tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731750.post5855377511960365452..comments2023-07-29T05:54:28.833-04:00Comments on The Kalamazoo Post: Can the free market control health costs?Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03056377038486402824noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731750.post-73835486019395517632009-08-08T19:19:54.830-04:002009-08-08T19:19:54.830-04:00In addition to Tony's disection of the 'hi...In addition to Tony's disection of the 'hidden' costs already being paid by all of us, how about the discretionary spending from the previous admin on the GWOT, among other SNAFU's? Where was the handwringing and outrage on the fiscal irresponsibility of billions of dollars in tax cuts during that time? Most (and certainly the once put forward by nonlemming) so-called fiscal arguments espoused by those opposed to health insurance reform is, as Tony so capably demonstrated, are flat-out false. Well written Tony!antipundithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13697136356509378318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731750.post-87496619868587045732009-08-07T16:37:23.831-04:002009-08-07T16:37:23.831-04:00Kinda sounds like a Mark Levin induced tirade. &q...Kinda sounds like a Mark Levin induced tirade. "Cult-like celebrity worship", "hero-worship", invoking Hitler... Why do you always start off your comments with such drivel? And the snarky comments about magic wands, HOPE and CHANGE and "post-racial"... these just betray your emotional biases and your lame attempt at humor. Did someone once tell you that you were funny? Really? Is it really a necessary part of a civil discussion?<br /><br />Once I wade thru all that garbage, I get to your question: "How could any sane person possibly believe adding 45 to 50 million people to a public health insurance program is going to lower costs?"<br /><br />Well, the problem is that you-- yes YOU-- are ALREADY paying for their health care. And it's VERY expensive. I know you don't realize it, but it's true. That 52 y/o guy who hasn't treated his chronic hypertension with a $12 per month medication just had a stroke and needs to be hospitalized and then in a nursing home. He may have had a decent job, but maybe he bought a boat or 40 years worth of cigarettes instead of getting insurance. His family will go broke and you will eventually pay for it. <br /><br />I come from the point-of-view that health care can be cost effective. It keeps people healthy and working and paying taxes. You don't see that. It's okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.<br /><br />Now maybe this guy doesn't deserve to live after neglecting his basic health needs (a valid philosophical stance) but I don't hear you making this case. Please do, because this is the crux of the debate. Fight for the rights of health providers, doctors and hospitals to refuse care to folks without adequate payment sources. This would save oodles of money!<br /><br />Or, pay for the more cost-effective preventive care up front.<br /><br />The rhetoric on this issue has reached a fever pitch, as evidenced by your vitriol here. Yes, people with swastikas and hanging effigies and other intimidation tactics have gone to town hall meetings. I suppose you could argue that is their First Amendment right. Whatever.<br /><br />The Republicans lost Congress and the White House and there is a new sheriff in town. I'm not surprised that the wingnuts are not going quietly into that good night. Health care (or "health insurance") reform will happen, and neither you nor I know the exact form it will take.<br /><br />I wonder, were you as critical of G. W. Bush of being in "constant campaign mode" when he was trumping up BS reasons to fight a pointless trillion dollar war? Were you as concerned over his trillion dollar Medicare Part D drug boondoggle? Maybe you were. Good for you. The point is that this is not a Democratic or Republican issue, and I would argue that the GOP has done more to financially cripple these entitlements.<br /><br />Now, if you care to respond, save some time and omit the rhetorical flourishes up front... you're not very good at it anyway.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03056377038486402824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6731750.post-25077365583283674462009-08-07T15:13:35.732-04:002009-08-07T15:13:35.732-04:00One thing still missing: How do we pay for this “...One thing still missing: How do we pay for this “reform” as manifest in the House Bill? Step back from the tree. See the forest.<br /><br />Two observations:<br /><br />1. The trouble with statism or liberal progressivism is you eventually run out of other people's money.<br /><br />2. Psychologists have observed those who engage in cult-like celebrity worship take personal offense when their idols are criticized. They consider this immature behavior. Political scientists have long observed the dangers of hero worshiping heads of state (Hitler was also a tremendous orator).<br /><br />You believe the Dems have a magic wand to fix a very complicated problem by punishing evil insurance companies and (as progressives seems bent on doing) driving them out of business. This is populism and only works so long as you suspend disbelief or ignore math. <br /><br />How could any sane person possibly believe adding 45 to 50 million people to a public health insurance program is going to lower costs? This is delusional and borders on psychosis. An expansion of "free" Medicare-like services on any scale will not reduce costs. See status of Medicare.<br /><br />The Dem's version of health care reform (I won't even call it Obama's since he hasn't read the bill and probably won’t) does nothing to address costs. Also worth noting the Dems have taken to a re-branding: they are now doing "health insurance reform" - you need an enemy to keep the masses on your side, hence demonizing the insurance industry. Laffer has it right and denying facts (such as over consumption of free goods, defensive health care to avoid malpractice, etc.) won't make them go away. And you should refrain from Axlerod straw-mans. No one is saying do nothing and there are a plethora of alternatives to Obama-care.<br /><br />Also, consider red flags: BO is so desperate he is governing in full campaign mode on this issue...to the extent his "grassroots" organizations are running attack ads on politicians from his own party (moderates with legitimate concerns about this legislative and fiscal train wreck). Pelosi refers to people exercising free speech at town halls as Nazis. Reid accuses them of disrupting the democratic process. And from a Congressman Baird: "If people set out to disrupt town hall meetings to intimidate people who sincerely want to discuss important issues, the first victim is the democracy itself. But beyond that, some of the rhetoric we're hearing is vaguely, not vaguely, but eerily, reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma."<br /><br />This is from the post-9/11 playbook: Use fear to get votes, only now the "terrorists" are US citizens expressing dissent (how about the 38 year old black conservative handing out yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags outside a town hall in St Louis - SEIU thugs beat him to the point he ended up in a hospital – www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo- way/2009/08/arrests_fights_at_democratic_l.html).<br /><br />The biggest red flags: When asked if he would use a public option for his own family, BO said he would seek the best health care available (that's a "no") and the Dems rejected a Republican rider on the House bill that would have members of Congress give up their golden plans and require them to use a public option.<br /><br />The structural problems in the three largest entitlement programs are ignored for the sake of short-term politics (as has been the case for over 25 years). This is the forest.<br /><br />Aside from the unanswered question of financing "reform" the issue of demographics seems not to register. So, for your homework:<br /><br />www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13888045<br />(special report on aging - read all related articles as well)<br /><br />If you prefer video (makes same point but US-centric):<br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs<br />(from 2007 - predates current debate)<br /><br />Happy learning! (One can always HOPE, especially as there has been so much CHANGE the last six months. Is it just me or is the world much more bi-partisan and post-racial these days? Empty suit indeed!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com