Sebelius: I’m all for single-payer system, eventually
posted at 11:36 am on October 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Behold yet another political Rorschach test on video, from our friends at Verum Serum, who do a great job of finding them. When Kathleen Sebelius told an audience at the JFK Center at Harvard in 2007 that she was in favor of “a single-payer system, eventually,” does that negate the earlier statement that she finds dismantling the existing system to get there unproductive? You make the call:
What we need is a national agenda, and a kind of commitment to universal health care. I’m a believer that, although, if you could wipe the slate clean and start all over again, we’d never start with an employer-based insurance product. That’s really where we are — 75% of Americans who have health insurance have insurance coverage through their employers. The rest have it through government. And to dismantle something in order to get to a better cause, I think may be not as productive as closing the gap. So my sense is where we need to go in states and around the country is closing the gap, get coverage for the 47 million Americans who don’t have coverage.
[cut]
I mean, I’m all for a single-payer system, uh … eventually. I think what we have to do, though, is work with what we’ve got in order to close the gap.
So are Sebelius, now HHS Secretary, the Democrats in Congress, and Obama working “with what we’ve got” to cover uninsured Americans, or are they being unproductive in dismantling the existing system? There are less costly ways to cover more Americans than to force everyone into government-run “exchanges” — really just a federal licensing system for health insurance — in order to cover the 15% of people uninsured in the US. (Sebelius seems unaware of either math or the total American population; 47 million is not 25% of all US residents, but closer to 15%.) Not all of the 15% want to buy insurance, at least not the expensive comprehensive insurance that will get mandated in the federal licensing scheme proposed by Congress.
Given that this system will drive costs upward and fix prices for insurers in a manner that will force them out of business “eventually,” I’d see this as evidence that the Obama administration has ulterior motives in mind for it — and that they’re all for single payer in that eventual certitude.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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:
Sometimes the mask slips………..
Janos Hunyadi on October 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Whatever increases the revenue streams to those in power and strips the rest of us of freedom and liberty is what they’re for,…uhhhh… eventually.
Statements.
ted c on October 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM
We are heading toward these Divided States.
artist on October 20, 2009 at 11:39 AM
What a surprise.
Drained Brain on October 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Communism proceeds unabated. Leftist loons still have no idea what’s in store for them.
darwin on October 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Why don’t we take it one step further and go for a zero payer system?
zmdavid on October 20, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Actually, I suspect we may surprise ourselves and see just the opposite take shape before too long… but you have a point — it could go either way.
D2Boston on October 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Has anything good come out of an Ivy League school in the last 50 years?
These Ivy league schools sure to put a wrench into my argument that ALL schools should be private.
WashJeff on October 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM
And of course she’s quite inaccurate here, conveniently overlooking the self-employed. We’re on a self-administered HSA for an example. Funny how she missed something between “employer-based” and “government,” isn’t it?
Drained Brain on October 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM
This is why the Statists can’t abide free-speech, they’re lies and double standards always come back to haunt them.
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Ted C . How right you are — Total Control — They will tell us what to buy and what to eat — eventually
wheels on October 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM
If Democrats really believe in single payer why wait for some undefined “eventually”? They have the White House and both chambers of Congress. Pass it and live with the consequences.
myrenovations on October 20, 2009 at 11:45 AM
You have to have been wearing a mask to let it slip.
sammypants on October 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Why is this a surprise? The filthy lying coward in the White House is hiding behind a sham position vis-a-vis a single-payer system. He’s not going to hire somebody to HHS who isn’t onboard with his radical agenda.
Shame on anybody who thought otherwise or still believes that Amercians can work with this rat bastard traitor.
highhopes on October 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Perhaps I missed something down the line. Just for curiosity’s sake, if a public option will run private insurance out of business, why doesn’t the USPS run UPS and FedEx out of business? Even when it operates at a loss?
The Calibur on October 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Yes, and they still like to use the self-labeling Lie: ‘Liberal’ as thought they are in favor of ‘Liberty’ -NOT!
Juno77 on October 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Like the layers of an onion, as each layer is revealed, tears come to my eyes…
right2bright on October 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Someone needs to inform this slug that whether she wants a “national agenda” or not, we have a FEDERAL Constitution, not a national one, and having the federal government muck around in health care (or health insurance) is not part of that Constitution, beyond making interstate commerce of it regular.
These un-American leftists need to be beat over the head with their own un-Constitutional health care reform bills. You know how the old saying goes:
Live by the 1500 un-Constitutional bill, die by the 1500 page un-Constitutional bill.
Bury these worms under piles of their own paper designs to destroy our nation.
progressoverpeace on October 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Bingo!
cmsinaz on October 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM
+100
DanaSmiles on October 20, 2009 at 11:49 AM
They need to do this slowly since we peons do not know what is good for us and may fight them on this. Sort of like giving a child bad tasting medicine, but not that delicious and effective Dimetapp Cold & Cough for kids. Thank goodness our betters are in control. /sarc off
WashJeff on October 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
None of this is about insurance anyway.
DanaSmiles on October 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM
The silver lining is that when full-blown communism is upon us, the useful idiots like this will be the first to be done away with (according to Uri Bezmenov).
txsurveyor on October 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I’m all for Kathleen Sebelius’ removal from office, immediately.
J.J. Sefton on October 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM
So if we take all these Democrats at their word, being in favor of government run health care, are we being racist?
rbj on October 20, 2009 at 11:53 AM
“…the Obama administration has ulterior motives…”
Correct on all points for all topics for this Administration.
All we have to do now is wait and see which straw breaks the America’s back…
SwampRat on October 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM
That’s why we call them the: National Socialist Democrat Party
Insert witty screen name here on October 20, 2009 at 11:55 AM
That’s your first mistake, Governess Abortion.
You aren’t equipped to “think”, honey.
You just do what Assrod, Emmanuel and Soros tell you to do, just like Barry does.
Unbelievable, just the general incompetence and idiocy coming out of this “administration”.
The Democrat plan is unworkable except for the parts that are corrupt.
They have people who don’t understand health care or the economy, formulating “reform”, primarily to benefit their donors and to sew up votes from dependent losers, for decades.
Our government is officially a kleptocracy.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
It’s an all-out civil war against Marxism in this country.
Thanks a bunch, all you Hope n’ Changers.
John the Libertarian on October 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
lol Yeah and when Republicans are in charge, individual freedoms and budget surpluses fall from the sky.
The Calibur on October 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
I think the left is constantly telling us what to eat… sh!t.
CapedConservative on October 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Sorry but no ground is to be gained by calling the Dem party by what is probably a more accurate name. Stupid people who think that Americans can still work with this crowd to reach a compromise get into a snit when you call liberals nazis.
Bottom line it doesn’t matter what you call the party of the filthy lying coward in the White House. Just call your Senators and Congressman and tell them what their future is going to look like if they vote for the rat bastard traitor’s plot to seize healthcare resources in order to further the radical socialist agenda of the far left.
highhopes on October 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM
SHE WAS ON MY PLANE LAST WEEK! The urge to say something smartazz was pretty strong, but I resisted … score one for self control … and for keepin’ my job!
Tony737 on October 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM
it is the national agenda of the left to continue to make this country so utterly inhospitable for conservatives that we would neither go to their clinics, attend their schools, watch their news and so on. This is a continuation of that agenda and it needs to be outed in a big way. Doubt it? See elementary education. See bastions of conservatism (ie, the military) and see how those are treated… See universities, see government, see urban areas, see law schools, the list goes on and on and on.
We have got to make it utterly inhospitable for these liberals, We have to sweat them out, shun them, ridicule them and deny them the freedom and liberty to deny us the same. beat them at their own game.
ted c on October 20, 2009 at 12:06 PM
The reason that most people have got insurance through their employer is the result of government action. It is also the reason that many companies move their businesses off shore.
Johan Klaus on October 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM
For these Leftist politicans and Progressive citizens among us to advocate for a single-payer system when Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security are over $50 Trillion in the red….
It’s simply unconscionable. This is why the Progressive ideology seems like a genuine mental disorder.
visions on October 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I agree that if we had to start over, we should stay away from having insurance be employer based. That was the result of the wage controls FDR put in place during WWII. It would be much better to have everyone buy their own plan directly.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Make that 100 years.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM
You are not comparing apples to apples. UPS and FEDEX are not allowed to deliver First Class Mail. They are not allowed to drop off at P.O. Boxes. UPS and FEDEX are kicking the USPS behind in package delivery.
Please read the following explanation from Neal Boortz. Best I’ve seen on the “Public Option”.
fbcmusicman on October 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM
That is a very good point Calibur, you may color me impressed. Since you asked the question I can answer it for you. Let’s start with why UPS can thrive while the USPS is still in business. As of now it is a felony for anyone to put anything into a mailbox unless it is a mailman from the USPS. UPS gets around this by creating their own mailboxes and placing them wherever they see fit. To deliver them they must be handed directly to a person or left near the door. They are also able to charge whatever the market will allow them to because people believe (rightly so) that UPS is more reliable then the USPS. That is why UPS survives. It can create alternatives to what the government has provided. They have their own sorting facilities, planes, trucks, mailboxes etc etc.
Why this won’t work in health care is because the government wishes to take over the entire sections of the industry. They are mandating that insurance companies are only able to charge a certain amount no matter what. UPS can increase their prices if gas goes up, but if a new drug comes out that costs $10,000 the federal government says you can only charge people $10.
To sum up, in the UPS vs USPS the government is simply a competitor. In Obamacare vs Private Insurance the government is a competitor and the referee who makes the rules to favor their own side. That is a major difference.
txaggie on October 20, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Of course, that’s what it is all about. Gov. run healthcare. All the BS about anything else is a smokescreen. Odumbo wants the Gov. involved and saying anything else is a diversion to throw you off the scent trail.
rjoco1 on October 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Yes but it puts the Leftists in a conundrum.
On the one hand, they like to label themselves as ‘Socialists’ on occasion, and that is just adding the word National – they are a National party, so it’s an accurate label for them.
On the other, they also like to sling around the ‘NAZI’ lie at their opponents, neglecting the inconvenient little fact that it really means National ‘Socialist’ workers party.
They can’t admit that, lest they admit that it is they who are the closest to that ideology.
Insert witty screen name here on October 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM
By law, the post office is not permitted to run a deficit.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I’m all for booting all the socialists, marxists, communists, and other radicals out of Washington DC — eventually, though preferably as soon as possible.
Daggett on October 20, 2009 at 12:28 PM
However they do every single year. They just go to Congress and get more money thrown at them. They just can’t have a negative balance on 30 September each year. $7 Billion loss estimated for this year alone for the USPS.
Johnnyreb on October 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Just another pseu pseu pseu pseudo for the electoral scrap heap.
Spiritk9 on October 20, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Just to underline what others posted, the USPS has a legally enforced monopoly on First-class Mail. It didn’t run the competition off in that market, it simply outlawed it. You can’t consider USPS’s pricing and performance in other markets without taking into account the monopoly rents it gains in that one market.
DrSteve on October 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The Calibur on October 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
So you agree with me that the federal government should limit itself to what only the federal government can provide (e.g. National Defense)?
The feds have no business screwing with health care in the first place. They have no idea what it is they are doing, it’s not a party thing.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I do not believe the pensions are factored into that. It’s an operational loss – post office can’t run an operational loss. The pensions are forced upon them by congress, if memory serves.
lorien1973 on October 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Because all of lobbyists from big business’s, make it clear to congress, that will not be tolerated.
Slowburn on October 20, 2009 at 1:09 PM
They’ve only run consistent deficits in recent years. In years past they got a loan from congress, uped the rate for stamps, then used some of the new money to pay congress back.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM
If private insurance is not allowed to cross state line and the public option is, then wouldn’t we be a single payer system in say a year or so anyway? There would be no way to compete. I think people have already made up the minds about this, just quit trying to sell it. There is no way I want the government in this. There is no poll, no deal, nothing, that will change my mind.
mcmm on October 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM
In the UK, the NHS has spent £1.5m paying for hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog their own waiting lists.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Drained Brain on October 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Really? I guess I don’t count as part of the 100% then. I buy my own insurance.
angryed on October 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I mentioned the same up-thread. Maybe her statistics don’t include all 57 of Obama’s states.
Drained Brain on October 20, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Why the long face?
Wade on October 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I don’t get what Ed is proposing here. A licensing system for Healthcare?
May someone explain?
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
To clarify, I understand this is for the people who are uninsured.
But, it would be great if people who are underinsured as well.
Much more clarification needed here in either case, though.
ckoeber on October 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
There ought not be any surprise about this.
Make no mistake: no matter what Democrats and their knee-walking syncophants may say, a single-payer system is their true and only goal for health care “reform”.
ya2daup on October 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
I’m all for destroying the Health Insurance Industry…eventually.
Army Brat on October 20, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Why is anyone still doubting that Socialized Medicine isn’t in fact a fait accomplit?
Dr. ZhivBlago on October 21, 2009 at 3:03 AM
With Ms. Sebelius and Ms. Dunn, who needs enemies? We have now meet the enemy and our job is to negate their blathering with Truth.
The Truth is all contained in past liberal writings of the great dictators (Mein Kampf, The Red Book, etc.) because if we do not counter them now promises of Fahrenheit 451 will come true.
MSGTAS on October 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Comment pages: