Top Republican Defends Big-Government Health Care

Hip-hop Republican Michael Steele has a big piece out today outlining why Republicans should love and protect Medicare, at least for now. And while I guess it's pretty gangster to get your op-ed in the Washington Post, I can't say I admire this guy's flow. 

Sure, he offhandedly admits that Medicare's not in great shape, but then he says this: "We need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors." Come again? Isn't this already a fundamental element of how Medicare works—by paying for a significant portion of seniors' medical expenses? Steele seems to have adopted the confused-at-best thinking of that now-famous town-hall attendee who told his representative to keep his "government hands off my Medicare."

Steele also opposes Medicare cuts to fund health reform and argues that "we need to outlaw any effort to ration health care based on age" or "dictate the terms of end-of-life care." I don't want the government doing any of those things either, but given the op-ed's starting premise that Medicare is sacred, this sounds suspiciously like an argument that Medicare should serve as American seniors' medical sugar-daddy, indiscriminately shelling out for whatever, whenever. 

That's not a recipe for bringing spiraling costs under control; it's a clueless, politically motivated attempt to appease seniors by defending Medicare's awful status quo. Granted, that's not too surprising coming from the same guy who recently shrugged off responsibility for actually understanding health-care reform—"I don't do policy" was his exact phrase—and said that the best way to reform health-care was to let the big industry players write the bill

None of this is to say that reform critics shouldn't point out the ways in which health care reform proposals might change Medicare for the worse. But doing so doesn't require one to simultaneously defend a bloated, badly designed entitlement.

Reason's Shikha Dalmia wrote about the myth of free-market health care here.       

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Xeones||

    I'm pretty sure this is Racist.

  • ||

    Steele, like Obama, is in over his head.

  • Joe M||

    See, here you go again, attacking Republicans. John is sure to burst a blood vessel.

  • ||

    Disappointing and an unnecessary op-ed. Letting the seniors get mad about it is fine, and would earn the Republicans votes anyway. Posing as defenders of Medicare is pointless, unbelievable, and bad policy. Unsurprising that Ramesh Ponnuru and others at National Review have been criticizing it.

    Luckily, no one ever really pays attention to what the RNC or DNC chairman says. Their job is indeed not to set policy, but to raise money. This could actually hurt them, though.

  • WWJGD||

    Word. Stizzeele is down with the homies, G.

  • ||

    Dumb Ass.

  • ||

    I mean, being ex-DNC chair didn't even lift Terry McAuliffe to winning his party's nomination for VA governor. And like Steele, I think the only time people refer to DNC chair Howard Dean as "top Democrat" is if they're criticizing something he said, or a foreigner.

  • ||

    "Hip-hop Republican Michael Steele has"

    Ad hominem from word one. What a shitty writer.

  • Meta4||

    Sampling The National Review?

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/

  • shrike||

    Steele is channeling his Big-Gov bro' George W. Bush and his Vast Expansion of Pharma Welfare Plan which prevents competition on price.

    Step and Fetch It, Michael!

    The GOP is tossing you some change!

  • Fluffy||

    Steele also opposes Medicare cuts to fund health reform and argues that "we need to outlaw any effort to ration health care based on age" or "dictate the terms of end-of-life care."



    If we don't want to have discriminatory access to health care based on age, Medicare should not exist.

  • Fluffy||

    Ad hominem from word one. What a shitty writer.

    Please try learning what ad hominem means, and then come back and talk to us again.

  • ||

    It is a really tough problem that is clearly beyond Steele's intelligence. The smart thing to do is shut the fuck up and let the Democrats kill one another over it. Go raise some money or speak a grade school or something. But whatever you do Steele, shut up.

  • ||

    Someone explain to me the difference between Team Red and Team Blue again, please? I keep getting them confused.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Please try learning what ad hominem means, and then come back and talk to us again."

    So in your opinion, "Hip-hop Republican" Michael Steele isn't a preemptive strike?

    If there is a better term for attacking the messenger, please advise.

    From Wikipedia:

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument, the content of the discussion or producing any evidence against the claim.

    The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject to a personal attack.

