Five Freedoms you’ll lose in ObamaCare
posted at 12:15 pm on July 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
For all of the effort to rapidly pass a health-reform bill, one would think that the entire system had collapsed. However, Gallup polling shows that 83% of Americans consider themselves satisfied with their current insurance plans, and care continues to excel. The biggest problem is the cost, which has risen substantially — although as the Washington Post pointed out this weekend, that primarily comes from enormous technological leaps in treatment that saves lives.
Even if cost savings requires health-care reform, what would those 83% of Americans be willing to surrender to get it? Fortune explains the five freedoms Americans will have to trade for ObamaCare, and why that will be a tough sell to that 83%:
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Health committee, contradict the President’s assurances. To be sure, it isn’t easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company’s Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests — you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage — including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money — but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can’t have. It’s a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Forget about having any of the following:
- Freedom to choose what’s in your plan
- Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
- Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
- Freedom to keep your existing plan
- Freedom to choose your doctors
Only the second actually surprised me. After all, Barack Obama has talked about making preventive medicine a highlight of his plan, and driving down costs by ensuring that Americans adopt health habits. But ObamaCare spreads out the effect of that through “community pricing,” not individual pricing. If you quit smoking in the current system, you can usually expect a cut in your rates. In ObamaCare, you’ll just have the pleasure of knowing that the cost savings your decision represents will go towards subsidizing the health care of people who refuse to quit smoking.
ObamaCare eventually aggregates everyone into an HMO system from which no one can escape. Call it the Hospital California; once you’re in this system, you can “check out,” but you can never leave.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
You know, with all this fuss about the public option – Obama doesn’t really need it. All he has to do is seize an ailing insurance company just like he did GM or Chrysler. Then he’s got his public option he can use to put private insurance out of business.
Daggett on July 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Ed, the Birther pic is screwing up the blog. FYI.
upinak on July 28, 2009 at 12:17 PM
What’s a little freedom?
Obama care means that illegals will be covered, along with people who can well afford health insurance but don’t want to pay for it, as well as people who are already eligible for Medicaid but too lazy to sign up for it.
All this for a trillion dollars.
A bargain at half the price.
Good thing we elected this clean articulate man President.
NoDonkey on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Since I only continue to smoke so that I can support all of the children on S-Chip, I would like to know if that program would end if the full on ObamAssurance was implemented.
If we have a paid for public option, can’t the children get covered through that and put an end to S-Chip?
myrenovations on July 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM
When does the restriction of liberty become to onerous to bear?
CMonster on July 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Hint – it is like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop…
CMonster on July 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM
This is important because under this plan or anything like it that crawls out of committee will crush private insurance companies and they will indeed get the bailout/seizure treatment.
Deep in the muck that is the health care bill in its various forums, is spelled out how disincentivized private plans are and how the public plan is set to lure people over to it. What happens to Insurace companies then?
bingo.
Texas74 on July 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM
When the owl gets tired of it…
CMonster on July 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Obama doesn’t give a flying fig about the 83%….wake up America!
*sigh*
cmsinaz on July 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I never thought I’d say this:
MY BODY, MY CHOICE
ocbrat on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
myrenovations: yeah, i don’t get it. we have medicare/caid & S-CIP. so all children & elderly are covered along with poor.
so the ones not cov’d are those that aren’t quite poor enough. can’t we try to help them & call it a day?
and totally eliminate illegal aliens. we could ask for a birth certificate before treatment. that would really piss of POTUS.
kelley in virginia on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Just the term “HMO” should make any sane person run from this bill.
ICBM on July 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Shhhhh! Jeeze, let’s not give them any ideas. They’re lurking…always lurking.
Youngs98 on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM
texas74: the current insurance companies will administrate the public plan. so they will get our money rather than be for-profit companies. so i would move my money from them now because they will end up like fannie/freddie & the new GM.
kelley in virginia on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM
administer. i’m making up new words “administrate”. ha
kelley in virginia on July 28, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Congress is bound and determined to pass some kind of healthcare bill, however weak, to give Ogabe his victory. Even a weak bill will hurt us, perhaps more slowly, but inevitably. The difference is dying quickly from a spurting artery or slowly from an open vein. The end is the same; just the time of death changes.
