On healthcare, Republicans earn deep skepticism
Allow me to bury the lead by beginning with a couple of the usual caveats:
I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to debate the design, implementation, cost and philosophical principles underlying the Democrats’ Healthcare Reform Act.
A lot of legitimate questions remain about how the program will be paid for long-term, how many people it will actually help, and whether better, less complicated and less intrusive alternatives might be found.
And now for the punch-line: As they seek to score political points on “Obamacare,” Republicans have largely blown their own credibility as the party with the right ideas to answer those questions.
Indeed, GOP leaders have earned for themselves a deep reservoir of skepticism.
The first blunder, of course, is that top Republicans have adamantly refused to offer alternatives, or talk about how they would approach this differently.
Nor have they adequately explained the fact that during the years when Republicans controlled Washington, they ballooned the public costs of healthcare (pushing through a huge, budget-busting prescription drug entitlement for seniors) without addressing the tens of millions of Americans with no insurance coverage.
So when Republicans say their message in 2012 will be “repeal and replace,” journalists like myself and voters like you should be asking for specifics: Replace with what? How will you get it right this time?
The other reason the GOP has drifted into “pants on fire” territory on this issue is that so many of their most adamant claims about the Democratic plan have turned out to be flimsy, exaggerated or downright false.
Just this morning on our airwaves, New York state Republican leader Dean Skelos argued that a new Congressional Budget Office accounting of Obamacare suggests that it will cost twice as much as originally predicted.
This is a widely parroted theme among conservatives and it is, simply and factually, false. Here’s what the non-partisan website FactCheck.org found when they looked at this issue:
Several readers asked us about Republican comments and news reports saying that a new Congressional Budget Office report had found that the federal health care law would cost double the original estimate. But that’s not what CBO’s report said. Instead, the report shows that the gross yearly costs of the new health care law are likely to be 8.6 percent higher than originally estimated.
Politifact — another non-partisan fact-checking team — reached the same conclusion, calling conservative claims bluntly “false.”
Politifact also investigated conservative claims, echoed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, that the Healthcare Reform Act would somehow ration or deny certain Medicare treatments received by elderly Americans.
Their probe concluded that the assertions were “pants on fire” lies, saying that the a new political ad about the issue “isn’t just wrong. It’s also ridiculous.”
So what’s up with that? If Obamacare really is so toxic, why does the GOP have to keep trotting out full-blown whoppers to attack it? If the truth about the program is ugly, hit us with the truth.
And then there’s the complicated issue of whether or not the GOP’s top candidate, Mitt Romney, actually some of the most controversial policy provisions of Obamacare, while serving as the governor of Massachusetts and while campaigning in 2008.
The Washington Post’s Factchecker site concluded that Romney embraced the idea of personal mandates, insisting as recently as 2008 that “mandates work.”
But Romney never embraced a national mandate requiring that all Americans purchase health insurance.
That’s an important distinction, but it still leaves a lot of of unanswered questions. If mandates work but we don’t want them in national policy, what are the alternatives?
How does the GOP leadership plan to confront the complex, thorny problems posed by uninsured Americans, both those who can’t afford coverage and those who carelessly choose not to buy protection, thus ballooning costs for the rest of us?
As Republicans campaign this summer, these are the questions that they should be answering. And to win the high ground on this issue, they should make sure that their answers are based in fact.
Tags: analysis, election12, health, politics
HT, lay off the personal attacks. That adds nothing. I think that Charles Krauthammer said it well here in a recent Washington Post piece:
“Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy.”
I don’t like the term Obamacare but I see where he is coming from.
Paul, I didn’t find France’s border security all that hot. In fact I crossed from Switzerland into France and then back later. Swiss cheese seemed like a good description for their border. I needed some papers stamped at the border but on a Sunday morning they don’t man their guard posts. I asked the Swiss border guards about it and he just rolled his eyes and said “ah, the French. They do not work early mornings or Sundays.”
i disagree. i think it most certainly does add something. in fact i think it’s essential.
try though we might, we humans leave a lot to be desired in terms of our ability to take in information. it’s hard to keep things straight. we have (very) imperfect memories. all of it only gets harder when there are competing claims floating around. it gets all too easy to be swayed by whichever side does a better job of repeating their message, or to tune out from a debate because it all seems like an intractable mess.
because of that, people like jdm act to greatly degrade our discourse by constantly pumping out so much misinformation and propaganda. where some strive for clarity, he kicks up sand. it’s disgraceful and needs to be called out as such — not only because it’s shameful personal conduct, but because that’s how you combat it in terms of restoring the quality of the discussion. when people come to a jdm comment, they need to know that they should pay it no credibility whatsoever. there’s no way to make that happen without addressing jdm and his repeated craziness personally.
hermit thrush: “when people come to a jdm comment, they need to know that they should pay it no credibility whatsoever”
Sounds like hermit is more concerned that the readers of my comment are too non-intelligent to make up their own minds.
It’s more of a slam to the reader than to the writer.
… and it doesn’t reflect too well on someone who doesn’t wish to participate in civil discussion.
ht is correct as usual.
It may seem a little rude to single out people individually on their opinions but by not singling them out we do a great disservice to society as a whole. Propaganda works because people repeat dis-information and we see dis-information campaigns around us all the time.
Conservatives should be outraged about dis-information because lies cost us money. Tobacco companies working to convince people to smoke costs us all money in health-care dollars. GE dumping PCB’s in the Hudson costs us all money in clean-up and decades of non-use of our shared natural resource. Climate change deniers cost us money.
And health care costs us all money whether we get Obamacare or not.
khl: “Conservatives should be outraged about dis-information because lies cost us money.”
Just because this blog is mostly populated with liberal slanting ideals doesn’t mean that everything discussed here has only one side.
There is a whole parallel universe out there where the earth is heating and cooling just fine on its own. All this hoopla about man-made climate change is costing us (wasted) money.
There is a whole parallel universe where the out-of-control federal government needs to be reminded of the constraints of the Constitution.
When one points out that the liberal way is not the only way, some, who live in their own little box, don’t know what to do with that information.
You can say stuff like “JDM is the only person in the world who believes what he says” and you can hope it’s true, but the truth is, most of the liberal ideas here represent a small fraction of the whole realm of ideas.
Yes, JDM, there are two parallel universe of thought out there, but there is only one real, actual universe. The universe that the great majority of scientists believe in is the one in which the climate is changing as a result of human activity. Scientists have come to this point of view by studying and understanding in great depth the reams of data that exist, not by starting from a politico/religious predisposition to view the earth as something wholly subject to man’s dominion.
Walker: “but there is only one real, actual universe.”
The one where truth is not determined by scientists who skew their findings to maximize their government research grants.
That is such a complete fabrication! Why would government research grants have gone preferentially to global climate change researchers right through the eight years of the Bush administration?
And just because “conservative” politician’s world views can be bought, doesn’t mean that most scientist’s skew their research findings for cash. Your obsession with money gives you a really distorted world view.
JDM, you are not crazy.
But what is suspect is the constant claiming that there are”two-sides-to-every-argument.” Therefore you believe your claims are just as relevant or correct, perhaps even more so than claims made by the “brave liberals” you mock and berate every day.
HermitThrush is providing a community service by stating what is obvious. What is suspect are the “crazy” sources that you deliberately use to feed these beliefs. The crazy and absolutely non-factual propaganda that I found reading at The New American, is the same that can be found by tuning in to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, FOX News or by reading Bill Donohue’s “Catalyst” among others.
Two sides to every argument? The earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around the earth. Dinosaurs coexisted with humans. Humans came along millions of years after dinosaurs existed. Hitler/NAZI’s were ultra-right wing fascists. Hitler/NAZI’s were leftist liberal socialists. The earth is 6,000 years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Only God or nature can affect global climate change. The carbon output of 6 billion human beings, from our tools and animals can affect global climate change.
Fellow American’s do not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (hard to have when sick). Fellow American’s do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (universal health care). And the list goes to infinity and beyond.
So, JDM, write away to your heart’s content with whatever controversial “crazy” content you wish to contend is correct. However, it is not incumbent upon us buy into the mass hysteria.
One thing is clear – Public Radio, despite the claims of John Boehner and Eric Cantor is not a source of propaganda, left or right. JDM would benefit from turning off el rusho and tuning in to NCPR once in a while.
Remember to help as you can with their Spring fund-raising efforts.
Walker: “And just because “conservative” politician’s world views can be bought,”
If one’s world view is that only conservative politicians can be bought, then one would question the validity of such a one’s outcomes.
I think Paul references a very good point and concern.
There is a bizarre irony here ; many on the left hold that the private corporate health insurance industry has a large responsibility for our current health care mess and are getting very wealth profiting from it. Yet the solution is for the government to force me to buy a product from these same guys? Guess what the Insurance industry is supporting this bill, so are the large drug companies; it is like the government forcing us all buy GM cars, guess what, GM would support that bill. There are red flags all over this bill and it needs to be largely junked (not totally) ,but largely junked and we can get real health care reform that is not a corporate giveaway. It makes no sense to buy into a broken system.
JDM writes: “If one’s world view is that only conservative politicians can be bought, then one would question the validity of such a one’s outcomes.”
Ah, you got me there! That’s why Citizen’s United is such a catastrophically bad decision.
Looking back over fj’s comments, it’s as if JDM was the topic of discussion.
In a sense, it’s a little flattering that my opinion makes such a big impression on bloggers here.
I would encourage everyone to try to stay focused on registering their own opinion on the topic at hand, and not so much on my take on things.
just sayin’
“…it is like the government forcing us all buy GM cars…”
No, Mervel, it’s like the government forcing us all to buy cars– no particular brand. And unlike cars, health insurance is something that virtually everyone is going to need someday. And with cars, there is no equivalent of the Emergency Room, where you can go and get free health care that inflates everyone else’s bill.
The thing is, there is no way that a straightforward single-payer bill would ever get past Congress. I’m going to repost a big chunk of a hermit thrush post from yesterday:
“The ACA is chock full of cost reforms to the system. Have a look at this wonkblog post. Some key quotes:
“But much of the law’s 905 pages are dedicated to an effort that’s arguably more ambitious [than covering the uninsured]: an overhaul of America’s business model for medicine. It includes 45 changes to how doctors deliver health care — and how patients pay for it. These reforms, if successful, will move the country’s health system away from one that pays for volume and toward one that pays for value. The White House wants to see providers behave more like Baptist Health Systems, rewarding health care that is both less costly and more effective.
…
“The Affordable Care Act is like two laws in one,” former Medicare administrator Don Berwick said. “There’s the coverage piece, and I think that’s proceeding well. On the other side, there’s health-care delivery reform.”
“You can still argue that the ACA doesn’t go far enough, that its reforms are too timid, and you’d get a sympathetic ear from me! But I think it’s a genuine step in the right direction. And I also think that it’s about as good a deal as our government is capable of producing. I’d love to scrap the current insurance system and put single payer in place as much as anyone else, but that’ll never happen, not with all the JDM’s around. Incremental change is the way to go.” [Caps added ;-) ]
I would only add the word “practical” to that last sentence.
What is notable about this post is that it is the first and only one I’ve seen here or anywhere that talks about more than the individual mandate. I think this is largely the result of the incessant hammering from the right on that one point– it has the effect of stifling debate on the rest of a bill that is full of worthwhile provisions.
JDM, don’t get a concussion patting yourself on the head. Your opinion impresses all right. But not as you seem to imagine.
I will say, though that there would be less to talk about if our conservative contributors suddenly stopped contributing. And though I sometimes find myself annoyed by their posts, I do think that the dialog helps us all to formulate our thoughts more clearly.
Walker: “And though I sometimes find myself annoyed by their posts, I do think that the dialog helps us all to formulate our thoughts more clearly.”
Well said.
But Walker based on how the court rules on this issue if the government later decides that one particular brand of insurance is one that they want to mandate they can do it, right? As long as they can show that the citizens best interests are taken into account. That is basically the ONLY measure that would be required based on the ruling. Sometimes freedom means that bad things happen.
Paul – they could decide to make everyone go with medicare. (overhead is a lot lower). But given the controversy over this pretty “compromised” health care law, that isn’t too likely.
Well the bill makes sure everyone gets paid that is for sure.
Except the consumer of course.
They should have just expanded medicare to cover all ages and put severe caps on what the government will pay (if all of these doctors want to work for 60k like their French brethren it should be no problem). The current bill is one giant giveaway to the health care industry.
Paul, that’s like saying that because the Income Tax was declared legal, that one day the government might decide to take all your money. Yes, sure, could happen theoretically. But there is still a political process.
Paul, if you’re worried about this sort of thing, why weren’t you excited about the no-bid Halliburton contracts in Iraq and elsewhere? That was your tax dollars being spent on one private company’s offerings.
To me, the idea that you can be compelled to buy health insurance seems absolutely small potatoes compared to being compelled to serve in the military, and we did that for many years, ending only forty years ago; the government could re-institute the draft tomorrow.
Mervel, you’re still staying on the “if all of these doctors want to work for 60k like their French brethren it should be no problem”? What choice will they have? They’re going to give up medicine and become librarians? Accountants? Move to Tunisia?
Walker, how do you know I wasn’t all excited about no-bid contracts? Foolish things done in the past and now are no defense for making other poor decisions.
I am just saying that if the government can compel you to do something like this (this isn’t the draft here we are saying that you must purchase a product from a commercial entity) than what is the limit?
Explain to me (if this is constitutional) why the government cannot compel us at some point to purchase one particular type of insurance policy if they think it is the only way to achieve the desired outcome?
I don’t have a problem with the concept of everyone having health insurance I think this is a good goal. I just questions the means to the end. If this mandate were the ONLY outcome here than it is no problem. To think that is the case ignores the way the constitution works. Precedent is a very powerful thing. Once you go there it is very difficult to go back.
I was in a relatively depressed area of the state this past weekend. Based on statistics I am willing to guess that many of the lower income families there have no health insurance since they “cannot afford” to buy it. I also notice that many of them have ATVs that cost thousands of dollars and satellite TV service that they also “cannot afford” to buy? Taking away some of our freedom to make choices like that is what we are talking about doing here. Is it the right thing to do maybe? Will there be other consequences, absolutely.
Paul: If I understand you correctly, you are making a good point about personal responsibility.
Why should we pay for someone’s health insurance so they can go buy a four-wheeler and thousands-of-dollars of wii games?
That’s what happens when you spend someone else’s money on someone else.
Making everyone pay for a portion of their own health insurance will do more than some here can fathom on fixing the underlying cost of healthcare.
Ah, the old Welfare Queen argument! Dust ‘er off and trot ‘er out!
So what would you do, Paul? Let’s take a hypothetical poor family where dad is a no good SOB who drinks beer all the time and takes out a loan the family can’t afford to get a shiny new snowmobile because it make him feel good. Because he’s a complete jerk, the family as a whole can’t afford health insurance. So the wife and kids should go without health care because their old man is stupid? You don’t think they suffer enough from his selfishness? Shouldn’t we draw the line at making them live without medical care?
I can hear it now: “make them take some responsibility for themselves!” Well, sure, that would be nice. But how are you going to do it?
[By the way, sorry, you’re right, I don’t know how you felt about the Halliburton contracts, and they’re barely relevant anyway.]
“Making everyone pay for a portion of their own health insurance will do more than some here can fathom on fixing the underlying cost of healthcare”
Ummm, isn’t that exactly what the individual mandate does?
“Making everyone pay for a portion of their own health insurance will do more than some here can fathom on fixing the underlying cost of healthcare.”
JDM, that’s where we’re at now. Is it working? I hadn’t noticed.
To reconcile PNE’s comment and mine, presently we almost all pay a portion of our own health insurance. Many do indirectly, in that their employers could afford to pay them more if they weren’t paying their insurance costs. And seniors pay about $1200 per year for Medicare plus a monthly amount ranging from $100 up for extensions to basic coverage.
And of course, the “mandate” we’re all talking about is nothing more than a requirement that we pay for health insurance.
In short, there are no proposals out there other than a Canadian-style single payer system that don’t call for individuals to pay a portion of their own insurance. And it clearly is not working to keep our health care costs down.
Walker, switch to the decaf. I was simply making an observation. Freedom affords people the ability to make poor decisions. I already commented that I think that everyone should have health insurance.
You are getting distracted. I will ask again:
Explain to me (if this is constitutional) why the government cannot compel us at some point to purchase one particular type of insurance policy if they think it is the only way to achieve the desired outcome?
You apparently want to “draw the line here” with health care coverage. That seems like a good idea. Like I said I share that goal with you. But what assurances would there be that tomorrow we wouldn’t want to draw a new line??
Walker:
No, that’s exactly where we are not, now.
Most pay zero, or a co-pay, at the doctor’s office. Some pay a percentage of their health insurance premiums and some do not.
When people start paying a portion of the doctor’s bill, not a health care premium, that will be the beginning of getting market forces back into the system, and costs will come down.
Walker I wasn’t being totally serious about the doctors; I like and respect doctors I realize that my posts kind of make them the problem and that is simply not true. They are the face of health care though when we think about it in the US and so I was using them as an example. Many doctors are already not taking any government money and going with private insurance and self pay only. Many doctors would simply not participate in the government plan, you can’t MAKE a doctor participate in the plan.
But US doctors today are not going to ever accept wages that doctors in France make, not because they are greedy but because of what their costs are, what they have paid for an overpriced education, what they have to pay in liability insurance and what their expectations are.
I mean consider if the French model has doctors making under 100k on average, what do nurses make? The whole system in the US would have to change. What union would go along with lowering health care workers salaries?
Maybe this act can force some cost reductions in our system I hope it does, but it looks very weak on that front.
I think the Republicans just wish the whole issue would go away. They have no plan to realistically reduce the cost of health care in the US.
Been reading very closely. Still reading the same old criticisms about the Affordable Health Care Act from our Conservative brethren. “Facts” are presented to us from such right-wing publications as The Weekly Standard and/or The New American, where more of the same old criticisms are made.
And still not reading any real and meaningful solutions from the Conservatives here other than a desire to scrap AHCA entirely and start over from scratch with…what exactly? After 60 years of discussion we need another 60 years before insuring all Americans with health care?
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy. The search for a moral justification for selfishness.” (John Kenneth Galbraith)
Mr. Galbraith, died in 2006 at the age of 97, with wisdom and integrity to the very end.
I would just like to say without “Obamacare” my girlfriend would not have any health insurance right now.
Paul: “But what assurances would there be that tomorrow we wouldn’t want to draw a new line??”
Asked and answered: the assurance depends upon the political process. If a law were passed compelling us at some point to purchase one particular type of insurance policy that was a terrible deal, voters could vote the politicians that instituted the law out of power and vote new politicians in that would repeal the law, just as Republicans are hoping to do with the ACA. If we could only pass laws we were sure we would want to live with forever, we’d never get anything done.
Mervel: “But US doctors today are not going to ever accept wages that doctors in France make, not because they are greedy but because of what their costs are, what they have paid for an overpriced education, what they have to pay in liability insurance and what their expectations are.”
If we enact single-payer, doctors will have precious little choice. As for the cost of medical school, doctors already can and do go abroad for medical education. You’re a free market guy: if it’s really cheaper to earn your MD in France or Britain, doctors would flock to their schools for their degrees. And I don’t think liability insurance is that major a component of the cost of health care. Do Canada and France and the UK and Germany and Switzerland and Sweden etc. all have strict tort limits? I don’t think so.
JDM: “When people start paying a portion of the doctor’s bill, not a health care premium, that will be the beginning of getting market forces back into the system, and costs will come down.”
So what you’re proposing is to outlaw full-coverage insurance policies? I haven’t heard that anywhere. Interesting idea, but I have a funny feeling it wouldn’t solve the problem. People pay 100% of the costs of filling their gas tanks and everybody hates the cost of gas, but it doesn’t come down much. People pay (eventually) practically the full cost of attending college, but it just keeps going up.
The conservative notion that markets work magic is a nice fantasy, but it just doesn’t always work out that way. If it did, insurance companies would have squeezed the cost out of our health care system long ago. After all, they’re in the market for inexpensive doctors and hospitals, and they buy them just as cheap as they can get them. Companies and individuals are in the market for inexpensive medical care, and they’re buying policies just as cheap as they can get them. Despite the market forces at work, health care costs just keep climbing. The idea that the Magic of the Market Cures All Ills is bunk!
Why do you suppose the rest of the free world, capitalist countries all, have adopted single-payer systems? If they are terrible, why aren’t there countries dumping single-payer systems.
Walker, on the tort laws in those countries, I think in fact they do have restrictions, they don’t have the massive tort system we do in general and I think in particular they don’t have the liability mess our doctors face.
Of course doctors will have a choice. They don’t have to go into the field, they can change careers, they can certainly accept payment that is not government payment. You will see far fewer doctors in the US if they are not compensated enough to cover the massive expense of being a doctor.
