Who says no in a government-run health-care system?

posted at 3:56 pm on July 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post asks a question that has such an obvious answer, Alec MacGillis takes a couple of dozen paragraphs to avoid answering it.  Who says no in a single-payer system?

The question came from a Colorado neurologist. “Mr. President,” he said at a recent forum, “what can you do to convince the American public that there actually are limits to what we can pay for with our American health-care system? And if there are going to be limits, who . . . is going to enforce the rules for a system like that?”

President Obama called it the “right question” — then failed to answer it. This was not surprising: The query is emerging as the ultimate challenge in reining in health-care costs that now consume $2.5 trillion per year, or 16 percent of the economy. How will tough decisions be made about what to spend money on? In a country where “rationing” is a dirty word, who will say no?

That’s easy: the payer says no.  The reason why most of us haven’t had liposuction or plastic surgery is because we have said, “No,” either for financial or common-sense reasons.  Health insurers say no now to a range of treatments, mostly either elective or experimental, in order to save costs.  When the government replaces insurers, they will say no — but they will also have closed the system so that no one can pay their own money and say yes for themselves.

Oh, it won’t sound like “no.”  How will the government say “no”?

Although Obama and his advisers have held up providers’ spending patterns as the crux of the crisis, proposals in Washington go only so far in addressing the thorniest questions about who gets what care. Instead, cost-saving measures are focused on introducing a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, or on general cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals.

The bills being written would put new emphasis on evaluating treatments according to their “comparative effectiveness,” or weighing the risks and benefits of different types of treatment for the same illness, but the bills stop short of incorporating cost-benefit analyses into the findings or of requiring that providers abide by conclusions.

Comparative effectiveness is a rationing system that weighs the costs of treatment against the relative value of the person getting treated.  The people most likely to be affected by “comparative effectiveness” rationing in a single-payer system are the elderly.  Stuart Altman explained that all too well to Congress earlier this year:

Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.

Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know, I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for people to make the right decisions, both for themselves and for the care.

Basically, the government will tell some people that they’re just not worth the effort to treat, and will send them to hospice to die instead.  And thanks to what will eventually be a nationalization of the health-care industry, just as in Canada and “England”, there won’t be any private options left, either.

Such a shift would probably be a shock to the system of many Americans, who have grown used to having any and all health-care options, regardless of cost, available to them.

Not if they start paying attention now.  If they do, they can stop ObamaCare in its tracks by calling their elected representatives and promising to replace them if they support this.  It’s really not rocket science at all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I want the same Socialist bureaucrats who have bankrupted this country, and who are spending trillions of dollars on top of that, making healthcare decisions for me and mine.

I do. Yes, I do.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

They won’t really say no, they will tell you to get in line, and you will die before treatment, of old age if not of the disease.

Vashta.Nerada on July 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I want to know when Congress and Les Obamaa are going to sign themselves up for Obamacare.

SouthernGent on July 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

NO to your mother’s kidney dialysis but YES to Sean (Shawna’s) transgender operation. Democrat paradise is finally here, just like Detroit.

noblejones on July 8, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Not if they start paying attention now. If they do, they can stop ObamaCare in its tracks by calling their elected representatives and promising to replace them if they support this. It’s really not rocket science at all.

And just as soon as they see this on ABCBSNBCCNN…
They will jump right up and let them know. Unless American Idol is about to come on. Then they will just add it to the other things on the “around to it” list

cozmo on July 8, 2009 at 4:03 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Oh come on! What could go wrong?

/

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Comparative effectiveness is a rationing system that weighs the costs of treatment against the relative value of the person getting treated.

Simple answer “Yer old go die”

Hope you Baby Boomers that have so denigrated life, exalted abortion and euthanasia enjoy the fruits of your labor. President Obama. You voted for him and supported him and he will let you die in the street for it.

LincolntheHun on July 8, 2009 at 4:04 PM

The preview photo that comes with this post looks disturbingly like Mike Huckabee.

Robert_Paulson on July 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Who says no in a government-run healthcare? The Bureaucrats in charge of your life.

Weebork on July 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM

SouthernGent on July 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Obamacare is just for the “little people”

LincolntheHun on July 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Let us all remember, that it is the children of today who are the new breed. They are the true believers. They are the spawn of the Socialist takeover of the public school system. To be sure, Socialists have always existed in this country. But the children of today are the new hope for Utopia.

It only follows that the Socialists, inside of the Beltway, will seek to limit, or eliminate, the provision of State-controlled healthcare to us – to those who were not co-opted by the Socialist education system.

After all, we are in the way.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:06 PM

We do need better information about risks and benefits, but the scariest thing is what you point out here- the person writing the checks (Uncle Sam!) will make the call.

I am of the opinion we could reduce some costs if people understood CPR will break your ribs and probably won’t save your life if you have severe cardiac disease. I don’t want a health czar saying that fixing a broken hip is unneccessary for a cancer patient (which is the example Obama has personally alluded to).

cs89 on July 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Obama has already stated that if the govt feels that you are too far gone for any further medical treatment to benefit you, (with the govt deciding when that point has been reached, of course) then you will get no further medical treatment.

MarkTheGreat on July 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Who says no?
don’t forget the young boy, and his mother who did not want chemo treatment to continue for the boy who had cancer. Judge ordered the boy, and his mother, to submit for treatment.

If you permit the government to control who will and who will not be treated, then you become a slave to the government.

And the government will charge you for that treatment that you do not want.

Skandia Recluse on July 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Ed, that picture makes my teeth hurt whenever I see it!

However what makes me really break into a cold sweat and sends a cold chill down my spine is thinking about what will happen when our gubment takes over health care!

When that happens I suspect there will be many more pictures like this poor gentleman, only there will be other pictures to come out like pictures of back room surgeries, TV commercials for “do-it-yourself” appendectomy’s, etc!

The gubment can’t even run its own life and now they want to run more of mine…scary stuff indeed!

Liberty or Death on July 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Such a shift would probably be a shock to the system of many Americans, who have grown used to having any and all health-care options, regardless of cost, available to them.

We’re so dang spoiled on liberty, we don’t appreciate the benefits of socialism.

What are they again?

Daggett on July 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM

But the government will say NO in exactly the same way as AnninCA’s current Kaiser plan, right?

myrenovations on July 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Democrats are going to start telling THE top voting demographic that they can’t have these procedures?

Pffft. No way in hell will they say “no” to the elderly, just like they won’t say “no” to the trial lawyers with regards to malpractice.

That’s why costs will explode with this stupid idea. The problem of third party payments and moral hazard will explode.

NoDonkey on July 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I want to know when Congress and Les Obamaa are going to sign themselves up for Obamacare.

SouthernGent on July 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Louisiana Congressman John Fleming (M.D.) recently introduced legislation whereby every member of Congress who votes for Obamacare must enroll themselves in the program.

I wonder if it will pass.

World B. Free on July 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM

O/T – I work for a regional healthcare alliance…the first quintuplets born in one of our hospitals and believed to be the first in the region were born today…no fertility drugs involved…the odds of this occuring naturally are 1 in 65 million pregnancies…all five babies are doing well.

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Process:

1. DNC entrollment….check
2. No DNC entrollment….no check
3. RNC enrollment….no check
4. No RNC enrollement…..no check without ACORN certified registration card.
5. Old, non-contributing DNC member…..added to solent green list…no check
6. Young, non-contributing DNC member…..jail then enrollment…check
7. Citizen of Texas, Montana, or Alaska, no check unless approved by SCOTUS and the CheckCzar.

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:10 PM

I was really hoping never to see that picture again. Now I will go read.

Cindy Munford on July 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Louisiana Congressman John Fleming (M.D.) recently introduced legislation whereby every member of Congress who votes for Obamacare must enroll themselves in the program.

I wonder if it will pass.

World B. Free on July 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM

That is a thing of beauty. God bless him.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Five preemies would overwhelm the NICU in any Canadian major city (much less the boonies), those children were truly blessed to be born before the Democrats can destroy speciality care in this country.

NoDonkey on July 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM

8. No proof of citizenship, double entrollment….check, check.

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM

When the government replaces insurers, they will say no — but they will also have closed the system so that no one can pay their own money and say yes for themselves.

Not no one. You can bet the Kennedys, Pelosis, Obamas, Gores and other of the Royalty cast of the country will get whatever they want, including more facelifts for Nancy.

KentAllard on July 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM

My solution is simple: If the government tells me that I am too old for treatment and should just accept death, after having fleeced me for an obscene amount of taxes, then I plan on taking as many of those health-care bean counters with me as I can.

That’s some serious savings right there!

Respects,

AW1 Tim on July 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM

You don’t want to see the side-effects of the government health care prescription.

(Gary Varvel is awesome!)

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:10 PM

The State cannot afford to provide healthcare for so many, at one time. Therefore, in order to alleviate the parents of the burden of what must, necessarily, be done, for the good of the State … and for the good of the People.

The State will call for the immediate termination of 3 of the 5 children.

It is for the good of the State – for the good of us all.

Be it so ordered.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM

My favorite is his notion that old people need to accept dying. I’m wondering…what’s old? 45, 55, 65, 75? What is the age that the government will consider you old?
RR

ramrants on July 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM

This wonderful bill will create a “black market” for health care where those that can afford the under-the-table medical care will get it. Sort of the same as Canadians and Brits coming to the US for care at this time.

The irony is that the party that uses the fear of “back alley and black market abortions” as a crutch to prop up their policies against the unborn will create the biggest black market since the days of the Soviet Union.

This Hope and Change thing is really starting to work out well.

IndyConserv on July 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM

9. Member of Congress with positive voting record…Nitrogen head freeze, permanent entrollment…check

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM

If they do, they can stop ObamaCare in its tracks by calling their elected representatives and promising to replace them if they support this. It’s really not rocket science at all.

Calling my Democrat Rep (Halverson) won’t matter. She will know where the contact came from and infer, rightly, that I vote Republican. These representative districts are WAY TO BIG. We need to get to something like one rep per 100K people to get our federal government functioning better.

WashJeff on July 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM

My 76 y/o mother had knee replacement surgery scheduled for January. After hearing more about 0bama’s GovCare, and at my suggestion, she moved her surgery to next month.

An independent voter, she was a little squishy about 0bie a year ago. Today, not nearly so much.

NTXLass on July 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM

10. Gold casket…triple check

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM

NO to your mother’s kidney dialysis but YES to Sean (Shawna’s) transgender operation. Democrat paradise is finally here, just like Detroit.

noblejones on July 8, 2009 at 4:01 PM

No to granny’s hip replacement (sorry, she’s too old), but yes to pre-natal care and residential drug rehab programs for millions of illegal aliens. (And hey, don’t worry about how granny will live with the pain of her deteriorating hip; the gov’t will send her hobbling home with a pamphlet on using meditation to cope with chronic pain).

AZCoyote on July 8, 2009 at 4:22 PM

All this money that the hospitals say they are going to shave off the costs? I hope it is coming out of the nurses’ salaries. All the nurses I know support Obammy and this healthcare plan so let them put their money where there mouths are for once.

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM

NO to your mother’s kidney dialysis but YES to Sean (Shawna’s) transgender operation. Democrat paradise is finally here, just like Detroit.

noblejones on July 8, 2009 at 4:01 PM

if i was going to have a transgender operation on the taxpayers dime, i would pick the name Kookeneisha over Shawna anyday.

Ghoul aid on July 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM

My favorite is his notion that old people need to accept dying. I’m wondering…what’s old? 45, 55, 65, 75? What is the age that the government will consider you old?
RR

ramrants on July 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM

The Obambi gubment has to pay for free healthcare somehow so what better way then to kill off those that are approaching retirement age! It’s a win-win for the Obambi gubment, just get rid of people before they reach retirement and you can save billions on Medicare, Medicaid, and social security and re-distribute it to the more worthy illegals and the professional gubment assisted welfare class, you know the ones that just take from and don’t put into the system, not to be confused with those pesky and smelly productive citizens that actually pay taxes!

Liberty or Death on July 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM

11. Someone who thinks $500 toilet seats are obscene but is ok with $1,500 cups of water….check.

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM

(And hey, don’t worry about how granny will live with the pain of her deteriorating hip; the gov’t will send her hobbling home with a pamphlet on using chronic and meditation to cope with chronic pain).

AZCoyote on July 8, 2009 at 4:22 PM

FIFY.

This is a Democrat administration, doncha know.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Louisiana Congressman John Fleming (M.D.) recently introduced legislation whereby every member of Congress who votes for Obamacare must enroll themselves in the program.

I wonder if it will pass.

World B. Free on July 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Here’s a hint: both of the Democratic health care bills now circulating specifically exempt all federal employees from having to use the public plan.

AZCoyote on July 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM

The British have bad teeth anyway. No loss.

Mr. Joe on July 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Health insurance and health care are two seperate commodities. You buy the first to mitigate the cost of the second , if the second is free there is no use for the first.

fourdeucer on July 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Actually, it may be the lawyers making health care decisions: “Obama Plan Calls for Making the Health Care System More Efficient by Having Trial Lawyers Provide Medical Services More Directly” at http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-plan-calls-for-making-health-care.html

Mervis Winter on July 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM

NoDonkey on July 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Yes. They are in our brand new state of the art NICU in our brand new state of the art children’s hospital. They are most fortunate.

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Are they union? The unions are pushing hard to get into healthcare, to replace the manufacturing base for members.

cs89 on July 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM

The British have bad teeth anyway. No loss.

Mr. Joe on July 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Dentists in the 57 states put up votives to Dick ‘One shot’ Cheney.

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Sorry…not funny.

I’ve seen pictures of them.

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Very good discussion of limitations in England’s national health service, and warning for us here.

From one of the comments to the article:

At 7/08/2009 3:28 PM, Blogger Robert Miller said…

I apologize for what may appear to be a gratuitous link to my own blog, but I’ve got a chart here which sheds some light on what some people are saying.

The top four causes of death in the US (as of 2005) are heart disease, cancer, stroke, and respiratory illness. That suggests to me that diet, smoking, and lack of fitness are the major problems in the lives of Americans – not a lack of access to affordable health care.

Our aging population, genetic predisposition, and the national diet (in general) may also play a role.

Life expectancy is not an adequate measure of the effectiveness of a national health care system. It is influenced by the number of people who get a disease, not how well they are treated.

If you look at survival rates, the United States tops the list for many types of cancer. Survival rates are a much better measure of how well a health care system distributes care and achieves results.

Also see this article which shows England far down the list on survival rates and the US at the top of the list.

JiangxiDad on July 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM

OT here:

Just read one of the headlines about the death of Oscar Mayer, has anyone (Ed?) checked PETA’s website for some sort of comment on this news…if PETA did comment I’ll bet it’s full of kind words and sentiments!

Ok, I’ll do the dirty work and check their site and report back but I’ll need a shower after!

Liberty or Death on July 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM

This is a Democrat administration, doncha know.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Eh, you’re right, but they’ll probably give granny the Spanish-language version (she’ll be in too much pain to notice), so it won’t matter anyway.

AZCoyote on July 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM

The British have bad teeth anyway. No loss.

Mr. Joe on July 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Maybe we’re learning the cause.

Esthier on July 8, 2009 at 4:35 PM

AZCoyote on July 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Muerta de dignidad.

Limerick on July 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Are they union? The unions are pushing hard to get into healthcare, to replace the manufacturing base for members.

cs89 on July 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Yes. The nurses I know have been unionize for decades.

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM

ladyingray on July 8, 2009 at 4:32 PM

What makes you think that I was being funny? The fact remains that, when the State controls our healthcare decisions, especially in light of the cost/benefit analysis that is requisite for the State to function in its decisionmaking … decisions like this will, necessarily, follow.

You have but to look to China.

I wasn’t trying to be funny – not in the least.

I was providing you with a taste of the future, should the State take control of our lives.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:40 PM

There are two ADDITIONAL ways to say NO.

1. By making payouts so low that doctors lose money on certain treatments or patients. That way, the gov’t says, “We cover X,” but in reality, no one will provide the service because it is a big money loser.

2. A second impact of low payments is that you reduce the number of providers, and make each provide carry a heavier patient load. That way, you have effective rationing in the form of long waits.

Clark1 on July 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM

cs89 on July 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM

SEIU and the California Nurses Association are big RN unions. I just checked – they also support card check, the most dishonest legislation around.

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM

This wonderful bill will create a “black market” for health care where those that can afford the under-the-table medical care will get it.

IndyConserv on July 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Smart people are already establishing tiny neighborhood clinics. These are an excellent investment opportunity.

RushBaby on July 8, 2009 at 4:47 PM

It is for the good of the State – for the good of us all.

Be it so ordered.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM

In other words, social justice, which is the change Obama believes in.

Unfortunately, he has no clue what the word “justice” means. To him, it means redistributing outcomes according to what the state deems “fair” at any given moment.

Daggett on July 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Clark1 on July 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM

A third impact is providers leaving the profession in droves.

Why the hell would anyone want to go through the hell it takes to go through med school, take on the loan burden, only to make a slightly above income while working 70 hour weeks?

We already have a physician, nurse and pharmacist shortage and that’s at current reimbursement rates. What will happen when reimbursement shrinks?

Do any of these idiot Democrats think of this? Are they even aware any of these problems exist?

And why are a bunch of failed lawyers reforming health care anyway? How about reforming our crappy legal system?

NoDonkey on July 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM

A second impact of low payments is that you reduce the number of providers, and make each provide carry a heavier patient load. That way, you have effective rationing in the form of long waits.

Clark1 on July 8, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Yep. You make it difficult to call in and make an appt. (Oh, we’re all filled up; call back at the beginning of next month. Oh,we don’t have this month’s schedule, so call back in a few days. Oh, we’re all filled up – call back next month.)

You make it even more difficult to get an appt with the type of specialist you need to ultimately see. Someone here from Canada said he had to make appts with 3 doctors before he could see a surgeon many months later to schedule surgery on a wrist injury. The delay caused him to lose 85% use of his wrist.

After getting an appt, you make the wait to see the doctor too long.

That’s how they ration care. And remember, this is not going to be forced on government workers. And nurses always get a head of any line because they have working relationships with the doctors.

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM

There will be back doors for certain people…who are more relevant than the rest of us. Say….Demi Moore. Do you really think they’d turn her down for her next round of plastic surgery, so she retains the body of a 24 year old?

capejasmine on July 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM

So, there is going to be a law against doctors starting their own practice and treating patients at their own hospital and patients paying with their own insurance or with cash?

That’s going to be entirely outlawed?

Except it won’t be outlawed for government workers who will be able to have their own insurance plan to see their own doctors and the government will not be interfering with that?

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 5:01 PM

I just spoke to someone from LarouchePac. They had a table set up outside of the post office. (not on post office property). The black woman standing by a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache caught my attention! They are REALLY against Obama, even though they are democrats. Has anyone heard of them?

ctmom on July 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Larouche? Yes. They are nuts. Really really nuts. Crazier than donks.

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Not if they start paying attention now. If they do, they can stop ObamaCare in its tracks by calling their elected representatives and promising to replace them if they support this. It’s really not rocket science at all.

by Ed Morrissey

.
Former President Carter initiated the Dept of Education on October 17, 1979. For almost forty years of the Dept. of Education & public schools have been dumbing down our society. Now, what would it take for a sudden intuitive leap of understanding (not that kind of catholic epiphany Ed) for the American population to grasp the short and long term effects? I would be very surprise to say the least. Face it Ed, Obamacare is rocket science to them.
.
They have been indoctrinated by a host of things [i.e.] 1) The socialistic point of view by the public school systems. 2) Parental absentia or less quality alone time with the kids. 3) Their collective apathy towards politics itself is out of wack if not dangerous.
.
Unless there is a collective come to Jesus moment out there in our America with a majority of them paying specific attention to the ramifications of this Obamacare disaster, we are totally screwed. Ed, our society has a very short attention span. You know it and I know it. I’m not giving up here at all, although it seems so. It is just the facts of life that now thrive here in America. Will we have to wait until it can be repealed? Can something like this be repealed? Who knows?

Americannodash on July 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I hope the aging, Berkley hippies are the first ones that are sentenced to hospice. I can’t wait to hear their outrage. Every chance I get, I will rub it in their faces.

13Girl on July 8, 2009 at 6:00 PM

There never has been a state-run health care system that did not make sure that the politically connected insiders got the best of care. No matter how bad health care is for you and me, the aging Berkeley hippies will be well looked after in their dotage as Heroes of the Revolution.

gridlock2 on July 8, 2009 at 6:17 PM

It’s going to be the rich and the government workers vs. the rest of us when it comes to healthcare.

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Kind of figured by the comment. California Nurses Association is pretty typical, SEIU is big and pushing more into healthcare, as are others.

Lots of non-union nurses seem to be more reasonable, IMO.

cs89 on July 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Another group who will say “no” was left off the list: Canadians. They’ll just have to stay home because the lines will be long and the quality of care will be just as low here.

Advocate For Change on July 8, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Many are looking forward to the government run system as medical rationing, and the “quality of life” restriction that will be made for no care, will mean that pesky grandpa & grandma will no longer be a burden to mom and dad.

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 7:16 AM

The only thing worse than standing at the end of the Universal Health Care line, will be standing at the front of the line.

speed on July 9, 2009 at 7:19 AM

Blake on July 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM

Kind of figured by the comment. California Nurses Association is pretty typical, SEIU is big and pushing more into healthcare, as are others.

Lots of non-union nurses seem to be more reasonable, IMO.

cs89 on July 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Where do we look to, “Look for the union label”, on a California nurse?

Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 7:43 AM

There might not be Death Panels but there was this:

A panel established that helps “Distribute Economic, Affordable and Therapeutic Healthcare Solutions”.

Also known as D.E.A.T.H.S.

Oh.. wait.

DaveC on March 15, 2010 at 10:10 AM