Conservatives must realize that Republicans and Democrats are on parallel tracks heading in the same direction. We need to reclaim the party or, failing that, abandon them utterly and start anew.
SKYFOX on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
who are the 6 in the Senate negotiating this? i want to call their offices right now so somebody let me know.
kelley in virginia on July 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
snowe is one of them…
cmsinaz on July 28, 2009 at 12:28 PM
skyfox:; look, i agree. but let’s kill this today & fight about the party tomorrow.
this bill will kill America.
kelley in virginia on July 28, 2009 at 12:28 PM
They need to leave my insurance alone. Let’s just mess up what the majority have and like, so that we can drop everyone into a bureaucratic nightmare that serves no one properly. Obama is the biggest freaking idiot and I am thinking he is a domestic terrorist here to flush our country down the toilet. He has no plan for a second term, why would he when he can practically destroy the whole county in six-months.
TXMomof3 on July 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Those are just the first five we will lose. What we will REALLY lose is private sector control over 17% of our economy. As a nation we will have crossed the threshold from private enterprise, warts and all, to government control. All because 15% of Americans choose to wait in the emergency rooms for the world’s best medical treatment for free.
patrick neid on July 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The last freedom is the worst… Perhaps some of our Canadian posters can illuminate us on some of the restrictions they face regarding choosing their own doctors. It is my understanding that in many provinces it is quite hard to switch doctors, specialists, etc. So if you feel your doctor is crabby or incompetent, you cannot just make an appointment with another one.
Illinidiva on July 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Probably the only thing we can do at this point is pressure our governors to reject the plan under the 10th amendment.
Daggett on July 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM
50% STILL want reform. How does that translate into 83% don’t?
Goofy.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM
See new CBO report. :)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I’ve been on an HMO for years and received top-drawer care. You should talk to some like me.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Spin. Read it for yourself, moron.
lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Now, now….snark is out-of-fashion, doncha know?
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Geitner: Unsustainable deficits will only continue for 5 years.
LOL.
lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I was in an HMO for years, and it was a nightmare.
My son got frequent ear infections.
I’d take him in and they’d always prescribe the cheapest antibiotic. I told them every time that it doesn’t work for my son. The doctor said he has to prescribe it first (ostensibly because it’s the cheapest). So we’d always go through a round of cheap drugs and then come back for the next drug — which worked (after 10 days of pain for my son).
He ended up with tubes in his ears and hearing damage.
Daggett on July 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Woops. Link.
lorien1973 on July 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM
That’s a photo of Good Lt. He’s one of yours.
Blake on July 28, 2009 at 1:04 PM
a repeat from a previous thread, but it bears repeating
This whole debate is a farce put forward by the Dems et al to try and hide ongoing government failures–Medicare and Medicaid. The ruse is its about universal coverage for the 15% mentioned above who choose to use emergency rooms for their free medical care.
patrick neid on July 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Well, maybe it’s colitis then…
RocketmanBob on July 28, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Some HMOs did go through those growing pains. I remember. Mine was Kaiser. They adopted a much more doctor-friendly structure in the 80′s to combat a bad reputation. Boy, it worked. They are still highly efficient, but the doctors they attract now are excellent (I mean, reputation in their fields, etc.) and have the flexibility to do the job.
They should be a role model.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:06 PM
He ended up with tubes in his ears and hearing damage.
Daggett on July 28, 2009
Such a helpless feeling to see your child in pain. How did you keep from punching someone out for that?
My daughter always seemed to get her ear infections on Sunday night and we could only give her children’s Tylenol till the next day. Usually, the “bubble-gum medicine” (Amoxycillin (sp?)) cleared it up quickly. We were fortunate.
SKYFOX on July 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM
And yet here in ‘socialist, going to kill all the old people, you don’t have a choice’ Canada, when my son was younger he used to suffer from frequent bouts of bronchitis. I could go to the doctor, even at a walk-in clinic, and tell them which med it was that worked (and of course it was the more expensive one), and be given it no problem. I haven’t read your health bill, but what you must understand is that comparing it to Canada is mute. Canada doesn’t have across the board health coverage. The coverage is based different in each Province. Which is why some Provinces have crappy care, and some have great care. Here in Ontario, I do not have any complaints about the care that I and my family have received. Nor does anyone I personally know. I can choose my own doctor, and if I don’t like the specialist they recommend, I can get another one. I can go to any hospital I like. Prescriptions, dental, optometry, are not covered under the Provincial Plan, so I pay for those out of pocket, or I can get additional insurance to cover them (wow – just like the ‘free market Yanks!’). Oh, and I also don’t personally know of anyone who has ran over to the States to receive care, either.
pcbedamned on July 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Aha! That explains some of the stories we read about. I didn’t know that fact.
Thanks.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I am so tired of the tyranny of the minority.
jukin on July 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Hmm…let’s see, what they have in the works right now is a bad bill, without wondering what hasn’t been written in yet. It won’t be a public option, it will be a public mandate. It won’t reduce costs, it will increase them. It won’t improve the quality or availability of care, it will reduce it. All of these points are out there to clearly see if one will just look.
How do we improve health care in this country? Tort reform, reduced regulation, and reduced or eliminated corporate taxation.
Tort reform would reduce doctor liability, and therefore cost to provide service. If people who brought frivolous lawsuits were required to pay costs, there would be significantly fewer suits. We’d be left with only those that were serious and confident about their case. Additionally, doctors should never be held liable for doing something that could reasonably be considered the correct thing. Currently they are frequently forced to pay for what was an unforeseen complication, even though they did nothing wrong.
Reduced regulation, if done right, could maintain, or even improve the quality of care, while significantly reducing costs. How many times have you gone to the doctor for something that an RN could handle without a problem? Why do we have to pay the price for a doctor, and take their time, for things that don’t reasonably require their level of attention?
Reduced or eliminated corporate taxation would spur the economy, granting the public more job availability and higher pay, reducing the problem of the inability to pay for reasonable health insurance. In addition, eliminating corporate taxation would free up the insurance market for individuals to shop for their own insurance, since we’d lose the incentivized employer provided insurance which restricts choice.
The problem is that politicians are mostly lawyers, and love their power. They aren’t inclined to release control, or reduce the role and market of lawyers in America. We are on a steep road to the end of the American era.
aelhues on July 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Simple, they want “reform” to shift some of their premiums onto govt./taxes, they want the “uninsured” they keep hearing about to be taken care of, but they want to keep their current plans.
And Obama’s selling them the fantasy he can do that.
cs89 on July 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I don’t agree Ed… as insurance companies do now… the American government will find any reason to deny you coverage by using unsafe life choices as reasoning, that or they will dictate safe living to get your coverage… so no more bacon, ice cream, hamburgers, smoking, drinking etc… etc… they will have no choice but to out law and or tax anything they consider unhealthy… to me this is a direct assault on the freedom of expression, much like seat belt laws.
IMHO unsafe or safe living is a direct expression of one’s self!
Kaptain Amerika on July 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM
You’re welcome. Even though it is something that I have said repeatedly on other threads. Mind you, stating that someone is actually satisfied with their health care here in Canada, is like stating that “I am a Commie – hear me roar!” to the bunch in this crowd. Even the Conservatives in Canada won’t touch our Health Care. It is a death blow. So it can’t really be all that bad, eh? To those on the board, quit reciting the talking points and maybe, just maybe, look at another point of view. Sometimes black and white actually do make gray…
pcbedamned on July 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Well, it’s been tough to get this discussion beyond the huge big-picture talking points. It’s just a tough conversation to have. It really requires detachment and thinking in what’s good for everyone, versus what I’m afraid of losing.
I just think we must have some portability of healthcare. We’re affected by NAFTA, global economies, etc. Job-provided insurance plans is simply not a given anymore in this environment.
Either we address this on a big level, or I predict you’ll see a rebirth of unions in this country that hasn’t been around in decades.
People aren’t going to just let their family members die. They will fight back.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I’m in the 83%. Hands off my insurance, and instead, get the lawyers off my doctor’s back!
My MD: 1500 families in his practice, $100,000/yr for malpractice insurance. THERE is the real reason medical costs are going up!!!
n0doz on July 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Well, right now, the ones opposed are 47% versus 50%. Frankly, that’s neglible.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Good one Ed. I agree.
stab it with the steely knives… kill the beast.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM
That’s exactly why I’m against Obama Hell-Scare…I don’t want to just let my family members die due to lack of accessible and quality care.
ladyingray on July 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I think this issue will kill the GOP.
I really do. I think what’s missing? The polls that showed 70% want reform were accurate. People are afraid of the deficit.
But the GOP strategy, which just sounds like they are all about big business insurance companies?
That’s going to prove to be the death knell.
Big business does NOT need support. LOL* Good gravy, they are picking your pockets.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Let me disassemble Ann for just a moment….
Ann: we fundamentally disagree with your fallacious premise. Making the assertion that anyone against Obamacare is against “health care reform” or “health insurance reform” is simply illogical and wrong.
First, health care reform encompasses many different types. You can reform coverage, providers, facilities, services etc in total, or in pieces. A single payer system is ONE type of reform. Hence, it is simply disingenuous for anyone to assume that one who is against a single payer system, is against reform period.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Second, by also making the assertion that one who is against Obamacare’s “reform” is essentially “for” the BIG insurance companies and their fellow wolves, is fallacious as well–or should it be fellatious in your case.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM
The public should not pay for the health insurance of someone who smokes — period.
tommuck on July 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Third, Obama is no physician, therapist, nurse, administrator, planner, nor skilled in the healing arts–outside of that, he’s a great healthcare provider.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Exactly my point. I guess that I am just fortunate to have a best friend who is a ‘moonbat, far-left, bleeding through the chest, crazy, flaming liberal’ (although most on here would not agree). We have been best friends for 40 years, and on the political scale, could not be more opposite. Yet, over the years, each of us has learned to take the time and LISTEN to the others point of view, and on each side, even concede that yes, the other does have a point or two. More of that is needed in this world.
To me that would be far worse than health care for everyone. Unions are the bane of our existence, and I for one am all for the abolishment of ALL unions. They have served their purpose, and now do nothing but hold the rest of society hostage to their demands.
pcbedamned on July 28, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Yep.
Blake on July 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Obama does not possess the soul, nor the rhythm, pun intended– to be anywhere near the care of human beings. His value system boils down the care and decision making process to simply a cost decision which is incomplete and cold. Humans have inherent value–they have dreams, families, aspirations and it is outside of the government’s reach to be able to legislate a proceess to care for those intangible items. It is barely within reach of a provider who is in the room with them.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I agree. Note I never respond to remarks about CA. That would get us off into union-land talk. That is our problem. The liberals negotiated huge concessions to the unions over pension and benefits when we were flush.
Now, the unions won’t bend an inch.
It’s hideous.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM
How long until it’s no longer a choice for a selfish woman to kill her kid if it’s like Trig Palin. How long before it’s mandatory under this “public” plan.
OR
My wife and I took care of my grandmother for 22 years, and now we’re taking care of my Mother-In-Law. She’s 89, so how much care does she get if needed, or should she just die?
Jeff from WI on July 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM
All I ever personally wanted was a public option. Not single-payer.
I don’t think the US is remotely close to the type of plans in Europe. That’s just not us.
A public option seemed reasonable.
I still think it is.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM
You’ll have to ration care, so WHO loses out?
Jeff from WI on July 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I’m 100% for reform. The type of reform that reduces government, not increases it. The type that increases freedom of choice, not reduces it. By stating that the majority are on the side of reform, and that that somehow proves your point Ann, you are completely forgetting about people like me. Also, I’m appalled that you think half the country is worth dismissing. If half the country thinks a new government program is worth opposing, for whatever reason, it shouldn’t be implemented. Adding more government should require well more than 50% approval.
aelhues on July 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM
When we surrender the freedom to make the decisions for our own family members over to the government, then they place a value on them on whether or not they’ll cover end of life care. The government will always go to the path of lower costs.
Obamacare End of Life Program: “Getting you shovel ready.”
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I’m in my mid 50s. If I get a serious disease, can I opt out of care to give it to a baby who the government will want to kill?