France has a system that lets doctors become doctors without compiling massive debt on overpriced graduate education. The government pays for much of medical education in France AND that education is less expensive. But here we go with the house of cards, guess who also makes less in France? Those working in the higher education system, particularly the administrators. Once again it won’t happen in the US you have vested interests in keeping medical education long and expensive.
Your whole system has to be changed to make any of this work.
I am in favor of changing that system but you are talking about a lot of interest groups who support both Republicans and Democrats who would not be in favor. Unions, Lawyers, drug company executives, insurance executives, medical school administrators and professors, nurses, doctors and on and on.
It won’t happen.
In the end the upper level executives will all get paid and this law forces the US government and consumers to pay them. I certainly hope the Supreme court finds that sort of attack on liberty unconstitutional, and I think from today’s questioning they will.
Many doctors will stop taking other types of insurance just like they are not taking medicare anymore once more of this law goes into effect. They can’t handle anymore patients anyway. This is classic cart before the horse legislation. Statistically there are enough doctors but practically speaking they will not go to where the patients are going to be.
If this legislation is constitutional I hope it works out.
Mervel, you make some very good points about rewarding the insurance industry, but the fact is that everyone is responsible for the mess we’re in and we just aren’t going to get single-payer immediately (as someone else has pointed out here).
ACA is not our only hope. As Yoda once said, there is another. The Occupy movement is working to bring the voice of the people to bear on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms. Someone may have pointed out here already that it costs the average insured person $1,000 extra per year to cover the costs of the uninsured. ACA will help with that to make payments more fair.
To go way back and answer JDM about the costs of preparing for climate change — even if you don’t believe in climate change buying more efficient products will save you money in the long run. What is wrong with that? If Detroit had stuck with Jimmy Carter’s CAFE standards we would have saved trillions of dollars by now and maybe the big 3 auto companies wouldn’t have needed a bailout.
Walker: “People pay 100% of the costs of filling their gas tanks ”
What you are missing is what happens to the price of gas when we all use someone else’s money to fill someone else’s tank. The price goes up to $200 per gallon.
Then, under market forces, it returns to the $4.00 market-driven price, which ain’t great, but it ain’t $200 per gallon, either.
JDM, did you read my 5:10 pm post at all? There are already market forces at work in the health system. Insurance companies pay doctors as little as they can possibly get away with, and they drag their feet doing it. And they do it with money that is theirs if they can avoid paying it out– their potential profits. They are as stingy as they can manage, and when they can’t manage, they raise their rates. Then the other market forces come into play– companies buying health care for their employees shopping for the cheapest coverage they can find.
Walker: You are making my point when you mention that in-between the person receiving the service, and the person providing the service, there are layers of middle-men, i.e. insurance companies and employers, which are just the two that you mentioned.
If my employer provided me gas insurance to put gas in my car, and all I had to do was show up at the gas station and drive off, I would not car if the price of gas was $1,000 per gallon. What would I care?
I fill up my tank and drive off. My employer gets stuck with higher and higher premiums, which they may or may not pass on to me.
The only way to make the person receiving the health care service AWARE of the cost of the service they are receiving, is to have them pay directly for the part of the service.
As soon as they know that, they will begin to shop for a “bargain”. Doctors will discount their services to attract “bargain hunters”. Their practices will beging to thrive and others who are reluctant will keep receiving 80% payments from Medicare. Their practices will die on the vine, and the innovators will thrive.
That’s the market, baby. Winners and losers. That’s what liberals hate.
And Mervel, we don’t have to all at once cut doctor’s salaries in half to be making progress. Simply holding the line on the growth of medical costs would be a considerable victory compared to recent years. If we can accomplish that, then maybe we can work to hold costs down.
If you keep claiming that we can’t do anything useful then we’re defeated before we start.
JDM, you keep missing it. Our driver would care because he would soon be laid off by his company, which would be going broke paying outrageous prices for gasoline.
Walker: “JDM, you keep missing it. Our driver would care because he would soon be laid off by his company, which would be going broke paying outrageous prices for gasoline.”
We are missing each other.
This is very nearly the current state of our health care system. Employers are at the brink of laying off workers, or not hiring them, because of health care premiums.
To get back to the market driven price range is what I am suggesting.
In my scenario, we are nearing the $1000 per gallon mark, only in health care terms.
In my scenario, going back to a market-driven system would get the price back to $4 per gallon, only in health care terms.