impersonation, and also agree it was a magnificently bastardly (tee hee) thing to do. I guess we can relax now.

The Angry Optimist|6.25.09 @ 3:21PM|#

sorry guys. I was feeling punchy today. :P

Michael Ejercito|6.25.09 @ 6:10PM|#

Have any of you heard of Measure 22 in Oregon?

|6.25.09 @ 6:33PM|#

I've been watching the series "Life After People," and this has inspired me to think of "Life After Health Plans."

Consider for a moment what would happen, if there were no Medicare or private health-plans-as-we-know-them: If they just disappeared overnight. The sky-high prices that the uninsured must pay in cash now could not be sustained. Doctors and clinic/hospital employees who wanted to eat, not to mention pay for nice cars, fine homes, foreign vacations, golf club memberships, college for the kids -- or even their own student loans from college -- would find ways to stimulate business, which would almost certainly include price-breaks and other bargain deals for patients. Young Doctors and any older ones with any sense of idealism left might set fees that struck better balances between their own needs for income and their patients' general abilities to pay. And those that didn't voluntarily, proactively "right size" their fee structure would soon find the forces of free-market competition strongly encouraging them to do so.

In terms of medical devices, drugs, and lab-work, group-buying power wielded by such entities as Wal-Mart, Costco, and others, would continue to force prices down, even for now-pricey procedures such as PET, CAT, and MRI scans.

An abrupt transition would be difficult for the first several weeks or months. But very soon, the natural laws of economics would reclaim the Health Care landscape, in the absence of Health Plans, much as the natural world would quickly reclaim the settled areas in the absence of people.

Too bad someone (are you listening, John Stossel?) doesn't do a mini-series of TV programs based on the premise, "Life After Health Plans." We need that kind of media to counteract the relentless ObamaCare propaganda.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements