The recent demise of the health reform effort was killed in large part by Americans’ overwhelming demand for more and more, while wanting to take less and less responsibility.
Uwe Reinhardt’s recent column describes the problem quite well.
Americans want government to make sure that they have at their beck and call the most sophisticated health system in the world, without even a hint of a queue or rationing or balancing of benefits and costs (cost-effectiveness analysis).
At the same time, they rail at town hall meetings and in the voting booth against government intrusions into that health system, and wring their hands incessantly over the height of health insurance premiums and the taxes they pay to support the system.
Of late, many have turned to threats of violence, that is, if they can maneuver their Medicare-funded power wheel chairs close enough to get a shot.
While it’s easy to condemn the manipulators (60 Plus et al), their job wouldn’t be so easy if their pawns had even a modest grasp of linear logic – A (stuffing yourself with junk food and drink) leads to B (obesity) leads to C (diabetes, heart disease, and the need for a power wheelchair paid for by someone else).
Example:
These goals are mutually exclusive – the deficit cannot be controlled without drastic reductions in health care costs, which some will interpret as rationing. Yet these same pawns that protest against ‘government hands on their Medicare’ are also screaming about deficits, taxes, and the future burden on their children.
This terminal myopia will not prevent the inevitable – growing deficits driven in large part by their incessant demand for someone else to pay for their lifestyle choices and freedom to get whatever health care they think they want from whomever they want whenever they want.
There’s more than enough blame to go around over the demise of health reform; as I’ve written numerous times, the Dems passed bills that would have done little to actually control costs. But the Republicans didn’t offer any serious alternatives, when they could have made a clear and principled argument that the bills under consideration would add to the deficit, resulting in higher taxes and government borrowing.
Instead the GOP rallied around death panels, rationing, and keeping government out of healthcare, torching any pretense of leadership on the altar of political expediency. They’ve painted themselves into an unescapable political corner; when they once again gain control over Congress, they will be faced with a deficit that includes $8 trillion from the Medicare Part D program (a Bush 2 legacy) along with Medicaid and Medicare costs that are even more unsustainable due to their refusal to confront their supporters with economic reality.
As HL Mencken said, “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.”
I guess you missed the GOP plans because the Dems closed the door to any of their plans. Here is a link to all of the common sense healthcare reforms they have proposed.
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
momentarily put aside amending the cliche to eat your cake and have it too, which is what’s happening here, it’s endlessly entertaining to blame those stupid voters who want something for nothing. it may seem unfortunate to some, but we’re a democracy and they’ve got the power. the true challenge lies in educating them about the overconsumption issue. that’s a whole lot tougher than making fun of them.
Jim – no kidding.
The point of the post is precisely that – voters hypocritical enough to condemn health reform and its proponents and the taxes necessary to pay for their care while screaming for what they want when they want it and no government intrusion.
Lazy voters are influenced by 60 plus and their ilk who use lies and misinformation to convince them to vote against their own best interests. The issue is not education, it is stopping these slimeballs.
Paduda
All of the points in the Republican version are in the current bill that is solely supported by the Dems. Go figure!!
Here’s the issue with rationing. It’s one thing for a doctor to tell the children of an ederly patient that he or she could move up to more agressive treatment, but that the chances of a favorable outcome aren’t promising.
Thus, the children can decide can make the decision whether or not to continue with more agressive treatment.
It’s another when the doctor says that because of age, health, etc., the cost-benefit analysis isn’t good, so therefore, he or she won’t go any further.
Chuck – give me one example of where in the developed world that scenario exists.
That’s a scare tactic propagated by organizations terrified of reform, and their dupes.
Paduda