Jeff from WI on July 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I hate that 49 million dollar number they keep tossing around!!!!
It is a lie.
jcrue on July 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
er. 49 million PERSON number, sorry ’bout that….
jcrue on July 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
pcbedamned,
So you are saying that the recent Steven Crowder video on Canadian health care is fictional.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2153
That the lawsuits, border crossings for medical care, all are fabricated. That the original designer of the Canadian
system says it should be scrapped is apparently senile?
Against all that you offer this:
I think you should take your own advice:
patrick neid on July 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
That’s what I fear, the politically WEAK become the dead.
Jeff from WI on July 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Ann, it isn’t the GOP stalling this…it’s the Dems. The don’t need one GOP vote to pass healthcare in either house.
You sound stupid when you try to lay this off on the GOP.
ladyingray on July 28, 2009 at 1:50 PM
You know, Jeff. Here’s how it works in a Democracy. I was completely opposed to Viet Nam. We spent the money anyway, and my taxes paid to kill many people. I was completely opposed to Iraq. We spent the money anyway, and the people re-elected (well, sort of) Bush.
I pay my tax bill knowing that I don’t agree with all programs. I do my own personal part. I notify my senators. I speak out. I go to teaparties. I vote.
That’s all a citizen can do.
But I’m sure not going to throw in the towel simply because I disagree.
That’s an anarchist’s position.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:50 PM
How long until it’s no longer a choice for a selfish woman
Good Lord, show me one example of a free, democratic society, that forces a woman to have an abortion. A fear talking point.
My great grandmother lived to be 94. My grandfather was diagnosed with leukemia at 85, and was given the option of chemo, which HE refused. My 85 year old grandma goes to see a kidney specialist every 3 weeks just to make sure all is still alright in her world. Again, more fear talking points.
pcbedamned on July 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Sure, Ann–it seems reasonable, until you’re at the margin and you need to make a decision on it. A gallon of water doesn’t mean a damn thing if I handed you one, you’d probably dump it out rather than carry it around all day, right? It is of no value to you until you need it. That water would be invaluable once E Coli gets spread through the whole system and it’s 100deg outsid. Thus, a public option plan does seem reasonable, but you need to reconsider about how/when/why you would use those services and who controls the moving pieces once you do need them. Only then can you appropriately place value on it.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I know, but I’m an Independent looking to vote GOP. I probably won’t do so due to this 100% stance on healthcare. Seriously.
I’ll think twice.
I do agree…this is Democrats on the gravy train that are the problem.
I will say it enhances Palin to me. I want outsiders.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I have no problems with Kaiser. However, they were sued by the state for making it nearly impossible for people to make appts. This was in Northern California.
When I read this in the paper, I knew from personal experience that they were also doing it in Southern California.
I doubt they are still doing it because of the lawsuit and fines, but this is what they do to cut costs and you are definitely going to see this again under ObammyCare. The other problem is with free or low cost care, more people go to the doctor. It’s going to be swamped.
Blake on July 28, 2009 at 1:52 PM
What a bunch of laughable tripe. Yes they are dying in the streets. LOL.
Are the rumors true? You really are Paul Begala?
patrick neid on July 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM
I know, but I’m an Independent looking to vote GOP. I probably won’t do so due to this 100% stance on healthcare. Seriously.
Who are these 100% stancers on healthcare….?
100% what…? who’s against healthcare…
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM
An independent looking to vote GOP….
why..? what principles do you stand for?
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Yes, they have that option NOW! Not when the program is billions in debt and care has to be rationed like it is in every other country with socialized medicine.
Jeff from WI on July 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM
They had some real PR issues in this area, for sure. But honestly, since the 1980′s, a lot of that has been addressed.
They must have adjusted the ratio of doctors/patients. One thing I know, they utilize nurse practicioners, who are super.
Luckily, most of my stuff is well handled by them. And they almost give me too much TLC. It’s very personal. They can write prescriptions, too.
I’m fortunate. I do not have a major medical situation, yet.
But I trust them.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I like conservative thinking about a lot of issues. I’m probably idealistic on this, but I do agree about smaller government in general, definitely on national security (Not Bush…but overall), I agree on Supreme Court issues. Activism resulted in strife. I agree on pro-business.
Lots of stuff.
But this one? This doesn’t make sense to me. Really.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Ontario, where a woman couldn’t see a neurosurgeon to remove her pituitary tumor, that Ontario? After waiting 4 months and being told at the best she would go blind and at the worse die before she was seen by a surgeon, she came to the US for treatment.
And then there is another woman who was in my same newsgroup who lived in Ontario and had to wait for 9 months for gallbladder surgery. Though a moonbat, even she said it was wrong that she had to wait so long when she was in pain.
Blake on July 28, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I have relatives that work at Children’s Hospital in Milwaukee. It’s in the top 5 of hospitals for kids in the country. There’s is ALWAYS people from Canada, France, England in the hospital because they can’t get timely medical care for their kids in their country.
Jeff from WI on July 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM
As for Crowder, he went to Kebec. I wouldn’t take my dog to Kebec. See the earlier post on how health care actually works in this country. And I am sure that similar to Micheal Moore, a lot of editing had to go into that video to get the point of view that he wanted to convey.
The original designer of our health care is dead.
As to the last portion of your post, reverting to the usual personal attacks is counter productive. And juvenile. I didn’t recite talking points. I cited personal experience. There is a difference…
pcbedamned on July 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM
This was not a PR issue – it was a crime and they were sued and fined almost a million dollars for it. I don’t know whether they were nailed for it in Southern California. However, this is one of the problems with HMOs which will be exaberrated by Obammy Care.
Blake on July 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I don’t discount all the stories, either. I think the poster offered a real explanation. It varies from province to province.
One of the best shows on radio I heard was that Canada is losing a lot of worker productivity by the delays. That simply means people aren’t back into gear fast enough. That was a legitimate complaint, in my opinion.
However, right now, it’s moot, since everyone is not working really.
Alas.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM
The reform I want is for the feds to stay completely out of health care, before they screw it up further?
Oh yeah, I also want a strict cap on lawyers fees for malpractice torts at $1,000 per.
How’s that reform grab ya?
NoDonkey on July 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM
And my mom, with her 100% coverage, was given a very expensive test 3 times. Even when I said, She just had that test, the results are available, the doctor ignored me.
They billed medicare and her supplemental insurance instead.
There are trade-offs, in short.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM
How can yu think that insurance companies, who have money taken from them by the government, can possibly complete with insurance paid for primarily by taxes. Government insurance cost for services and income are disconnected, so cost to those insured will also be disconnected from real world costs. Which means the price can be set wherever government wants it. Insurance companies have to actually maintain a balanced budget.
aelhues on July 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Granted, I’m new to conservative think. But I thought private industry was suppose to drive DOWN costs.
How does introducing competition end up being the boogey man?
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Who’s chain are you pulling. You are not and have never been a conservative. You pretend when it suits you.
There are first principles to conservatism and government takeover of 17% of the private sector is not one of them. Under no circumstances, no matter how dire, is it acceptable to have government intervention as the remedy. It indicates you know very little of the free market or like Paul Krugman, you do, but are renouncing it as he does. To Mr. Krugman’s credit he at lease admits he would like government to take over the entire free market.
You instead hide behind chirpy little anecdotal bits of Obama lite.
patrick neid on July 28, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Dan Hanrahan from the EU described government “competition” as an elephant getting into a rowboat…it throws the whole thing off. Impossible to maneuver, steer, get anywhere etc. The thing is, the gov’t doesn’t have to make a profit and can print money. That’s a competitive “advantage” the government itself only owns. Hard to compete on those terms, kinda like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM
You’re also new to Economics as well as how the government works.
A business must make profits to stay in business…the government, which, as long as it has someone to tax, has an “unlimited” supply of money and does not have to make a profit.
The playing field is not even. Can you understand that basic concept?
ladyingray on July 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM
You’d think someone new to conservative think would sit back and listen, opine less… read more and ask for guidance on principles rather than being a bomb thrower.
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Ladyingray?
This isn’t about nuturing a new business. LOL*
They are picking your pocket.
AnninCA on July 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM
she must be new to common sense… either that or it’s an alien concept completely…
ted c on July 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »