You can pay more but you can’t buy less!
Speaker Pelosi’s reported pride in being able to reduce the estimated cost of the proposed democratic health care reform bill reminds me of a hapless math pupil having a conversation with his father:
“Hey Dad, I took the makeup exam and raised my score by a third, from 30% to 40%. See, I did better”
“Yes, son, it is an improvement. But you still FAILED!”
Too bad the Cash for Clinkers program required destruction of the returned vehicles, because many Congressional Democrats sound like used car salespeople on late night public access TV: “We’ve worked and slashed the price to a bone! Come on down to Crazy Nancy’s and save like never before! No credit? Slow credit? No problem, we’ve made sure that everyone is nearly bankrupt, including the government!”
Despite town hall meetings, massive public demonstrations, and numerous opinion polls, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama still don’t get it: If you want the American public to buy this, you’ll have to answer a few questions. Can you explain the proposed legislation? Why can’t change be legislated gradually? And just how is it that a health care program that creates an enormous new federal bureaucracy and extends benefits to currently uninsured individuals reduces the federal deficit?
During the 2010 election year Congressional Democrats (and a few Republicans) will boast of “having the courage” to do the right thing for America, and that Americans must “stay the course”. The only course most of our elected officials should see in 2011 will have holes graded as par 3, 4, or 5. Then again, even on a miniature golf course, their favorite phrase is probably “taking a mulligan.”
Update: Allahpundit at HotAir floats a likely theme for 2010 Republican attack ads: ‘“We’re in an excellent place with the cost” will make for a sweet punchline in next year’s GOP attack ads, every last one of which will be casting Madam Speaker in the role of boogeyman.’
Update 24 October 2009: Now it’s back up to over $1 Trillion. They forget it’s our children’s money, not theirs!
The EU has a long experience with nationalized, single-payer health systems. Do they really provide the best patent care and experience? A new pan-European study supports the idea that competition and patient involvement in medical decisions is most effective. The study shows that, once again, the drones who speak of the marvels of single-payer European health care systems don’t have a clue as to what they are talking about.
The latest report from the Brussels-based Health Consumer Powerhouse, titled Euro health Consumer Index 2009 (please note the link is to the full report in a pdf format), contains some interesting data relevant to the healthcare debate in the US. The study measured and ranked the quality of the user/patient experience within 33 European countries by looking at six factors: Patient rights and information, e-Health, Waiting times, Outcomes, Range/reach of services provided, and Pharmaceuticals.
What system scores the highest? The Netherlands. Why?
Read more »
A few factoids for you to use and be amused by.
- 15th: Where liberals claim the US ranks in life expectancy.
- 1st: Actual life expectancy rank if you control for deaths due to traffic accidents and homicides. That’s right, the US ranks number one among OECD countries with a mean life expectancy of 76.9 years.
- $12,680: Annual family health care insurance premium in 2008, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. If employer-based, a 70/30 employer/employee cost split is typical.
- $9,827: The annual hidden tax imposed by defensive medicine on a typical family of 4 in the US.
- $43 Million: Total contributions by attorneys to the 2008 Obama for president campaign.
- 1300%: Increase in TV ad spending by Malpractice attorneys from 2004 to 2008.
Read more »
1,300 Percent. That’s the increase in TV ad spending by malpractice attorneys between 2004 and 2008, according to a new study conducted by the Institute for Legal Reform. The number of ads over the same period skyrocketed from about 10,150 in 2004 to more than 156,000 in 2008.
An earlier blog post – Tort reform will lower costs, improve access, quality of care – discussed the annual $10,000 hidden tax imposed on a family of four by the defensive medical strategies doctors employ to avoid malpractice suits. So why is there little or no mention of tort reform in the current health care proposals?
Read more »
But is she really putting her speakership at risk, as Redstate’s post Speaker Pelosi Stands Firm on the Public Option, Essentially Tells the White House to Go Pound Sand asserts?
That moment in The Great Obamacare War arrived yesterday, when the Speaker of the House stood firm on the public option, essentially telling the White House to go pound sand.
In effect, Speaker Pelosi just called in an air-strike on her own position.
This is not going to be pretty.
It will likely cost her the Speakership. After the 2010 elections.
Read more »
Matt Frei’s commentary on the BBC News website, titled Washington diary: Obama’s slump, is so full of BS I don’t even know where to begin. Granted, it’s an opinion piece, but millions of people around the world watch or listen to BBC News every day, and the line between reporting opinions and facts is increasingly blurred, especially at the BBC.
Let’s skip by the “redefining the relationship with the rest of the world” – after all, it looks like Gitmo won’t be closed anytime soon and Iran hasn’t backed down on its nuclear threat. Instead, let’s start with Frei’s supposed neighbor, “Republican Dave”, who voted for Obama because “he could not stomach the thought of Sarah Palin being one heartbeat away from the Oval Office”. How big a factor in President Obama’s election were voters like Dave? According to CNN, 9% of self-identified Republicans voted for Obama. Referring to President Obama, Frei states: “It is the wobbly Obama Republicans – like my friend Dave – that he really needs to worry about.”
Read more »
