Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Opinion: Obama's Heathcare Horror

A very compelling opinion piece about the Democrats bungling of national health care.

From Salon.com's Opinion page:
Aug. 12, 2009 | Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do.

Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.
....
There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.
....
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.
....
And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.


The whole piece is quite good. I'd recommend reading it.

3 comments:

Matt said...

"...barely begun to do the mission he was elected to do"

That is very misleading! I did not vote for him to repair our image abroad, for me it was healthcare, among other things. Everyone who has an opinion about the president says "he was elected to do XYZ," which is just not possible. People voted for many different reasons.

Also, we already have been thrown to the wolves in the healthcare arena. The idea should be to have gov't cover those who cant get coverage otherwise, and regulate insurance companies so coverage is fair, regardless of whether you get it through an employer or not, but I am sure democrats will blow this whole thing and nothing will change.

Grew said...

The problem with the government regulating the insurance companies to get fair pricing is why medicare is a flawed system. Hospitals get 30-50 cents on the dollar in payments from the government for medicare treatment. Why would the insurance companies insure people if they knew they were going to lose money on them? Insuring the uninsured and those who can't afford health care is not profitable. Plain and simple. Who pays for it in the end? Do we run up a huge deficit to pay for these people? The current plan is to have taxpayers and insurance companies pay for these people, which makes this plan the medicare for everyone, not just the elderly. Medicare is a failed concept so why repeat it?

Matt said...

I dont mean fair pricing, I mean fair coverage. Ban retroactive recission of coverage, set a minimum standard of care for any given condition, that kind of thing. Basically, all it takes is allowing people who dont have access to coverage thru their employer to join a group. I think they should make a group that is everyone who isnt in a group. I dont want insurance companies to lose money (though I dont think they should be allowed to exist, but thats a different issue) and they wont if enough people form a pool. Insurance companies certainly lose money currently on individuals requiring extensive care, but they make money on healthy people. Make the pool big enough and it should work out.

Remember also, taxpayers already pay for the uninsured. A person with no insurance, and no money, goes to the ER, who foots the bill?