  • ||

    Forgot my address...

  • ||

    "Someone explain to me the difference between Team Red and Team Blue again, please? I keep getting them confused."

    At the top levels it is a matter of degree. They both buy into the same "Washington needs to be there for people" mentality. The Dems are just a little bit more militant. And they both love to take your money and spend it for the common good and enjoy the power and perks that come with doing that.

  • ||

    So in your opinion, "Hip-hop Republican" Michael Steele isn't a preemptive strike?

    I think Peter is just having fun at Steele's expense over this event. I didn't read it as hostile, just mildly mocking.

  • ||

    At the top levels it is a matter of degree. They both buy into the same "Washington needs to be there for people" mentality. The Dems are just a little bit more militant. And they both love to take your money and spend it for the common good and enjoy the power and perks that come with doing that.

    OK, same shit, different day. Thanks John.

  • ||

    Someone explain to me the difference between Team Red and Team Blue again, please? I keep getting them confused.

    Team Red has an utter disdain for personal and civil liberties.

    Other than that - not much.

  • Peter Suderman||

    Defense of the "hip-hop" modifier (because I know you want it!): It puts Michael Steele in perspective from the first line by recalling his history of (what I consider) vaguely embarrassing, frivolous-at-best ideas that never should have been aired.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Why on earth would the GOP want to appeal to the nonvoting youth? Young people are a one-off for OBAMA - just let natural conservatism take its course.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Team Red has an utter disdain for personal and civil liberties.



    As opposed to whom, exactly?

  • ||

    Team Red has an utter disdain for personal and civil liberties.

    And TEAM BLUE doesn't? Way to go, shriek.

  • ||

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/how-big-is-9-trillion/

    Anyone read this yet? Krugman who was convinced in 2004 that Bush's $400 billion deficit was unsustainable and was going to destroy the economy, now doesn't think $9 trillion is that much money


    "Team Red has an utter disdain for personal and civil liberties."

    And team blue doesn't?

  • ||

    The game is over. We lost. The receivers of government largess has grown to the point that no politician dare admit the truth. The only word that can possibly save us is grandchildren, and that's who Steele needs to be talking about.

  • Fluffy||

    So in your opinion, "Hip-hop Republican" Michael Steele isn't a preemptive strike?

    If there is a better term for attacking the messenger, please advise.

    From Wikipedia:

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument, the content of the discussion or producing any evidence against the claim.

    The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject to a personal attack.


    It's plain old mockery. Suderman expressly does not argue, "Michael Steele is a hip-hop Republican, therefore his argument is obviously false and I don't have to offer a serious criticism of it."

    He calls Steele a hip-hop Republican purely for laughs, and then proceeds to provide a substantive criticism of the statements Steele made.

    Basically, you're saying that Suderman is a bad writer because he made fun of Steele before writing about Steele's statements. And that's just silly.

    Although I would say that having the new guy write about how Steele is "gangster" is going a bit farther out there on a limb than is usual for Reason. What if Steele decided to call Racism! on this piece?

  • Gavin||

    I can't believe you missed the opportunity to write:

    "get your op-ed ON in the Washington Post"

    Now *that* would have been truly gangsta.

  • ||

    "Defense of the "hip-hop" modifier (because I know you want it!): It puts Michael Steele in perspective from the first line by recalling his history of (what I consider) vaguely embarrassing, frivolous-at-best ideas that never should have been aired."

    It's unnecessary. I have never heard Jim Lehrer say anything that childish (and yes, I immediately recalled the reference). I'm not wanting your "defense" just better writing.

  • ||

    What if Steele decided to call Racism! on this piece?

    Rethuglicans are not allowed to call racism, Fluffster.

  • ||

    "It's plain old mockery."

    Alright, mockery works for me. Thank you.

    But it's a childish device just the same.

  • Fluffy||

    It's unnecessary. I have never heard Jim Lehrer say anything that childish (and yes, I immediately recalled the reference). I'm not wanting your "defense" just better writing.

    Jim Lehrer never wrote Hamlet either, but Hamlet is pretty good.

    When the fuck did "What Would Jim Lehrer Write?" become some kind of rule?

    I guess I should be able to tell from your handle that you're basically just a whiny little bitch who can't stand the fact that his Republican heroes are eminently mockable losers. If you expect us to regard your partisan hypersensitivity as the equivalent of literary criticism, you're sorely mistaken.

    And considering the fact that between my post, Suderman's post, and the content behind the "hip-hop Republican" URL link, your complaint that Suderman was engaging in the ad hominem fallacy was pretty much eviscerated, exactly what sort of better writing are you looking for? Your sole complaint has been shown to be false.

  • ||

    I can see an argument for phasing out Medicare as opposed to cutting granny off in mid-surgery, but even that could be done pretty quickly if there were a true deregulation of medical services and health insurance.

  • ||

    Conservatives are always SO supportive of the ACLU (civil liberties) and personal liberty (contraception, the Right to Privacy, drugs, gambling, ESCR, gay rights, etc)?

    You conservatives are so fucking jaundiced you are turning orange.

  • Sean Scallon||

    Hey, cut the man some slack. After all "he doesn't do policy."

    And oh boy does it show.

    I guess the health care battle comes down to left-socialists public option vs. right socialists Medicare, or is that too simplistic?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    "civil liberties" is redundant - there are either liberties, or there are not.

    what good does the "right" to gamble do if the government leaves you no money to gamble?

  • ||

    Jim Lehrer never wrote Hamlet either, but Hamlet is pretty good.

    This sort of Shakespearean bias is why nothing you say can be taken seriously, Fluffy. Is this a dagger I see before me? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark? These are the words of a failed, horrible man. And I see that you are also such a person. It makes me sick.

  • ||

    "I guess I should be able to tell from your handle that you're basically just a whiny little bitch who can't stand the fact that his Republican heroes are eminently mockable losers."

    I chosed my handle because Palin is an idiot and Reason spent about 2 weeks a year ago writing nothing but stupid stories about her, many with cutesy witing like the first paragraph in this piece.

    "And while I guess it's pretty gangster to get your op-ed in the Washington Post, I can't say I admire this guy's flow."

    When I read shit like this, I know the entire piece was written to masturbate the author's ego.

  • ||

    chosed = chose

  • Jordan||

    Psst... the Democrats are in charge now. Wiretapping, gambling bans, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the Drug War all continue unabated. Meanwhile, Liberals across the country are still pissing their pants over the 2nd and 1st Amendment (campaign finance reform).

  • ||

    "Conservatives are always SO supportive of the ACLU (civil liberties) and personal liberty (contraception, the Right to Privacy, drugs, gambling, ESCR, gay rights, etc)?"

    When the ACLU give a fuck about Gun rights, property rights or comercial speech come talk to me.

  • ||

    Mockery doesn't make the 50 million or so uninsured go away (cue the quibbling with the number). And as much as we like to say it is their "choice" to be uninsured, every uninsured person I know busts their ass every day to make a living. They are priced out of purchasing their own insurance because they don't get the tax break their employer does, but their employers won't stay competitive if they provide health care. So la-de-da, I'm not surprised that Republicans are thinking about big government doing something.

  • ||

    That is right Jordan. And of course it is not like Obama didn't go to church every Sunday for 20 years and hasn't been on record saying that marriage is a God created union between man and woman. And last I looked no Dems voted for the DOM Act.

  • ||

    Conservatives are always SO supportive of the ACLU (civil liberties) and personal liberty (contraception, the Right to Privacy, drugs, gambling, ESCR, gay rights, etc)?

    I dunno about that, since I'm not one, nor are most people here. However, I would say that libertarians are supportive of equal rights, not entitlements disguised as rights.

    You conservatives are so fucking jaundiced you are turning orange.

    Can we add this to the Reason Drinking Rules game? If the poster is too dense or stupid to understand that this isn't a conservative site, drink?

  • ||

    "They are priced out of purchasing their own insurance because they don't get the tax break their employer does, but their employers won't stay competitive if they provide health care. So la-de-da, I'm not surprised that Republicans are thinking about big government doing something."


    That is a problem. But it is a problem that is being created by the inability of insurance companies to sell nationwide and any number of BS insurance regulations that keep companies from marketing to these people.

    The problem you point out is the direct result of government involvement. Forgive me if I doubt that more government involvement is going to solve the problem.

    Beyond that, maybe not having insurance isn't the worst thing in the world. If the alternative is bankrupting the government or turning the country into some socialized hell like the UK or Canada, maybe this is a problem we can live with.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Mockery doesn't make the 50 million or so uninsured go away (cue the quibbling with the number). And as much as we like to say it is their "choice" to be uninsured, every uninsured person I know busts their ass every day to make a living.



    Did you miss the reason video where Nick interviewed people who would rather party and buy clothes than pay for insurance?

    Exaggerated numbers do not a new entitlement make.

  • ||

    Also Lamar, there are all sorts of horribles out there. There are kids whose parents beat them. There are five year olds dying of cancer. All sorts of unimaginable things. But that doesn't mean that the sollution is to have the government come in and try to stop it. The government can't solve every evil. Maybe the uninsured is one of them.

  • ||

    JW - I have no problems with Libertarians.

    But like Hayek I hate conservatives.

    And 'John', its Ramadan - don't you have some fictitious deity to suck up to for all our benefit?

    Your disdain for the ACLU is a tell. You hate what they stand for.

    (the ACLU stands for the Bill of Rights, John)

  • ||

    Conservatives are always SO supportive of the ACLU (civil liberties) and personal liberty (contraception, the Right to Privacy, drugs, gambling, ESCR, gay rights, etc)?

    ACLU: fuck them. They totally ignore half the BoR (1st (political speech), 2nd (everything), 3rd, 4th (eminent domain), 10th (everything)) and blow their resources on arguing about Christmas displays in town squares.

    drugs, gambling : Dems are just as bad
    ESCR: no one is stopping you from doing embryonic stem cell research. If you demand access to my money to pay for it, you're not talking about rights anymore.

  • ||

    Say what you will about Glen Beck, but he has a chart up right now that everybody in America should see.

  • ||

    "Your disdain for the ACLU is a tell. You hate what they stand for.

    (the ACLU stands for the Bill of Rights, John)"

    Only if you don't include the second amendment and think the 1st doesn't apply to political speech. And only if you think that it means the government has a right to take your property to give it to some fatcat developer.

    The ACLU is a joke. And you know it. That is why you can only respond with insults.

  • ||

    The NRA is a more reliable civil liberties group than the fricking ACLU. Even though they're supposed to be a single-issue advocacy group, they've filed briefs on the side of the angles in McConnell v FCC (political speech) and Gonzalez v Raich (against federal drug ban).

  • ||

    Of course, their interest in both cases was somewhat self-serving (they wanted to be able to run political ads late in campaigns and didn't want to threaten the Rehnquist court's less broad reading of the commerce clause that struck down some of the more ridiculous federal gun laws)

  • ||

    Say what you will about Glen Beck, but he has a chart up right now that everybody in America should see.

    USdebtclock (org or com)

    I've seen it many times (to track the Bushpigs debt)

  • ||

    "Of course, their interest in both cases was somewhat self-serving (they wanted to be able to run political ads late in campaigns and didn't want to threaten the Rehnquist court's less broad reading of the commerce clause that struck down some of the more ridiculous federal gun laws)"

    That just means that they are living to live with the consiquences in other areas of decisions that go in their favor in gun rights. That makes them about 100 times more honest than most other interest groups.

  • ||

    :"I've seen it many times (to track the Bushpigs debt)"

    It just looks a lot more striking now.

  • ||

    Can we add a drink for every time an Obana worshiper mentions the Bush debt?

  • B||

    "Team Red has an utter disdain for personal and civil liberties."

    Yeah, I gotta tell ya, Obama has shown himself to be a real champion in that regard, hasn't he shrike, you stupid fucking douchebag? Maybe you should stick to your Limbaugh jokes.

  • ||

    Right - you fucking Rush rednecks look at the Bill of Rights and only see the 2nd Amendment (a good one no doubt) and Eminent Domain -- which created our entire transportation network.

    You miss all the restrictions on the abuse of government derived from the monarchy/church and abusive power structure that accompanied it.


    Thanks for reminding me what contemptible pieces of shit Conservatives are.

  • ||

    Shit John, can't you contain your contaguous (sp?) spelling desease.

  • B||

    "I've seen it many times (to track the Bushpigs debt)"

    Yeah, how many times have you visited the site since this administration went on a spending spree that would make Caligula look restrained, you hypocritical little shit? I guess when people point out the projections about Obama tripling the debt in ten years, you probably just mention Limbaugh or play the race card like another douche on this site, Warren.

  • ||

    No James. It is a virus. Run away. It is like H1N1.

  • ||

    "Right - you fucking Rush rednecks look at the Bill of Rights and only see the 2nd Amendment (a good one no doubt) and Eminent Domain -- which created our entire transportation network."


    Don't you even know what Kelo was you moron? No one says eminent domain to build roads is unconstitutional. It is taking properly for the benefit of a private party that is unconstitutional. Jesus.

  • ||

    H1N1 is only hitting 5 to 25 year olds, so I think I'm ok.

  • ||

    Okay, I'm missing the Warren-race-card joke. It's popping up on multiple threads.

  • ||

    Don't you even know what Kelo was you moron?

    You should be so lucky that the shack you live in gets "Keloed" for "public use at just compensation".

    TEXT! I am an Originalist now!

  • ||

    Yeah Shrike because it is so liberal to think that it is okay to evict poor people from their homes so connected rich people can develop the property.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    there shouldn't be any eminent domain, not even for the transportation network, or military bases. Nothing.

  • ||

    "there shouldn't be any eminent domain, not even for the transportation network, or military bases. Nothing."

    There isn't in Japan and they have somehow managed. But to do that you would have to change the Constitution. That is a different battle than saying that they can't use what is allowed to pay off connected developers.

  • ||

    'Kelo' can be remedied at the state level - no Amendment hassle required.

    Just like medical tort reform - its a state issue all the way.

    Texas capped malpractice awards at $250,000 and suits dropped 80% in two years.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    oh goody - whole-hog negligence with no checking authority! Yeah tort "reform"!

  • ||

    Did the murder rate with doctors as victims go up yet?

  • Spartacus||

    oh goody - whole-hog negligence with no checking authority! Yeah tort "reform"!

    Tort reform will take care of itself. Once all the doctors become government employees, malpractice suits will be banned entirely.

  • ||

    Spartacus, it won't be necessary due to the perfection of gubmint healthcare.

  • ||

    Basically, Steele is advocating that the Republicans use the AARP's perpetual opposition to cutting either Social Security or Medicare to undercut Obama's health care proposals.

    Interestingly, the debate over the public option has eclipsed what appears to be an under-the-radar movement against the medicare cuts among the elderly. Obama was actually doing us a kind of service by sliding medicare cuts in under the radar, but it doesn't appear to have gone unnoticed by the elderly.

    That's why all those angry old people were showing up at town halls. The media assumed they were teabaggers and birthers, but IN FACT, they are actually angry seniors who want to keep their entitlements!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Hazel, I like you, but seriously, that's been the supposed "story" for about ten days now. Maybe you are not quite the news junkie like the rest of us, but...

    Anyway, cuts in Medicare to fund nationwide "Medicare" is no favor to us.

  • ||

    Okay, true, I've not been following the news that closely the past week or two, but then why all the editorials about insane right-wing militia nuts? If the town-hall rowdies are actually seniors defending their entitlements, doesn't that put a slight wedge in the "racist gun nuts" angle?

  • ||

    "Defense of the "hip-hop" modifier (because I know you want it!): It puts Michael Steele in perspective from the first line by recalling his history of (what I consider) vaguely embarrassing, frivolous-at-best ideas that never should have been aired."

    Yo, Props out to ya G-Suderman! Glad ya down wid my mad skillz frontin' meh fresh dipped flow wid ruthless effect!

    Repubs gonna work it out, yo! BOO-YAH!

  • ||

    "Did the murder rate with doctors as victims go up yet?"

    Haven't assumed room temperature at the hands of another yet brotherben.

    Howard Dean, Bill Frist, Tom Coburn and Ron Paul are all quite alive as well.

  • Robert||

    Steele seems to have adopted the confused-at-best thinking of that now-famous town-hall attendee who told his representative to keep his "government hands off my Medicare."


    There's long been widespread sentiment identifying gov't action, or "gov't interference", not with policies per se but with changes in policy.

  • Bingo||

    Oops, looks like shrike fell into the "Libertarians hate team blue so they must like team red!" trap. Roll 2D20 to escape libertarian (small-l) wrath.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I think you win this thread, Bingo.

  • MJ||

    Unfortunately, National Party Chairman is a job which the skill set is quite similar to "street whore". Seniors are mad at the Dems because their health care reforms look like they'll wreck MediCare, the GOP chair says "we'll protect you!". It may be tactically sound, but it is unprincipled and not pretty to look at.

  • ||

    Theme : 6 Main Lies Have Nothing To Do With This Promising Reform.

    1. The contents of savings (below) in this reform 'have nothing to do with' limit to medical access, rationing, tax raise, and deficit etc.

    Rather, without wiping out these wastes and roots of bankruptcy for middle class, all fronts are sure to face larger financial ruin than this recession, which leads to more limit to medical access, more rationing, more tax raise, and more deficit etc than today.

    $1.042trillion (cost of reform) + $245bn (cost to reflect annual pay raise of docs) = $1.287bn (actual cost of reform).

    $583bn (the revenue package) + $80bn (so-called doughnut hole) + $155bn (savings from hospitals) + $167bn (ending the unnecessary subsidies for insurers) + 129bn(mandate-related fine based on shared responsibility) + $277bn (ending medical fraud, a minimum of 3% , the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost of $923.5bn per year, as of July,) = $1.391trillion + the reduced cost of ER visits (Medicare covers some 40% of the total) + the tax code on the wealthiest more reduced than originally proposed = why not ? (except for a magic pill, an outcome-based payment reform & IT effects and so forth).

    As lawmakers debate how to pay for an overhaul of the nation's health care system, a new report from The Commonwealth Fund claims that including both private and public insurance choices in a new insurance exchange would save the United States as much as $265 billion in administrative costs from 2010 to 2020.

    "Health reform can help pay for itself, but both private and public insurance choices are critically important," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis, who coauthored the new report. "A public insurance plan can help drive new efficiencies in the system that will produce large cost reductions. Without a public plan, much of those potential savings will be lost."

    Unlike high fuel price and mortgage rate in recent years as the roots of great recession and bankruptcy of middle class, the severity in the high cost of health premiums has come to light lately. Similarly, in an attempt to hide these deficit-driven corruptions and wastes, the greed allies struggle to turn the savings via removing these wastes into limit to medical access, rationing, tax raise, and deficit etc.

    In contrast, not to mention a wide range of consumer protection, options across state lines, this promising reform takes initiatives in more primary care docs and improved long-term care. Unnecessarily, hope should not be replaced with all forms of malign lies, fear, just like people don't have to fear quitting drug.


    2. Greedy insurers with no competitors by consolidation have nothing to do with the law of price, demand & supply.

    Under the free market theory and the premise that the public health is also one of commodity like a house, if the demand decreases on a large scale, accordingly the price tends to reflect it, as in the case of house price, and it never happens for the price to spiral up. One step forward, in case the price is spiraling up, to be sure, the remaining clients should withdraw the contract or choose the other options. In practice, runaway premiums with no competitors by consolidation drive the enrollees out, and 4C + 2R (canceling, capping, cherry-picking, cash for special lobby, rationing, rapid premium hike) guarantee multiple times as much profit. Sadly, no way-out other than the prohibitive ER is allowed in America. Therefore, the victims today and tomorrow deserve long overdue protection from non-profit Government.

    3. The plans to stem inflation in the House have nothing to do with crowd-out.
    With the heartbreaking tears in mind (In no other industrialized country do 20,000 people die each year because they can't afford to see doctor. Nearly 11 Million Cancer Patients Without Health Insurance), private market also needs changes and should join together to complete this reform , as promised, otherwise, the runaway premium only has itself to blame while new firms are filling the void with competitive deals.
    And It can be said that fair competition starts with a fair, sustainable market value.

    However, the plan in the House is designed to keep people in an employer-based health insurance system, and the public option would be offered to those for whom employer-provided insurance is not available. And job-based coverage (indirect payment), some mandate code, ample capital, the reduced exorbitant ER costs, IT base to streamline the administrative processes and trim the costs might be favorable to the private market. Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services. And focus should be on the uninsured, the underinsured.

    -- Except For The Underinsured, The Uninsured Alone Outnumber The Entire Population In Canada --

    In an attempt to avert innovation, moderation, and social responsibility, accusing essential affordability, citing take-over, will be a dirty play.

    4. Profit-driven markets have nothing to do with affordable, sustainable public health.

    When the public health is also one of commodity like a house, we come to a tragic and unthinkable conclusion : As to for-profit business, the more and longer ill patients get, the more profits they make, and it will debilitate the overall economy involving education for the future (Of young adults ages 19 to 29, 13.2 million, or 29 percent, lacked coverage in 2007).

    Under the most wasteful structure on the planet like no coordinated preventive care program waiting until people get ill, about 50% of idle world's best practices, a pay for each and every service reimbursement and frequent readmissions, no e-medical record and deaths, crushing litigations and the more profits via the unnecessary, risk-carrying procedures, and the most inefficient paper billing systems imaginable, overpriced pharmaceuticals, bloated insurance companies, incredible medial fraud, exorbitant costs by the tragic ER visits etc, it might be no wonder with the comprehensive, systematic reform in the pipeline, just one attitude of patient-oriented value in 10 regions has attained 16% of savings in Medicare while their quality scores are well above average.

    Aside from the already allocated $583 billion and the savings of this reform package, 16% of $923.5bn (the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost per year, as of July) is around $147.76bn per year and 1.4776trillion over the next decade, and this patient-oriented value alone could be enough to meet the goal.

    Please be 'sure' to visit http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13gawande.html?hp for credible evidences !

    Today, another innovative, fundamental change in payment system, or patient's outcome based payment reform that is able to turn the profit-oriented malpractices and volume into the patient-oriented value and quality is waiting for a final decision.


    5. Inflation-driven greedy allies backed by the insurers have nothing to do with deficit-neutral.

    When some part of our body is ailing seriously, we are going to lose competitiveness, equally, when some part of a nation is ailing servery, it is going to loose competitiveness, too. In case somebody in the house gets ill, health will be put over house, in practice.


    6. The analyses of CBO have nothing to do with common sense and practice.

    Costs of Preventable Chronic Disease account for around 75% of the nation's $2.4 trillion medical care costs. U.S. health care spending is also expected to double in the next 10 years. and they are largely preventable -- 80 percent of the risk factors are behavior-related.

    Unlike the analyses of CBO, world-wide outstanding public programs put heavier emphasis on preventive program equally, and preventable swine flu pandemic is expected to cost about $2trillion dollars world-wide for the lack of prepared vaccines. (Genes included in the new swine flu have been circulating undetected in pigs for at least a decade, according to a team led by Rebecca Garten of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who have sequenced the genomes of more than 50 samples of the virus).

    If CBO asks the profit-driven interests about why they have hindered the budget request for preventive program in Medicare and Medicaid, they will say, " just look at the health Catrina special lobbying has made, we are professional, and we are now obstructing this reform, too " .

    7. Conclusion : The public health is a fundamental human right.

    As I said previously, patient-oriented value alone could be enough to meet the goal, and another innovative, fundamental change in payment system, or patient's outcome based payment reform that is able to turn the profit-oriented malpractices and volume into the patient-oriented value and quality is waiting for a final decision.

    If At least, some media pay attention to this flower of reform, people will feel empty as the past and current discussion has been time-consuming for sure.


    Thank You !

  • Shorter Suderman||

    Michael Steele be thinkin' too much.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement