Mother-In-Law In Chief
Mickey Kaus does a good job analyzing Obama's chat about health care with NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman. An excerpt:
2) He lectures: It's also time, Obama tells his viewers, to lose weight, and stop smoking, and pull up your socks. Later on he tells people that they are foolish to prefer brand name drugs to generic drugs, and to want multiple medical tests. "If you only need one test, why do you want five tests?" Stop clinging to your tests! You're worse than those people in Pennsylvania.Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law? And get a chance to endure increased taxes for the privilege. Obama's supposed to be rallying support from voters, not castigating them. Outside the S& M parlor, most people do not enjoy paying to be disciplined.
3) The pain today is designed to avoid a problem that is over the horizon:
Well, I think that the most important thing for people to understand is that the system, as it is, is unsustainable. And if people understand that; if you look at the trend lines, where your premiums have doubled over the last nine years; your out-of-pocket costs have gone up 62 percent; the federal government is being bankrupt by Medicare and Medicaid - if you look at all these things, then you know that, just standing still, we are going to be overrun by health care costs.Once the American people understand that, then it's a matter of us making intelligence choices.
As a matter of policy, maybe it makes sense to "look at the trend lines" and ward off unsustainability down the road. As a matter of politics, it's a proven loser. When was the last time we cut Social Security benefits because, sometime in the future, the "trend lines" might produce a crisis? Voters tend to say, "Thanks. Call me when the crisis actually hits." Why gratuitously make the health care bill seem like the (apparently unpopular, now-stalled) global warming bill--a costly prophylactic measure to ward off a danger that experts tell us may hit in coming decades?
FDR would never have made a pitch like this. He would have talked in simple terms about what was in it for "the people" now. Obama's arid, wonky, condescending approach might convince a majority of subscribers to the Brookings Institution email list. It's hardly going to create the kind of public demand that will push health care reform over the goal line.
The first positive thoughts I've heard in a long time. I am for health care reform -- like untying it from the workplace and seeing that people like Deirdre's 19- or 20-year-old son, who has a pre-existing condition, can get care. I'm not for tanking private insurance companies and taking our insurance system socialist.
Via Instapundit, there are serious problems with the Health Care for All Americans Bill.
On page 16 (of 1,002) there is a paragraph that basically outlaws having private insurance.
See http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854 for the complete story.
Midwest Chick at July 16, 2009 6:17 AM
Has anyone ever actually seen Obama and Jimmy Carter in the same place, at the same time?
Jack at July 16, 2009 6:32 AM
Ya know, all that really needs to happen is to abolish the HMOs that took over the health insurance industry to begin with. Get rid of the HMOs and health care cost would go way down, because you'd be getting rid of the middleman. We didn't need Healthcare Management Organizations then and we don't need 'em now; they were created by people who wanted to make money for themselves, NOT by people who wanted to help people with their insurance issues. HMOs have created more problems than they've solved, doncha know!
Flynne at July 16, 2009 7:21 AM
http://www.despair.com/consulting.html
here you go Flynne
lujlp at July 16, 2009 7:48 AM
Flynne -
Who do you think CREATED the HMO?
Good ol' "Chappaquiddick" Ted Kennedy.
The same one who is pushing for total government takeover because the HMO concept failed.
Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
brian at July 16, 2009 7:51 AM
The HMOs were supposed to save money by ensuring that their members got early preventative treatment, thus avoiding all those expensive, late life treatments.
I guess that is no longer operative. I missed the memo.
Well, I'm sure that Congress will have the best of healthcare, regardless of what they do to the rest of us.
MarkD at July 16, 2009 8:13 AM
Looj!! Where was the spew warning for that one?!? O.O That was great! Spank you very much for sharing that.
Yeah, brian, I figured that rat bastard had a hand in that somewhere. Makes me ill to even think about it.
Well, I'm sure that Congress will have the best of healthcare, regardless of what they do to the rest of us.
Seriously, MarkD, you're right on the money about that!
Flynne at July 16, 2009 8:33 AM
But how much of that premium doubling is due to actual cost increases and how much is due to employers deciding not to pay as much of the cost and passing a higher proportion of their cost to the end user?
Most of us with employer-provided healthcare are not paying the full price for our healthcare. Our premiums are subsidized. If the level of subsidy is decreased, our cost goes up, but the total cost remains the same.
And how much does near-constant litigation by windfall-seeking malpractice attorneys add to the cost of medical care in this country?
I don't recall hearing much about tort reform and malpractice caps in yet another crisis-avoidance bill Obama wants passed before anyone has a chance to find out what's actually in it.
Conan the Grammarian at July 16, 2009 8:47 AM
My dad just sent me a picture of the bumper sticker of the year award, seen on a truck with PA plates:
Oone Big Ass Mistake America!
o.O
Flynne at July 16, 2009 9:02 AM
Conan - the premiums themselves are going up, sometimes by 15-20% annually.
I was looking at insurance through CBIA, and their small-business monthly premiums went up, on average, 10% EVERY QUARTER THIS YEAR. Obviously, you lock in your premium for a year when you sign, but at the end of the year, you're looking at your premium going up by 25% or so for the next year.
And a big part of that is the regulations that require all kinds of coverages.
brian at July 16, 2009 9:09 AM
Flynne, I've taken to asking Obama supporters just how he's an improvement over Bush or Palin.
They generally don't have any answer other than "war criminal!" or "snowbilly!"
The realization that they've been played is starting to set in.
Only now it's too late to do anything about it.
brian at July 16, 2009 9:15 AM
Folks, we really need to be calling our representatives and getting the Healthcare for All Americans bill killed. You can find your Congressperson using the following:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/
The time to call is before they vote!!
Midwest Chick at July 16, 2009 9:17 AM
MC - I wish it would matter. My representatives ignore me and anyone else that doesn't agree with them. My senators are a crook and a clown.
I live in what is easily the third most corrupt state in the Union behind Illinois and Rhode Island, and I'm not so sure about Rhode Island.
And you're probably safer looking at house.gov and senate.gov than some congress.org site for information.
brian at July 16, 2009 9:20 AM
"Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law?"
um, well some of us had an inkling...
SwissArmyD at July 16, 2009 10:51 AM
I just re-read the IBD editorial.
Essentially, if this crap sandwich becomes law this year, I'm going to be FORCED to buy the government health insurance.
Do you understand this? I will not be allowed to enter into a voluntary arrangement with a private company, and any such arrangement I make will be null and void.
Thanks to this, I fully expect to be denied coverage pending "regime uncertainty". And I will be forced to over-pay for a coverage plan that will be useless until FedGov outlaws private insurance and direct payment entirely, since there's really no incentive for doctors to take the government plan's insureds.
Thanks, 52%!
brian at July 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Brian -- As a native of the Gret Stet of Loosiana, I resent that you didn't include it in the list of states more corrupt than your own. What could you have been thinking? Or -- do you live there already? {8>)
cpabroker at July 16, 2009 11:06 AM
Sorry, cpabroker. Louisiana has more incompetence than outright corruption. Connecticut has a special wing in Danbury for our politicians.
brian at July 16, 2009 11:09 AM
Has anyone ever actually seen Obama and Jimmy Carter in the same place, at the same time?
They are most assuredly not one and the same. Granted, Carter was ineffectual and naive, but I never had a doubt that, at the end of the day, he would defend the country and come down on the side of American institutions like the free market and private enterprise. I felt the same about every president until this one.
In my mind, 0 is building a convincing case that he has no regard for such "antiquated" American institutions, and, indeed, is actively working to subvert them. Witness his takeover of major auto manufacturers and financial institutions, "stimulus" legislation that mostly consists of welfare payments to his voting constituencies and special interests, his proposed takeover of the health care system, proposed additional taxes on energy that will permanently reduce our standard of living, his avowed intention of redistributing national wealth to those he deems worthy, and the inexorable rise in the percentage of our GDP which is in the hands of the government, from the previous 30%, to 40% or more this year, eventually to European levels of 60% or 70%. All in 6 months. Multiply that by the 7 or more 6 month periods he has left, and anyone can see where we're headed with all this.
cpabroker at July 16, 2009 11:22 AM
Brian, I defer to you on that. All I'm sayin' is that any state that can surpass the corruption of Huey Long and the legacy he left (for intance, a former governor, Edwin Edwards, who, before he was convicted and sent to federal prison, vowed that he would not be caught "unless they catch me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy"), well, count me "impressed" with such a level of corruption.
Granted, the handling of Katrina and a few other things seem to have been mostly a matter of incompetence, but don't underestimate the levels of corruption endemic in Louisiana over the years.
cpabroker at July 16, 2009 11:32 AM
There is a Louisianna congressman who has a bill which would require all members of congress who vote for the current Dem healthcare bill to actually sign up for the "public option" for themselves and their families.
In other words, if it's so great why don't you use it.
So far he only has Republican support for this. Not a single Dem.
There should be a required question for every pol who pushes this plan. Will you sign up for it?
Obama already said he wouldn't when he got asked during that ABC infomercial.
sean at July 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Leave a comment