This article in the Weekly Standard has an article with the same title as this post.
In the article the authors, James C. Capretta & Yuval Levin, lay out the political strategy likely to be used to get the US to a single payor health system.
It’s well worth reading the whole article, but I’ve excerpted some of the more important, and frightening, parts.
The approach has been carefully designed to avoid the failings of the last major Democratic attempt at health care reform, the Clinton administration’s effort in 1993 and 1994. By providing only an outline and leaving the detailed work to Congress, the administration avoids having the complexity of the plan hung around its neck before legislators even take it up. By creating the impression of choice and competition, they avoid some of the opposition of private insurers–who will play along if they think they will have a chance at participating in the new marketplace. And, by providing something of an out for employers with the fine, Democrats hope also to avoid the opposition of business groups.
In sales, this is called “bait and switch”. The Democrats are promising that you and I will get better health care for less money, that employers will be relieved of the burden of having to provide and pay for health insurance, and will allow the current health insurers to participate in the process. The problem is, none of this is true. You and I will have worse health care, with fewer choices, longer waits, and rationing after a while. Employers will find that they are not only being fined, but that their taxes are being increased to pay for the health care of their employees. Health insurance companies will find that they are increasingly unable to compete because they can’t use taxpayer subsidies to make up for premium reductions. Hospitals will find that their costs will go up as their rates must come down to meet government regulations.
Most people are happy with their health insurance, even if they complain about the cost. No health plan is perfect and employers have to balance premiums, deductibles, and coverage. It’s not easy, but for the most part it works. Some people, but not as many as the Democrats and media would like you to think, want a single payer government run health care system, but the vast majority don’t.
Last year the Kaiser Family Foundation found that well over 80 percent of insured Americans rated their health insurance as
excellent or good.
Those are very good numbers, ask any politician if he’d like an 80% positive rating.
Then there is the price tag. Do not, for one second, believe that government funded health care is going to be less expensive AND maintain the choice and quality we enjoy now.
There are really only two ways to keep costs under control: by building a real marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers make choices or by imposing arbitrary limits, determined by the government, on care. As the Democrats have rejected the first option they will quickly have no choice but to adopt the second.
“Arbitrary limits” means rationing. Which means that a bureaucrat, not you or your doctor, would have the final say over treatment. A government department would decide who gets a hip transplant and how has to make do as best they can. Who gets dialysis and who is “too old” for it to be worth while. And so on. Do you think politics would play a role in that? I do.
The Obama team hopes that by enacting the expansions of coverage but not the needed cost-controls this year, they can create unalterable facts on the ground without having a real debate about rationing. Then in a year or two, they will come back, as all government health insurance programs do, and insist on stricter controls in the name of protecting the Treasury. It is clear they are already contemplating this next step, with growing talk of federal “effectiveness research” and Obama’s recent musings in the New York Times Magazine about whether his own grandmother should have been allowed to have a hip replacement in her final months.
Bait and switch, as I said earlier.
I hope that the Republicans in both houses, as well as some of the more moderate Democrats will be able to stand up to this and force a full and open debate. Given the proclivities of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, I’m not very optimistic.
Whether you agree with me or not on this issue, you should educate yourself. Find out how health care in other countries really works, don’t believe the media. Find out how expensive Medicare and Medicaid are in this country and what they do to competition.
Remember, National Healthcare combines the efficiency of FEMA with the compassion of the IRS.
The efficieny of FEMA with the compassion of the IRS.Priceless.I worked in England briefly, for a US company. I had one encounter with the health care system after a cut got badly infected. It was enough to cure me of any longing for national health care. Horrific treatment, long lines, no choices, and if you’re not young and healthy, too bad, so sad, we need your treatment money for the poor.
Thanks for reading and posting Brigid and thanks for the compliment on the phrase. Yes, there is a T shirt!
I lived and worked in Italy for a year and made many Italian friends, many of whom had spent time, years, in the U.S. working. They all lamented the poor standard of care provided by the Italian nationalized health care system and wanted very much to have the benefits of the U.S. care. We need to keep the Government out of the business of running our health care. I do not trust these clowns to run anything so complex without mucking it up. Most of them can not even manage to run their lives without putting money in their freezer, committing adultery, picking up gay lovers in airport bathrooms, or even pay their taxes! Why would I want them telling me what care I can and can not have!!!