Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 23 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Why GOP will never support health care
Published Friday, March 19, 2010
The positions in the health care argument are now well established. Republicans believe in “Just Say No” on all things health care related.
They talk about incremental change, but they don’t mean it. Sen. Tom Colburn (R) made several smart suggestions about the costs and concerns of end of life care.
But then his friends translated that argument to the Democrats wanting “death panels.” Such has been the tenor of the conversations with Republicans.
Republicans say they favor the popular idea of ending pre-existing conditions exclusions to health coverage by insurance companies, but they know that, lacking a large pool of newly insured, there is no way to end the exclusions.
So the Republicans frankly don’t really want much change or believe in much change in health care. That is their position.
And, fundamentally, they oppose health care for another reason, a distrust of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg, writing Thursday in an Op Ed in USA Today wrote that the current bills would constitute “… a massive government takeover of the U.S. health care system.”
Sen. Gregg’s words suggest both a distrust of government as an implication and that the health care bills would generate a massive change.
Neither premise is accurate, but he and many others believe at least part of their claim.
First, if you are concerned about government getting involved in health care you are very late to the party. Government, through Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIPS, federal employees benefits and the Veterans Administration, already control directly more than 50 percent of health care in America.
And the balance of health care is regulated by the government. So if you are concerned about a “massive government takeover” it has already happened.
But the good news is the Veterans Administration hospitals provide excellent care; Medicare is highly popular, and Medicaid works well.
S-CHIPS provides insurance coverage for working families who do not have access to group insurance, and it too is popular. Federal employees have some of the best care in the nation.
Not only are these “government” programs effective and popular, they also have administrative costs far below the 20 percent of for profit insurers, averaging between 3 percent and 5 percent administrative costs overall.
In short, government health care works, and works on a very large scale. So if you want to claim that government having a role in health care represents a danger to health care, the facts indicate otherwise.
The second issue Republicans raise is the “massive” nature of the current bills in terms of change.
Well, yes, insuring an additional 31 million people through public plans is indeed a pretty large scale change.
Except right now the government is paying for the uninsured who stroll into the emergency room with subsidies to hospitals and inflated billings from hospitals to cover their expenses in caring for the uninsured.
With the new law these uninsured deadbeats would be required to buy their own insurance, not ride for free on the taxpayers, an idea Republicans once embraced.
Finally, the distrust of government by Republicans is both sincere and cynical. The truth is government does some things very well … the military, Social Security and Medicare are obvious examples.
The postal service is another example, with 97 percent of Americans rating its service good or great. Republicans sincerely are distrustful of even these successful government entities. They are just wrong.
But Republicans are also cynical, and their anger over Democratic methods to pass health care is simply anger over the Democrats finally defeating Republican obstructionism. Republicans loved reconciliation when they used it. Not so much now.
Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist for The Tribune and a former educator at Ohio University Southern.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by hustlinhillbilly (anonymous) on March 19, 2010 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just saw on the Cleveland Plain Dealer website, that Charlie Wilson is gonna vote for the bill. Never mind what the majority of the people want, we're too stupid to understand what's good for us.
Posted by pantherpride (anonymous) on March 19, 2010 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The saddest thing is that most people ARE too stupid to understand what's good for them. FOX News, Limbaugh and Beck lead them around by the noses, and Corporate America is picking up the tab while keeping their fingerprints off the political action.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on March 19, 2010 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, apparently we are stupid, because the President and Demo leaders assure us the only way to know what the bill will do to us is to pass it! Just asking: SOMEONE had to know what's in the bill, it didn't write itself!
There are so many asinine ideas in this column. It boils down to either you favor government running your life or you don't. You want outlandish deficits in exchange for government cradle to grave intervention, or you want to make it on your own, with some government services necessary for the protection of society, with government living within its means. But no politician, including Obama, has the guts or inclination to do that.
And yeah, Medicare is great - my mother has had massive health care in the past few months to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, yet she only paid less than $200 for it all.
Who paid the rest of that bill? And who is going to pay for it in the future?
And I will never understand how spending almost $1 trillion borrowed money lessens our deficit by 120 billion, and why that is so celebrated on Capital Hill today.
I guess I will have to wait til the bill is passed, apparently it's none of my business until then.
Posted by crackerjack (anonymous) on March 19, 2010 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Crawford:
My question to you is this: If your insurance agent handed you a 1,990 page document and informed you that this was your new health plan, and you have no choice in the matter, what would your reaction be? Especially if it was a known fact that your agent took the money you paid him for your premium and spent it lavishly and wrecklessly on other things besides paying your premium, therefore leaving him with one option, borrow to replace the money you have already paid. Then you read in the paper that your agent and your insurance company have declared bankuptcy. Now Mr. Crawford, would you trust the judgement of your agent when he told you this new policy was in your best interest?
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on March 19, 2010 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If this bill passes, this country will never recover.
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 19, 2010 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jim Crawford; My compliments, another excellent article full of care and concern for the "Common Man". There is one realistic and simple solution to the Health Care Problem. One Payer Plan or Socialized Medicine comparable to all the other major countries in the world. The United States needs some political martyrs to accomplish this for the betterment of all Americans
Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on March 19, 2010 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a PS: The present bill under consideration is not worth the time or effort and is totally ludicrous, not to mention the lack of moral standards and respect for the conscience of others.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 19, 2010 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stupid is a good term to describe those who put stock in anything that comes out of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh's mouths.
Where to begin with these insane posts.....
"either you favor government running your life or you don't. "
How does fixing our health care system translate to "running our lives?" Someone explain this to me, because all the "for-profit" insurers will still exist, AND they will be making even MORE money than before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"spending almost $1 trillion borrowed money lessens our deficit by 120 billion"
Let's see...I could leave this up to the CBO, who has dealt with this, and are the professionals, but here's the Cliff Notes version: Spend money now, reap the benefits later. Your estimate is the immediate savings. The total savings goes to around one trillion over the next ten years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If your insurance agent handed you a 1,990 page document and informed you that this was your new health plan, and you have no choice in the matter, what would your reaction be?"
Probably the same as any one else's......What?
That's because nothing is changing for insurance companies, which is the downside. They will still operate the same way, make more money, and get fatter off of our backs. However, there will at least be some pricing regulation on services, therefore lowering premiums in the process. Again, nothing would change for insurers. That's an apples to oranges argument. No comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Jim said....Republicans are bringing nothing worthwhile to the table, as should be expected, given the efforts in the recent decade. That is evident by the posts here. At least our President is working on real reform, something that scares the wits out of Republicans everywhere.
Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jon
Your President is doing nothing with regard to "real reform." What he is doing is making a real big problem into a bigger problem. You want real reform? Tort reform. That is a major start. And by the way, this 400 billion in "waste, fraud & abuse," if the number is known, they must know who is doing it. Why hasn't that been fixed first and those participating in it prosecuted? Or is it just another smoke screen to cover an even deeper agenda?
Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
is it just another smoke screen to cover an even deeper agenda
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An agenda that Glenn Beck has drawn on his chalkboard, with connections to the Kremlin, the anti-Christ, and the price of oil, no doubt. Because of the long national discussion about health care, even the dimmest citizens, however, are beginning to understand that business as usual isn't an option. They get it: our health care system isn't about health care, it's about profits. Big short term profits, that are being fiercely protected by corporations and the legislators they've bought. Long term, though, we're screwed if we don't start fixing it. The simple fact that the other side is threatening congresspeople and trying to scare citizens into believing we'd better leave it alone speaks volumes. Wake up, boneheads.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JonFerguson, I'll borrow your line, with all apologies:
That's because nothing is changing for insurance companies, which is the downside. They will still operate the same way, make more money, and get fatter off of our backs.
________________________________________________
I feel compelled to point out that the insurance companies work in tandem with employers/companies to create said insurance packages. The packages that many employers today offer their employees are DEPLORABLE.
Often, the better packages offered to employees are beyond their pay ranges. This is the fault of companies offering such garbage, not the insurance companies. The insurance companies give employers what they ask for.
I can't believe I'm on here defending insurance companies, but let's really look at why people have such garbage options anymore.
Companies make money by offering their employees crappy options. If they offer better options, they won't make as much money.
Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess I just said, in a round-about way, that employees simply aren't being taken care of the way they used to be in "the good old days" by their employers. You know, those cheerful 1950's depictions and such.
Many companies treat their employees like chattel anymore.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If they offer better options, they won't make as much money
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they don't yank your insurance or hike your premiums far beyond your ability to pay when you become ill, they won't make much money, either. They don't exist to pay for your health care - they exist to make money. Nobody loves the health care reform bill, but there's no question that it's the opening of a door, a good beginning of a health care system that makes sense and doesn't kill people.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jonferguson:
Where did the Beck and Hannity references come from? Did I mention the crap that flows from Olbermann as well? No.
I know, when arguing, it's easy to bring in the nutty commentators in to avoid substance. I know, all Republicans drool over Fox, in your mind, whatever.
What are we spending the nearly $1 trillion, may I ask? I know that $100 million is going to a hospital in Chris Dodd's state of Connecticut. But since you are the voice of reason, tell us, o sage? Give me the Cliff notes on the 2000 page document.What are we investing in that is going to reap benefits for us stupid Americans, who need government to take care of us, and not be concerned with what's in the bill til it's passed.
I'm interested to see the reaction of the twentysomething recent college grads with low paying jobs when they are forced to buy insurance they can't afford. Oh, wait, we'll get them on the government dole for that won't we?
Ah, the American dream!
And I'll reserve judgment if you don't mind as far as whether this bill "fixes health care".
Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It won't fix health care. It will help make it possible to fix health care. Recent college grads who are employed and can afford health insurance should have some, because 1. they're as likely as anyone (and often more likely than others) to need health care services as a result of accidents, pregnancies, etc. and 2. for them to get in will do the one thing that helps reduce costs: enlarge the pool of insureds, bearing in mind that 3. they won't always be twenty-two years old. "What's in the bill" and the number of pages is a popular GOP talking point that couldn't be more meaningless. Medicare and social security legislation were voluminous, because both are incredibly complicated. I can't recall any effort to explain the details of Bush's medicare legislation before it was passed through reconciliation. John Boehner's spray-tanned incredulity over this thing is bogus, like the manufactured consensus that Americans don't want health care reform. Dragging this stuff out into the light of day has been endless and exhausting, but also pretty enlightening.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does Boehner's tan have to do with anything? Again, making fun is not going to get the bill passed.
How is going to make it possible to fix health care? I'm seriously asking you. The Speaker, leaders, and even the President seem rather evasive on this, just assuring us all will be well when "it" passes.
Actually, the 1935 Social Security Bill was not that complicated - until a greedy Congress kept borrowing from the fund, leaving IOUs. And I don't recall Demos in 2005 carrying on about Bush prescrip plan, but since they used reconciliation, guess they did and I didn't notice.
On college grads, I totally agree, they need insurance. My child was knocked off insurance last year because of age. She has already gone to the ER and they had to eat her medical care cause her job does not give her benefits. She is barely making it now, without paying insurance. So I actually really like the keeping the kid on insurance until 26, especially with today's economic climate.
It would have been nice if last year, Congress could have passed a bill allowing that. But they were so busy preening over their huge majorities, and how they'd "won", and what a mess Bush left, nothing happened. And now they are desperately trying to pass a behemoth bill by pressuring reps, to whom this bill is not as wonderful as the gushing supporters portray. Because if it is, why isn't 216 votes, when you have 270 plus, easily attainable? Because apparently their stupid constituents want them to represent them, and they don't want the bill, and might vote them out in November.
I believe that Americans want health care reform, they just aren't convinced that this is it.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is going to make it possible to fix health care
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you're right about the remark about John Boehner's tan, it isn't helpful to mention it. It's just that the fake tan and the fake grassroots opposition to reform and the fake consensus that Americans oppose having "a massive government takeover of health care rammed down their throats" (who wouldn't, that sure sounds awful) is all part of the same thing to me, a big old snookering by people who have unlimited resources for snookering people, and billion$ of reasons to do it. The most important thing the passage of the bill will provide is momentum - the realization that we can do better if we try, that we've already started. Acknowledging that the system must be changed is absolutely essential. Too many people just don't get that, or do get it and think the government is too broken to fix the problem. Thirty million uninsured people will be covered, but you'll notice insurance companies aren't lobbying in favor of the bill. Some of their biggest moneymakers will become illegal; canceling coverage after a claim is filed, excluding people from insurance because of a pre-existing condition, the kinds of maneuvers that make it possible to pay big dividends to shareholders and big bonuses to CEOs. What will have to happen is experimentation with cutting costs, finding ways to make health care lean and mean and effective, with less waste, fraud and abuse. As an advocate of single-payer, I hope it will become more and more obvious that removing insurance companies from the equation is the best way to deliver health care. That is, to spend health care dollars only to diagnose and treat disease, to relieve suffering, to teach people ways to stay well. Medicare's administrative costs are 2-3%, for heaven's sake, The insurance industry's is 27%, nearly a third of all the money spent for health care, although they do exactly nothing to help anyone get well, or feel well, or stay well. They're in the business of making money, and they're furious at the thought of being forced out of business.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But I thought the premise was that insurance companies will be all happy when more people are enrolled? and premiums will come down with these 30 million additions.
Making things legal and illegal - I'm up with government making regulations to protect society - that's as old as the social contract.
I don't like government replacing a private industry. I've not been that impressed with government bureaucrats over private bureaucrats. The idea that government is good and unselfish and the insurance companies are evil and vampirish isn't convincing to me. Your conviction that health care dollars should only be spent on diagnosis, treatment, relief is admirable, just not sure why you think the government in a single payer system will be angelic and good, and cost efficient.
And I have doubts that the government will rein in the insurance companies, especially when so much insurance $ is hanging out of the pockets of both parties.
And it could be argued that this health care bill is being pushed by people with unlimited resources to snooker the American people. Time will tell. I read a great deal of the bill today online.
I still don't go for the price tag - couldn't find any site that would specifically say where the $900 billion plus is going. I did note that after the governor of Tennessee complained, TN is now getting two hospitals in this bill.
The problem to me is that tests cost too much money, and are ordered too often. I see people run to the doctor for every little thing, and willingly go through every test possible to stay on this earth a little longer, whether it helps or not. Doctors order test after expensive test to cover their malpractice rear ends. I don't see any of that cured in this bill.
Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, tort reform would cure less than 1% of the problem. That's right. Law suits account for less than 1% of the cost of delivering healthcare.
Second, I hear so many "I have my doubts" that it reminds me of why this article was written. The Republicans are working very hard at implanting that "doubt" in people's heads. No factual content behind it, just general "doubt"
I doubted that Kansas would get knocked out of the NCAA tournament in the second round, but I was wrong about that. Doubt is ignorance wearing a mask.
Cashmere, I applaud your efforts in reading the actual bill. It IS available for all to read, and you can go to the CBO's sight to see more about the finances involved. As has been previously mentioned, this bill isn't the fix, but it is a start. A good leap from the nonsensical system of money that prevails now.
Oh, and I used Hannity and Limbaugh as my examples....not Beck...and yes, Olberman is just as bad.....but you don't hear me quoting the nonsense he spews in my posts.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 20, 2010 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Including tort reform in the health care bill would be incredibly stupid. It's a controversial issue that would undoubtedly sink the whole thing, and for what? Nobody's foolish enough to think it would result in even one republican vote for the bill, and every credible expert says it would have little or no effect on exploding health care costs. Tort reform is a pet project of corporations that fear taking a big financial hit because of their toxic sludge, or because the anesthetist measured wrong. jonferguson is right - less than five percent of liability cases are ever heard, and only a fraction of one percent end with a ruling in favor of the injured party. That's how a corporatocracy rolls. And Cashmere's dislike of government bureacrats is certainly understandable - many are so repellent, it's kind of embarrassing to be a member of their species - but the fact that power corrupts isn't exactly news. There are many things that only a central government is big enough to do. When we need to go somewhere, we don't expect to have to build a road. We expect our food to be safe, and our savings accounts. We assume there'll be schools for kids to attend, and that our mail will arrive, and if we were threatened by a foreign nation, we'd expect our well-trained military to spring into action. The list is long, and it's nonsense to think these services are being forced on us by an overbearing, out-of-control bureacracy. "The common good" isn't a communistic notion; it's up to us who's in our government, even if half of us don't bother to vote. No one can make us, but no one can prevent us from doing it, either. Listening to republican legislators, I often think, If you hate government so much, why on earth didn't you choose a different career path?
Posted by bklibrary (anonymous) on March 21, 2010 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great article Jim. Great comment Keta! I would imagine a lot of us fear what might happen when the bill passes and if it passes. But one thing for sure the President is trying to do something better than staying at the status quo. One fellow mentioned our country will never recover. Well as far I can see we as our common people like myself who works 72 to eighty hours a week to keep our family and house barely afloat need somekind of regulations to stop the juggernaught of Big Raping Corporate profit from taking our country to the toilet and this my friends is what Republicans have done for the common people nothing to ease the pain on the working class poor. Thats why they are voting no they do not want their country club fees affected nor their safe haven homes at Hilton head to be affected. They like the life of going where they can with luxuries they so adore where many of us would just like to get by.
Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on March 21, 2010 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see that so many americans listen to Beck,Limbaugh
and fox news, since they are quoted so many times in these coments.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on March 21, 2010 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They show the most bizarre Beck/Limbaugh footage on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Hardball, etc. They watch FOX News so we won't have to.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)