With all this research, I have formed some opinions:
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) – I think that the President and health reformers in Congress have done an abysmal job of explaining both what they are doing and the broad based support they have. It has lead to confusion in the public and an opportunity for “Fabricators” to invent scary notions and feed them to a public already stressed by the economy and terror-related issues.
IMHO – The leadership of the Republican party – by this I mean Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck – who strike fear into the Party - have been outright deceitful in their characterization of reform. And their false rhetoric has been repeated by untold members of congress who don’t seem to have paid much attention to the facts of the various proposed legislation. Their opposition to reform seems more based on their desire to see President Obama fail at something than on a reasonable discussion of the needs of the country.
IMHO – Senator Baucus (D-MT) Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a coward. Although he says in principle that he supports a public option, he voted against both proposals in committee (by Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer) because he “didn’t think they’d get 60 votes on the Senate floor”. Now there's "leadership" for you! If you vote against your “principles”, you have no principles.
IMHO –Our national press has failed miserably at sorting fact from fiction and explaining the national consensus that is revealed if you bother to look into the various positions and opinions of concerned parties and the public. They would rather get extremists on the show and “debate” without any fact checking or rational context.
IMHO – There should be a compromise struck on the one truly divisive issue – the Public option. And here’s my proposal. Pass an Exchange program for both individual and group markets along with the other elements of reform (universal coverage, requirement to be insured, multistate access, etc). Give the insurance companies five years to implement. Set a firm measuring stick on both cost and quality of care. If the Exchange succeeds in lowering cost while maintaining quality and access, do not institute a public option and re-measure every five years for future compliance. If the Exchange does not meet the cost and quality hurdle, institute a public option and measure again in five years. I think this is a reasonable way to let the marketplace have a chance to make meaningful reform with a “safety net/incentive” to get it right before starting a big, new government program.
OK – I’m done being political…BB
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) – I think that the President and health reformers in Congress have done an abysmal job of explaining both what they are doing and the broad based support they have. It has lead to confusion in the public and an opportunity for “Fabricators” to invent scary notions and feed them to a public already stressed by the economy and terror-related issues.
IMHO – The leadership of the Republican party – by this I mean Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck – who strike fear into the Party - have been outright deceitful in their characterization of reform. And their false rhetoric has been repeated by untold members of congress who don’t seem to have paid much attention to the facts of the various proposed legislation. Their opposition to reform seems more based on their desire to see President Obama fail at something than on a reasonable discussion of the needs of the country.
IMHO – Senator Baucus (D-MT) Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a coward. Although he says in principle that he supports a public option, he voted against both proposals in committee (by Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer) because he “didn’t think they’d get 60 votes on the Senate floor”. Now there's "leadership" for you! If you vote against your “principles”, you have no principles.
IMHO –Our national press has failed miserably at sorting fact from fiction and explaining the national consensus that is revealed if you bother to look into the various positions and opinions of concerned parties and the public. They would rather get extremists on the show and “debate” without any fact checking or rational context.
IMHO – There should be a compromise struck on the one truly divisive issue – the Public option. And here’s my proposal. Pass an Exchange program for both individual and group markets along with the other elements of reform (universal coverage, requirement to be insured, multistate access, etc). Give the insurance companies five years to implement. Set a firm measuring stick on both cost and quality of care. If the Exchange succeeds in lowering cost while maintaining quality and access, do not institute a public option and re-measure every five years for future compliance. If the Exchange does not meet the cost and quality hurdle, institute a public option and measure again in five years. I think this is a reasonable way to let the marketplace have a chance to make meaningful reform with a “safety net/incentive” to get it right before starting a big, new government program.
OK – I’m done being political…BB
9 comments:
May I suggest you contact the Star Ledger and NY Times for a possibility that they would run your 4 essays in a 4-part opinion page serial.
No thoughts on the overstatement of the problem? The 46 million uninsured number that the Obama and the other socialists always quote is a gross overstatement of the numbers. Exact data is hard to come by. There are likely about 15-18 million uninsured americans.
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/
What about a high deductible option? Between 5 and 10 million of the uninsured have incomes that are more than 4 times the poverty level ($88,000)and choose not to be covered. The low deductible, co-pay models offered would, according to the attached, increase premiums by $1,200 per year for me. That's money I don't have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574426872264215790.html
The cost of the bill depends to a large degree in cuts in reimbursements to medical providers. That is not going to work. That implies that medical providers will willingly and voluntarily accept less money. As it stands right now, doctors simply over charge those with private insurance to compensate for lower medicare reimbursement rates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/health/policy/12insure.html?_r=1&hp
I don't believe that the idea of Obama's death panel is as far-fetched as you think. England has socialized medicine, and they have rules regarding end of life treatment. According to the attached, "It said one million NHS patients had been the victim of “neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes cruel” treatment over the past six years. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/6129848/Are-we-killing-our-elderly.html
In Canada, another country with socialized medicine, severe issues with both the lack of available treatments...
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
and exploding costs
http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1703464
So in summary, Obama's socialist medicine addresses a grossly overstated problem with a solution that will drive up costs, balloon the deficit and lower the quality of care in the country.
Max Baucus is such an ass. I have to agree with you Brian, if you don't vote with your principles why have them (the question really is does he have them?). "Democrats" like him just drive me crazy.
The extreme media perspectives feed the talk show hosts and they get the ratings. While the debate is normally good, over-indexing on points sounds like that A guy in Iran saying the holocaust never happened - great strategy to put people on the defensive but it's totally destructive and eats at the host. Brian I like your suggestion on the 5 year approach with proof checks. Only concern is it's too reasonable.
Post a Comment