President Obama is on his way to Portsmouth, New Hampshire at this hour for a town hall meeting on health care. At this same hour last week, several of the President's top political advisers were meeting in a White House conference room to discuss the appearance, over the first weekend in August, of a coordinated effort to scare Democratic lawmakers who planned to attend town hall meetings into a state of panic. A week later, and the Atlantic's tricorder readings are picking up much calmer electromagnetic energy from the White House. Getting Democrats to attend the town hall meetings was really an intermediate goal. But Democrats are beginning to notice that opponents of health care reform have discredited themselves. They ramped up much too quickly. When smaller, conservative groups Astroturfed, they inevitably brought to the meetings the type of Republican activist who was itching for a fight and who would use the format to vent frustrations at President Obama himself. There were plenty of activists who really wanted to know about health care, and some who were probably misinformed -- scared out of their chairs -- to some degree, but the loudest voices tended to be the craziest, the most extreme, the least sensible, and the most easy to mock.
The American people remain anxious and confused about health care reform. That is an underlying reality that Republican activists are so eager to exploit. But doing so required a certain restraint -- and a willingness to traffic in at least approximate truths -- and an ability to make distinctions within their own ranks about which tactics were valid and which tactics were venomous. It also required a sophistication about the media. The base condition here is an enthusiastic Republican base and a depressed Democratic base. A coherent, organized effort would have recognized that the moment the media began to take sides was the moment that the entire enterprise could be damaged. The media, being a collection of different megaphones, reported on the town hall meetings in one of two ways, both damaging to Republicans. Either they credulously reported the louder, angrier voices (inherently damaging to Republicans in this case) or they reported on the political architecture of the town hall meetings, which plays down the substance of the protests.
Remember, the target audience for Republicans is Blue Dog Democrats in Congress. They won't panic unless they perceive organic anxiety. The White House's goal was to prevent the Blue Dogs from panicking. The swing constituents in these congressional districts aren't angry Republicans, and the Blue Dogs know this. They're political independents for whom the sanctity of the process is important. These are the type of voters who like President Obama because he appears willing to bring people together even though they don't agree with their policies.
As usual, in a pattern that the left patented during the Bush administration, the organized right lost control of its message. Lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats, were being asked to respond to non-sequiturs (would you support a health care reform plan that grows the deficit? Health care grows the deficit right now, so it's a nonsense question, one that is easy for politicians to answer); ; they found their meetings full of engorged spleens. Unrestrained, these town hall meetings are going to turn off the type of voters Republicans most need to pressure Blue Dog Democrats -- independents who don't have red genes or blue genes. Both Fox and MSNBC televised Sen. Arlen Specter's raucous town hall meeting live. It was full of confrontation and protest. There were boos when Specter reaffirmed his president's Americanness.
If only the leaders of the supposed opposition to BHO had a brain... In this case, instead of encouraging angry mobs - which some of them did - they should have encouraged a small group of people who are experienced with "cross-examining" people to go to the events and ask politicians "stumpers" designed to make those politicians look bad. Their responses could then be uploaded to Youtube: "Rep. So-and-so P0wned! Can't tell us how [bad thing] will be prevented", "Rep. Otherperson P0wned: forced to admit Dems are being misleading", and so on. Instead, all they got was worthless questions ("did you read the bill?"), ranting, and chanting. If you oppose BHO, work on getting new leaders.
Your post is full of FAIL, its pwned, not powned.
Although I feel all should have the opportunity to voice their opinions, I agree with your suggestion. Those who are more experienced in speaking and can suppress their emotions may be able to stump some of the politicians since they seemingly have not read the bill(s) in their entirety and possibly do not understand the details of the bill(s). I think a lot of the details of the bill(s) have been omitted re: process of new proposed health care reform. Those who understands all the legalities (constitutional rights) of the proposal would be the ones to question b/c they can question more in depth. The cost of the present proposal is greatly disturbing also.
I'm actually surprised the media keeps showing these turds without forcefully acknowledging how wrong it is. How these people are not being civilised, drowning out the voices and concerns from others. There is one reason why this didn't happen the other way around though, when the Republicans had the Presidency....they didn't let opposing views into their "town halls", kicking people out who wore shirts showing their opposition to President George W. Bush....even though they weren't being loud, obnoxious or obstructing the meeting.
So, to hear the right complain about how their views aren't being heard is a lot like the bankers complaining about not having any money....at least you get to be in the auditorium and speak logically.
"There is one reason why this didn't happen the other way around though, when the Republicans had the Presidency....they didn't let opposing views into their "town halls", kicking people out who wore shirts showing their opposition to President George W. Bush....even though they weren't being loud, obnoxious or obstructing the meeting."
I think this is stretching it a little. There were a lot of out-spoken liberals at so-called GOP functions. For example, the Republican National Convention had a number of organized and violent protests as well as individuals that infiltrated the convention itself to disrupt the proceedings. How many conservatives did that at the democratic national convention? More to the point, how many anarchist leftists protested the DNC? The truth is a little bit in the middle. Part of the problem is that conservatives may feel so left out of the MSM, that they are reduced to shouting to get attention. Kind of like the annoying child in the corner, saying "look at me, look at me!". This is happening because of a real absence of conservative leadership right now too. It's not organized, orchestrated, or well-thought out. As we say in Wrigleyville, wait till next year...
I seem to remember most of the GOP convention protesters as being Paulites. Amazingly, I think most of the current freaks are Paulites.
I also seem to remember that a lot of those folks were arrested for exercising their constitutional right to free speech and protest. Where was the Tea Party Patriots or their ilk then. Did they stand up for liberty and freedom then. NO! It didnt fit their ideology so it was ok to have our rights trampled. Hypopcrites!
Calling people names (turds) that is really civilized. ????
On a local talk radio station, the host was trying to make the point that these protests have been counter-productive. A caller was trying to make the "they did it first" argument, citing the protests against the Iraq war, which often went over the top. The caller (and the host, for that matter) seemed to forget that the anti-war protests were ineffective.
Does The Atlantic have editors? Does anyone read the staff articles before they are posted? I think this article makes a fair point but the structure of the article, flow of argument and syntax are so messy.
Am I crazy?
It's essentially a blog, not a magazine article. Different standards.
...Which is to say, no standards.
I watched the Specter meeting this morning and I'm glad I had the chance to watch an unfiltered version of a town hall. Specter looked like he was in outer space. If he really follows through on all of those promises he made, Obama's version of health care will never make it through the US Senate. Just goes to prove that two different people can have the complete opposite reaction to the same event. Atlantic bloggers are from Venus, the rest of the country is from Earth. Earth to Venus, support for Obama and his health care plan is below 50% and dropping. If anything the town halls are galvanizing the opposition.
Some of the most vocal opponents have two things in common,
1) Blame others for there own set backs in life
2) They are Cold Warriors
All of them see themselves as being rich and successful if only the government wouldn't take away their money and future and give it to the layabouts via programs for immigrants, minorities and welfare bums. They have watched the cold war all their lives and see any government initiative as Socialism. And Socialisim is Evil. Thats the long and the short of it. The cultural war is phase II of the Cold War.
The thing you're most wrong about is thinking that those who are astroturfing the townhalls (and the teaparties) are against giving money to immigrants. The opposite is true: they want to in effect take money from their useful idiot followers in order to prop up a labor force for their friends.
For instance, here's a guest worker plan that's related to a plan that FreedomWorks was pushing.
And, a few years ago, Grover Norquist not only supported amnesty, he did it while sitting next to a constellation of far-left groups.
The leaders of this general movement are basically "libertarians", with the quotes added because they support subsidies just as long as they're the right kind.
Ken P., I'm not an Atlantic blogger and I support health care reform. Unfortunately, I also have a job and can't attend town halls in the middle of the day. Polling suggests that Americans have concerns about what reform would entail but they do want reform. And FYI, the Republicans are not gaining ground in all of this. They have come off looking petulant and unhelpful - I see little intelligent discussion (David Frum as perhaps one major exception on the right) of possible contributions conservatives could make to the legislation. It's all about voting no just to maybe win midterms next year and shore up support for whatever person the GOP wants to nominate for president in 2012. Sorry, not impressed - and I know I'm not the only one.
The conservatives that have been showing up an the townhalls are normal everyday people. They are not comfortable with speaking in public and have not been schooled in rhetoric. They also have not been immersed in the us politial kabuki theater for years.
If you actually have been to one of the town hall meetings or wathced complete unedited video you will realize that while these average people are sometimes incoherent they have made a number of raised a number of common sense questions that "progressives" should be able to answer directly without calling names of the questioner.
1) How can any progressive support any plan that exempts congress from that plan.
2) Why can't these bills be written in plain understandable language.
We have congressional leaders say that there is no point in reading the bill before they vote for it because THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE BILL
3) This congress has a record of voting on bills that they have not read and do not understand - how can anyone - progressive or conservative support this behaviour?
4) Overhauling the healthcare delivery system (which is the real goal here) is the greatest effort that our federal government has made since world war 2. Why was there a rush to do this in a short period of time (it had to be done by the August Recess remember). Really, why not have the democrats run on a platform for doing this in 2010 - If they won everyone would have to accpet the result. The poeple on both sides would see whether they were the majority or not.
5) The initial sales pitch for the bill was all about saving money
(Our countery spends too much as a % of GDP, etc.).
Since insured people( 80% of Americans) don't pay out of pocket for their healthcare, they hear "rationing". This is not an irrational reaction on the part of the insured. The response of politicians is to deny that rationing might happen, essentially saying "trust us".
Really does anyone trust politicians right now?
Progressives do you trust politicians to do the right thing?
5)Why is there so much crazy stuff in HR 3200?
Direct Access to your checking accounts
MANDATORY end of life counselling
"This tax shall not be considered a tax"
Healtch care coverage for Illegal aliens but exemption from funding
taxes
Eliminating new private insurance policies after a given date
Etc.
Can progressives really defend these things point by point.
Would you if Bush had proposed them?
1( Obama was asked that exact question and answered that members of Congress - and janitors in Congress - all get to choose from a variety of plans. And that the point of health care reform is that the general public will get similar choices. Since there is no "government health plan" (other than a possible, limited public option) the whole notion of Congress getting a separate health care "plan" than ordinary Americans is a bit of a red herring.
2) Name me a bill that has ever been written in "plain language." Sadly, the law is complicated and legalese is even more complicated. But I've not seen a Congressman say he or she won't bother reading the bill because it's too complicated. They and their staffs take time to make sure they understand the legislation.
3) That's a myth. There's no evidence that this Congress passes laws without reading them any more than any other Congress in history.
4) Health care reform was arguably the single biggest and most debated issue in the long Democratic primary. In the general election it was also heavily debated. The American people have been discussing this for decades. The notion that this is being "rushed" is silly. Obama set the August deadline to light a fire under the behinds of the legislators, not so he could sneak something through unawares.
5) Most of the "crazy stuff" you point out isn't crazy at all. You've seen highly biased "interpretations" of various provisions of the bill. That you said (and capitalized) "mandatory end of life counseling" sort of gives it away; you are recycling bogus talking points.
Hope this helps.
re. 1
The point is that Obama believes (or did until last night) in a single payer system and he and Barney Frank and others have stated that the public ‘option’ is the way to get there. Of course they are right; most policy experts believe that it would result in the crowding out of private insurers through heavy taxation and regulation on employers, patients and insurance companies.
The amendment put in the bill coming out of the Senate Committee requires members of Congress and their staffs to abandon their health care benefit packages and instead, enroll in the public option.
The fact that most Democrats voted not to shows (a) they believe the public ‘option’ is more than ‘probable’ and (b) they want no part of it.
As for the house bill, that allows employees covered by ERISA to keep their existing plans for five years, after which they would have to ‘enter’ an approved plan. And, if the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and buy an approved plan. (Since plans generally change their policies every year, the 5 year period is only theoretical.)
Those not covered by ERISA will be forced to purchase "qualified" plans immediately.
There will be no choice.
Hope that helps.
2) I've not seen a Congressman say he or she won't bother reading the bill because it's too complicated.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” John Conyers
3) That's a myth. There's no evidence that this Congress passes laws without reading them any more than any other Congress in history.
I accept your point, but I don’t understand it. I am angry that they pass bills without reading them. Why aren’t you?
4) The notion that this is being "rushed" is silly.
Are you serious? If Ms Pelosi had got her way Congress would have voted on a bill that didn’t exist! That’s not rushed? Be real. He's a smart guy, he knew the longer this went one the more people would discover what's in the bill(s). No-one that supports any of them wants that.
5) Most of the "crazy stuff" you point out isn't crazy at all.
Matter of opinion. I suspect you’ve never lived under single payer care.
Uhhh FAIL:
1) Not true, since the whole arc ranges from keep your plan if you like it to mandating Congress go on public option (HELP Committee plan).
2) Bills reference a lot of other stuff in law and that makes it confusing. That makes it hard to read straight through but not abnormal.
3) See #2. Plus this is a Wingnut talking point that wasn't a big deal until the president was black and/or a Democrat.
4) We have only bounced around pertinent ideas since Truman and just had an election where this was talked about every day. To say this is now rushed shows you were out chasing birth certificates and "whitey tapes" instead of engaging in the real election debate.
5) Wingnut lies and misrepresentations.
1) Something is better than nothing.
2) Healthcare reform is an incredibly complex issue, with over 300 million stakeholders, and a whole host of constituencies who want their specific issue(s) addressed; the only way to do so is to change existing law (500 pages), introduce new law (500 pages), and make sure that all the players agree that it includes what they want, and excludes what they don't want, while being written by lawyers who understand the word "is" can mean a great many things to a great many people. The law isn't final until after it emerges from conference committee and lands on the President's desk, so the legislators, like everyone else, are in the position of having to vote for the general idea of the law, and not necessarily a "final product".
3) Congressmen skim like everyone else, they pay other (usually smarter) people to read, summarize, and explain it to them, and most of their time is spent meeting and greeting other people, which is how you build power, through alliances.
4) The longer the delay, the less likely anything is going to get done, and Democratic Congressmen want to take a victory home in time for the start of the 2010 election season, even if it's not much of anything (as in something is better than nothing). They also don't like their recesses messed with.
5a) You already pay out-of-pocket expenses: copays, deductibles, etc., and are already denied certain procedures that your existing provider won't cover, so the government plan will emulate that model; all the stakeholders will have to eventually come to an agreement as to how much coverage each individual will receive, how much it will cost, and what they are willing to pay for. So yes, there will be rationing, but it will be rationally applied across the whole group, and not just the juicy, most profitable segments that the insurance industry likes to prey on.
5b) There isn't anything that you say, that's why. You are making stuff up, or visiting the more wild regions of the web; many confused, sick people lurk there. Review the bill(s), and get back to me. (I did, it's online, and even with the huge number of pages, it's easy to look up keywords in your web browser or PDF viewer.)
Some general points:
Get direct deposit? Pay your bills online? SAME THING.
No such thing. Again, you're making it up.
No such thing. Another lie. Read the friggin' bill.
Nothing to do with illegals. You're like the Congressmen, you skimmed the tweets of some blowhard blogger.
Nope. No such thing.
What "Etc."?
General Disclaimer: I don't really want to support healthcare reform because I don't like paying for sick, stupid, fat Americans (I'm already paying for two wars and a pile full of future debt because of the greed, recklessness, and stupidity of a vast majority of Americans. No more, thank you very much.) The existing system is "fine", for me, but even I can recognize it isn't sustainable, and will need significant reform. The Baby Boomers are retiring, if they can. $$$. Change is needed now.
Two questions for you:
1) Did you research the bill, at all, and think about what it meant? (Answer: No.)
2) Is the government supposed to guarantee that you will never die, and never get sick? (Answer: No.)
5)Why is there so much crazy stuff in HR 3200?
Direct Access to your checking accounts
MANDATORY end of life counselling
The problem here is your ignorance. These two points and the others you listed are NOT in HR 3200 but that's what Limbaugh and FAUX News want you to believe.
You so lost me at the end there. This is why conservatives(not all) cannot be taken seriously...it's because you guys are held captive by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and your goddess Palin. These are the nuts who are perpetuating these lies to scare you into believing that your freedom is at risk. If you do nothing else, PLEASE stop listening and watching these fear peddlers who are just in it for fame and ratings. They care nothing about you or anyone else that isnt helping them profit for that matter. It's just a big game folks!
Educate yourselves and learn the facts before you continue to embarrass yourselves with these talking points!
How is Obama blowing his chance?
What Obama is oblivious about is the fact that Americans are not stupid. Unlike the radical left, most Americans do not believe that the overarching end of this Administration--"social justice"--or particular expressions of it--”universal health care”--justifies the foreseeable violation of individual rights and the foreseeable adverse consequences for the health care system, economy, and national security. Americans see all this, and they are angry about it.
PelosiObamaReidCare (PORC) is an altruist-collectivist-statist cabal that would violate our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on a massive scale unprecedented in American history. Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine (http://www.doctorsonstrike.com) cites HR3200 with 10 violations of our rights, three of which include (1) forcing people to buy health insurance, (2) forcing employers to provide health insurance for employees, and (3) forcing some groups (wealthy, business owners) to pay for the health insurance of other groups.
The collectivists are hell-bent on using the power of the government to steal the wealth produced by the more productive members of society (wealthy, business owners, stockholders, insurance companies) and then redistributing it to the less productive--some might say parasitic--members of society. Americans know this stealthy stealing is unjust, and they are very angry about it.
The collectivists are also hell-bent on using the power of the government to regulate and control the relationship between patients and doctors so health care goods and services are provided on terms and at fees set by the government bureaucrats rather than free enterprise. Americans know that forcing people to do such things without their consent is unjust, and they are angry about it.
Our country was founded on the idea of individual rights--the idea that we have the right to exist for our own sake; that no one has the right to force anyone to live for the sake of others; that we have the right to be left alone to pursue our own ends in life as long as we do not infringe on the liberty of others to do the same; that the proper role of government is to protect our rights, not violate them. Americans know that their rights are being sacrificed on the alter of “social justice,” and they are angry about it.
The foreseeable consequences of PORC? Crowding out private insurance, an eventual government-takeover of health care, increased demand for health care, inflation, price controls, shortages of doctors, shortages of medicine and other goods and services, lower quality, rationing, increased taxes, increased national debt, higher interest rates, and threats to our national security from being beholden to China and other not-so-friendly countries who finance our "rapid cycling spending disorder" and will have us by the gonads when push comes to shove. Americans are awakening to these horrifying realizations, and they are angry about it.
Obama promised (or should we say "warned") us his presidency would be transformative. Jefferson must be turning over in his grave!
Voters, seeing politicians turning a deaf ear to their legitimate concerns about these issues, are understandably and justifiably cranky, and they are cranking up the volume--on the edge of incivility--so politicians finally get the message: “Health care is not a right, doctors are not your slaves, businesses are not your banks, the wealthy are not your wet nurses, and patients are not your pawns.”
Dr. Gregory Garamoni
Founder, Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine
http://www.doctorsonstrike.com
Yes, they are stupid. I would hazard a guess that a great many on the left and right bank on the fact that people are usually pretty stupid.
The rights you mentioned aren't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or case law. So those aren't "rights". I may as well have the "right" to roll a log down a hill, or the "right" to stare at a sunset.
Productivity isn't only measured by how much you make, and self-worth isn't delineated by the size of your bank account or breadth of your possessions. Hopefully you've figure that out, right? Strictly speaking, how do you "produce" something if you are collecting on the labor of someone else? Isn't that equally parasitic? Tired old boring Marxist-Capitalist arguments. Yawn.
Bummer, you have to pay taxes. Everyone has to pay taxes. Don't like it, move to a tax haven and practice your brand of idiocy there.
The insurance industry has already done this. In fact, you probably have at least one billing specialist on your staff who is tasked with dealing with the insurance bureaucracy.
Obama healthcare is the gateway drug to all that? So far, the "real world" versions of his tepid attempts to reform healthcare have been successfully carried out in multiple nations without the cause and effect you described. I suppose that means you are neither a doctor or a scientist, because both base their decisions on a sound scientific model that measure the real world with actual data.
Stupid people threatening violence. Where have I heard that before?
Conclusion: You are upset because you may not make as much money as you have, in the past. Bad. You may have to pay more taxes. Bad. You don't know what is going to happen, or how it will affect you. Even worse. You freak out, and put up your own website, and start babbling some nonsense about civil liberties, instead of being really clear and direct about what bothers you. Pathetic.
Nothing stops you from going into private practice, by yourself, and accepting cash only for your services. Many doctors already do this.
PelosiObamaReidCare (PORC) is an altruist-collectivist-statist cabal t
As soon as you use talk radio jargon, we know you aren't serious.
Doc! I spent a couple of fun-filled hours on your sites the other day. You are one wild and crazy guy. It's all about the testing services isn't it?
http://happilybitter.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/doctors-on-strike-founder-is-a-real-piece-of-work/
And I'm dying to know, Doc, in that section where you talk about apologies, why did only the woman who was unfaithful have to offer "complete transparency" to her husband, giving him full access to cell phone records and emails and the like, but none of the men in your scenarios had to be transparent? The guy with single friends merely had to promise to never to go to single bars with his buddies anymore - and Problem Solved! Trust Soon To Be Regained! - Why didn't he have to let his wife rifle through his various correspondences?
Gotta tell ya, that apology bit was pretty blatant, as if we uppity broads aren't irritated enough these days.
But still, other than that unpleasantness - thanks for the laughs.
I know this is probably pointless, given that "DrGreg" gets his talking points straight from Rush Limbaugh and probably doesn't believe anything that doesn't come out of Rush's mouth. But "DrGreg," here are a few facts that you cannot dispute:
1. Every other first-world country in the world has single-payer health care. The United States alone does not.
2. Those countries get better health care than we do. Statistics are available here; for example, the United States ranks 36th in the world when it comes to infant mortality rates.
3. Those countries spend an average of 10% of their GDP on health care costs; in the United States, we spend 19%.
Now, given these facts, the only question becomes, how stupid does someone have to be to fight to keep the current system? How stupid do you have to be to look at a system where we pay almost twice as much for worse health care and conclude "Yeah, that's the one I want!"
DrGreg,
Your argument made a tiny bit of sense until you so arrogantly wrote that the universal health care proponents wish to "steal the wealth produced by the more productive members of society (wealthy, business owners, stockholders, insurance companies) and then redistributing it to the less productive--some might say PARASITIC--members of society." I currently get a great health care policy from work, and I support universal health care. I don't like your attitude. I am an engineer and am not particularly wealthy. Apparently I do not fit your narrow definition of "productive". This class warfare argument you promote will ultimately be your undoing.
Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
Henry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
Henry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
the loudest voices tended to be the craziest, the most extreme, the least sensible, and the most easy to mock.
And these are part of the GOP's base.
No, you got it wrong, GOP's base have got jobs and are working to support DEMS base. They don't have time to go to townhall meetings to oppose this crap.
While I'm disappointed in the tone of the town halls, I do think part of it is a reaction to the way Congress tried cramming something, anything, through.
Sure, various types of health care reform have been proposed and discussed for decades. It doesn't mean there was a consensus on what needed to be done, and it doesn't mean that there was any correlation between what would work and what got in the bill.
Once you start buying votes with changes in legislation, all prior discussions go out the window. And when the CBO keeps saying that your legislation isn't going to do what you say it is going to do, maybe it's time to stop and think about what you're doing, instead of trying to rebuild the entire health insurance system in the US before you go on vacation.
Obama is making the same mistake Bush did with Social Security reform - go out and try to sell something that hasn't been actually detailed yet.
As for a public option, I personally think the legislators are not going to be able to keep their hands and the public treasury off a public option, and being able to ignore 50 different state's worth of health insurance requirements is too big of an advantage to expect private companies to compete against.
President Obama seems to be a congenital liar, and perhaps a little more stupid than his fans thought. A product of a long process of social promotion and congenial B studenthood, perhaps. (If he would release his transcripts we would know.)
Faced with dropping poll numbers and nationwide protests by angry voters, President Obama conducted a Potemkin Village townhall in New Hampshire, much like Stalin created fake Russian villages with fake prosperity and villagers ordered to smile and answer correctly to Western journalists. The New Hampshire Potemkin townhall was pathetic. Over 1,000 anti-Obamacare protesters were outside. Inside, staged softball questions, including one from a wee moppet whose mom ran part of Obama'selection campaign in Massachusetts. And a moronic analogy between Obama's proposed public health option and the US Postal Service. Does Obama want us to think the public health option will suck more and more taxpayer money into a black hole, while providing shoddy service, little innovation, and being forced to close hospitals and leave communities with diminishing services, as does the Post Office? Does he think that the governmental Post Office was created AFTER FedEX and UPS came into existence, to keep them "honest" by providing competition, as he dishonestly claims a government funded health insurance is needed to keep private insurance companies honest?
Leaving aside the Obama crew's failure to grasp that insurance companies provide a check on each other, as long as we are free to pick among them (and would provide more options and be more competitive if the government did not regulate them into uniformity with mandates and prevent them from competing across state lines for our business), what about the question of innovation? The US Post Office only managed to figure out a vending machines could sell a stamp decades after private retailers had been using them to sell gum, snacks, condoms, tampons and everything else. Governments do not innovate, and have little incentive to do so.
And what of government's failure to innovate if we allow Obama to nationalize the 1/6 of our economy devoted to medical care? One of President Obama'
s recent statements about the furor he is facing from voters is that it's OK that nationalized medical care may mean old people (and others? the handicapped? disabled? incurable? genetically compromised?) will be strongly "nudged" (to use Obama team member Cass Sunstein's new Orwellian term for totalitarianism) to forego costly treatments and just take pain killers and expire without making trouble, because "we" already ration health care in that those evil insurance companies sometimes say "no" to such treatments.
Of course one can always pick an insurance company that does cover what you need treated. Or you can pay cash for a treatment, even if that means mortgaging a house, borrowing from relatives, or appealing for donations. Obama is either dishonest or dumb in that he evades the way innovations happen, perhaps because he intends for innovation to end, or at least be strictly controlled by a federal government that will decide when any are needed. Innovators in a market economy usually create new products and services that are extremely expensive and available only to the wealthy initially, and then are made more cheaply by new competitors entering the market. A recent example being flat screen TVs or cell phones, once luxury items, a few years later, cheap and ubiquitous. Medicine is, or should be, no different, as such things as lasik surgery have shown.
Most medical services, other than cosmetic surgery, today are provided in very heavily regulated markets, and paid for by government-controlled health insurance provided to employees through their employers because of the tax code. Consumers do not have the same control they do in their free market purchases where they shop and control the purse strings. As a result the medical technologies covered by current government-regulated insurance have not fallen in price as rapidly as lasik surgery. Overall health expenditures increased from 5.9 percent to about 14 percent of gross domestic product from 1965 to 2001 and to 16.2 percent of GDP in 2008.1 Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently asserted that medical spending continues to rise faster than the GDP because the population is growing and new medical technologies and therapies are constantly being developed to enable more people to receive treatment than previously possible.2
Professor Mark Pauly of the Wharton School of Business stated, “Basically, most of the data I know about indicates that the lion’s share—whatever that is—of the growth in medical spending per capita, even after you adjust for the aging population, is accounted for by what we call technology.”3 Before the development of hip-replacement surgery, an arthritic hip was treated with aspirin and a walker. Now a single hip replacement can cost from $20,000 up to $50,000 depending on age and the length of hospital stay.4 Advances in medical equipment also drive medical expenses ever upward. MRI (magnetic resonance imagery) machines involve both heavy capital outlays and additional personnel. The average x-ray costs $80 while a similar MRI machine costs over $1,200 per examination. Unlike x-rays, MRIs can detect brain and muscular disorders.5
Obamacare plans to solve the problem of costs, not by deregulating and allowing consumers to shop as they do with lasik, and profit-seeking firms to compete, but by denying you access to the new services. Obamacare means that new drugs, treatments, procedures and medical devices will not come into being. Perhaps we will have a somewhat more equal access to treatment (except for the ruling political class, like Congress, who are more equal than others) unless we are elderly or in some other group deemed socially value-less. But the care we will be receiving will never include anything that did not already exist in 20
09.
Notes
Steve Eisenberg, medical director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, September 19, 2001, at www.ssc.k12.mn.us/insuradvminutes.htm.
Geri Aston, AMNews staff, “Medicare sound for now, but long-term outlook is=2 0gloomy,” April 17, 2000, Amednews.
com: The Newspaper for America’s Physicians, at www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_00/gvl10417.htm.
“Health Policy Discussion” from “Productivity in Health Care: The Value of Medical Technology,” AEI Conference, February 28, 2001, at www.newt.org/forum_aei_
health.htm.
Leigh Hopper, “Hip replacement firm issues recall,” Houston Chronicle, January 23, 2001, at www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/788942.
Mark H. Gurda, “Rising costs, September 18, 2000,” at www.healthinsure.com/rising_costs.html.
Bruce Majors is an unpaid Tea Party community organizer
Both my wife and I are self employed. I lean generally right and vote generally republican.
I can't buy health insurance from anyone at any price due to pre-existing conditions. I get kidney stones.
I am an otherwise healthy, law abiding, tax paying, natural born citizen. I deserve access to health insurance.
The GOP will lose me forever if they continue to obstruct any and all efforts that will allow me access to health insurance.
What makes you think you "deserve" to be covered? The only thing you DESERVE is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And let me emphasize the word pursuit! There are no guarantees.
The most frustrating thing in this whole debate is the obvious disconnect and the arrogance of politicians. A memo must have gone out to all democrats to "portray the town hall attendees as idiotic, fringe nuts directed to disrupt normal discourse by right-wing extremists and talk show hosts".
There is no acknowledgment that normal, hard-working Americans want to show up and get answers, and that their opinions are VALID.
The politicians have almost universally had the attitude that "we know what we're talking about, we are the elites, you are clueless and you aren't going to influence us anyway". I feel a huge sympathy for the way citizens are marginalized and sidelined with attack rhetoric, and this blog is no exception. I understand that this is political strategy, one big united front.
The climate in this country is to discount and disenfranchise those people who simply don't want the Obama healthcare rammed down their throats.
It will be a very interesting 2010 election cycle.
What a crock of crap! Marc Ambinder is a sap and is obviously in the pocket of the main stream media supporting this healthcare "insurance" legislation. I got news for you, Marc, if I wasn't working 1500 miles away from my home, I would be at those townhall meetings and I guarantee my protest would be one of the loudest.
It is so amusing. Mr. Ambinder. You are critical of the Republicans for not being organized enough while all the others accuse the Republicans for staging all these town meetings. NEWS FLASH!!!. The people are participating because they are already tired of the administrations arrogance towards a large segment of the population and they will not be fooled agian like they were with the "stimulous" bill. Maybe they just don't trust representives who don't read the bills they pass and are not willing to be subject to the same laws they pass on the rest of us.
They may not be eloquent (or have access to telaprompters) and it is easy for others, including the president, to use them as butts to their jokes. But at least they are real and willing to participate by speaking up.
The health insurance bill will not be ramrodded down our throats like President Obama is trying to do. He is the one you should be criticising for blowing an opportunity. He is failing to lead.