• Broken clouds
  • 64°
    Broken clouds

Notice their fingers never leave their hands

These criticisms of what detractors decry as "socialized medicine" should sound familiar:

Critics storm that health care reform is “a cruel hoax and a delusion.” Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean “the beginning of socialized medicine.” (Click "Read more" for more.)


Do these ring a bell? Surprise! They're not from any recent essays on health care reform. They're almost 50 years old, when Washington was debating Medicare. Or as NYTimes columnist Nicholas Kristof puts it:


The Wrong Side of History

Big Medical, Big Pharma and Big Insurance are pulling the same shuck and jive on Americans now. And, of course, its all a pack of lies, put forth to protect the huge profits the health care industry might lose if the "public option" became a reality.

The "public option" would not only lower costs by eliminating duplication of services, it would give the uninsurables (like me) a way to deal with inevitable health problems.

I'm a cancer survivor. I have osteoporosis. Two conditions that make it absolutely impossible for me to get insurance under the present system.

So, if and when I do get sick, its off to the emergency room with me, where taxpayers will end up paying far more for my care than they would if I were covered by some kind of policy that encouraged regular visits to doctors for early detection and treatment, and NOT to emergency rooms, where the costs (covered by taxpayers) are far higher.

And this will be repeated over and over again, by the millions.

The government offers subsidized flood insurance for property owners. Why not subsidized health insurance for those, through no fault of their own, can't get health insurance for real or imagined pre-existing conditions to save their lives.

Medicare works just fine. Ask the golden agers and the disabled who depend on it. And it is cost efficient.

All Big Medical, Big Pharma and Big Insurance and their mobs of well paid lobbyists are doing is trying to protect the geese that is laying their golden eggs. Geese that are shamelessly inefficient, experts at denying claims at the drop of a hat, and awarding themselves paychecks most of us can only dream about.

It's amusing to see the health industry cartel using the same arguments against the "public option" that they used against Medicare nearly 50 years ago.

Shame them. Shame the lawmakers who collect campaign contributions by the truckload from Big Medicine, the greedy, selfish people who would much rather see obscene profits and salaries than a healther America.

If you buy their arguments, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

  • Comment

Comments (2)

Add comment
volcanoman 11/25/09 - 02:53 pm

Ovidsen, would it suffice...

to have regulations that ban pre-existing conditions denial? Would ban loss of insurance because you got sick? Would ban loss of insurance because you lost a job? Or do you just want subsidized insurance for everything?

Medicare is good. Medicare is efficient? It's easy to look efficient if you don't have to make a profit, or you can just print money to cover your losses. Medicare is bankrupt like Social Security because your government has spent all the money paid into those systems on other things. Do you want them to have more?

I'm all for a coverage for "catastrophic" conditions subsidized, like flood insurance. For the routine stuff that could lead to eary detection? People should pay for that themselves.

ovidsen 11/26/09 - 11:56 am

Nice in theory. But then reality intrudes.

When people can't (notice I didn't say won't) pay for early detection, any condition they have can fester. Eventually, they end up in emergency rooms, and possibly long term treatment, all of which is covered by our tax dollars. Dollars that would not have been spent if there had been early detection.

It would be cheaper for taxpayers if lower income Americans had access to tests (preventative maintenence, if you will) that is subsidized by Uncle Sam. Use a sliding scale. I'm not proposing totally "free" (i. e. tax funded) health care for everyone.

Either way, taxpayers foot the bill. But with early detection, treatment is far less expensive.

It's Economics 101. Unless, of course, you want to eliminate all government funded health care programs and let people wander the streets, suffering, and possibly dying, of whatever they have, and conveniently exposing everyone else around them to the disease(s) they have. Treating the consequences among the large number of people who would consequently get sick would be the most expensive option of all.

This has nothing to do with charity, or entitlements or humane treatment. It simply has to do with the most efficient and cost effective way to deal with the health of citizens.


Back to Top

Get news delivered by e-mail!

Recent comments