Comments on: Having His SCHIP And Eating It Too

By: Mark T

Mark T — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:10:42 +0000

I don’t see a private system of health care being feasible, for reasons often mentioned before – that profit is incompatible with delivery of service to everyone, sick and well alike. I see you taking great pains to blame the failings of private sector health care on government while taking full credit for its many successes. I believe your thinking on the subject to be more akin to rationalization. I see you as unwilling to face failure of the marketplace to deliver what we need, and the success that other countries have had in making the delivery.

I think our disagreement is bedrock. In the end, each side will have to yield and there will be some sort of blending of private and public sectors in our efforts to extend quality health care to everyone. One can only hope that we get the best that each side has to offer.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:29:11 +0000

Mark, you’re making a false argument here. Those who are “obstructionists” a largely not against the program at all. They are against expanding the program to the point where it becomes a disincentive for people to enter into insurance contracts in the market place. So you’re meme that no one is jumping in with an alternative plan is simply wrong. The Bush administration has offered an alternative plan which expands the program by 20%.

I have embraced a host of other plans, as you know, that change the employer sponsored system (which, IMO is a major source of unfairness) but I haven’t the inclination to rehash that right now. But you assert that we want to “prevent anyone else from insuring them” is dogmatic Democratic nonsense.

Here’s the reality about my opinion. Because the government has developed so many “solutions” over time, the ongoing rent seeking by organizations like the AMA, the price controls put up by a market that is 40% controlled by a socialized system (Medicare & Medicaid), a hodgepodge of insurance mandates placed on insurers by state regulators, the system has failed. But it has not largely failed as a consequence of the market. It has failed as a consequence of inflexable “government solutions.”

The over-expansion of this bill is just another example of a government program that likely will harm others and will benefit doctors. Since most of these plans are run by BC/BS, which is “owned” by the participating doctors and hospitals, there are incentives here for mischief that go unreported. And for all of that wail against corporatism and special interests, it blows me away that you can’t see that some will substantially profit from this program that takes market pricing pressure and shifts it to another cohort.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:25:01 +0000

I’ve got to be more careful about the way I word things. “You” didn’t mean you personally, and you don’t need to go through the varieties of ways in which you disagree with Republicans. I’m aware of that, and I have similar experiences with Democrats.

Yes, we want to expand the coverage. I don’t see anyone jumping in with a plan to insure these kids – just as you are locked arm-in-arm around them to prevent anyone else from insuring them. You and the others of the minority of people blocking this effort are being obstructionists. And kids are suffering as a result. Kids. Sorry if the imagery is troubling, but that is what is going on.

I want to see this government program expanded becuase the private sector is deficient. On that we disagree. We see the world differently. Obviously I think my viewpoint more realistic, yours an effort to make an unruly world conform to your idealistic philosophy.

So if you are going to block a government solution, you must forsake any sort of government support in solving the problem of uninsured kids. Let’s be forthcoming now. Give us what you’ve got.

By: Beanloaf

Beanloaf — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:29:22 +0000

Wow! Jay says kids are dying from tooth decay!

Free toothbrushes for every kid!

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:31:28 +0000

I hate to tell this Mark but no one is saying that “the kids” shouldn’t be insured. We’re talking about the scope of the program. Get it?

Secondly, who gives a shit about Bush’s approval rating? The guy is lame duck.

Last, I’ve been a member of the permanent minority for several years now. This is, unless you know some planks on the GOP platform that include the legalization of drugs, prostitution, open borders, gay marriage, unabated free speech, the end of subsidies, etc.

So the “you guys” argument is kind of “crap” as far as I’m concerned. I can count the number of Republicans I voted for in the last 10 years on one hand.

By: Mark T

Mark T — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:21:31 +0000

I heard today that Bush’s approval ratings are now at 24%. I love watching you guys fall on your philosophical sword, and it’s good to get your basic bent out in the open for all to see. Like I say, I’m laughing all the way to the bank.

80% of us say insure than damned kids, and you guys are so blind to the failings of our current system – so intent on making the real world conform to your philosophy – that you can’t even bend. Not a little bit. That’s a recipe for permanent minority status. Only vote fraud will save you.