A Profile in Political Courage -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've had down time these last couple of days. It is possible to strain virtually every muscle in your abdomen if the stomach flue clenches you up hard enough as you vomit. However, it has given me an opportunity to catch up on my right-wing, "hate" radio. It also let me crystalize a thought I have had growing in the back of my head a few weeks.


Obama may be one of the most courageous politicians I have seen in years; certainly since the advent of Reagan.


Obama is a leftie (Remember, my Euro-pals, that I'm using this in "murrican.") with a good grounding in Marxism from his college years and a lot of direct experience in political advocacy on behalf of a group that considers itself marginalized (with reason in many instances). As a politician, he has had most of his experience as part of the Chicago "machine" (modern version), and so we can be sure he has a decent grasp of rough-and-tumble constituency politics. He's also bright, reasonably articulate, and at times truly charismatic.

With the economy heading sideways for a long, slow climb out of our recent depression and with unemployment at its highest level for decades (probably it's highest level since 1937 if we correctly factor in "under-employment"), Obama and his administration have put one issue front and center for most of the last 15 months -- Healthcare.

Despite fierce opposition from the political right; despite popularity numbers that are dropping significantly; despite a public which wants to put the focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs;" despite a public that is increasingly angry with a political process that, however legal in a parliamentary sense seems unethical to most; and despite election reversals for his party in 3 different states over the past 6 months; Barack Obama is forging ahead on healthcare. It seems likely that it will pass now -- given the Slaughter option and a "deemed" vote -- and reconciliation will allow them to sidestep a GOP filibuster effort. Obama has indicated he will delay his Asian trip in order to sign the bill this weekend. It is still possible that the bill will be blocked -- the margin is tight -- but it the rules governing the process favor the majority here, however tenuously.

Folks, this is a display of courage. Obama is pushing for a major shift in US health care, one that is quite likely to push us a substantial step towards a one-payer or German-style system. This is in keeping with the goals of much (most? all?) of the U.S. political left which very much wants to see a USA with most of the power focused and regulated through the Federal Government and that truly believes in the goals/ideals common among many Social Democrat parties in Europe. They'd like to see our laws and government move substantially closer to the Scandanavian model. This is opposed by the majority of the U.S. electorate and the possibility of a nasty electoral backlash in November 2010 is distinct. Obama may well limit himself to one term in the achievement of this objective -- something that I simply didn't see as even a possibility a year ago given the lackluster cadre in the GOP. Were he to drop it entirely right now, he'd avoid virtually all of the backlash and his party would avoid much of it this November.

So why continue? The answer is simple, I believe, is that Obama has the courage of his convictions. He and his key administration people truly believe that nationalizing healthcare is the mete and correct thing to do -- and they are therefore willing to pay the price.

I will continue to oppose this healthcare "reform," on both philisophical and economic grounds....but I have to admire his courage.

Your thoughts?

[Lemur]

You are not the first right-of-center critic to discover that the current President actually has some convictions. Michael Medved, of all people, published this yesterday:

If President Obama really means to wreck the U.S. economy (as many influential conservatives stridently insist) then why didn’t he finish the job when he had the chance—in September, 2008? [...]

No economic analyst doubts that a final defeat of the Bush bailout would have produced a devastating wave of major failures in the financial world and a near total freeze of the banking system. When the House of Representatives narrowly turned down the TARP proposal in its first vote on September 29th, Wall Street responded the next day with the greatest one-time loss in Dow Jones history --- plummeting a gut-wrenching, unprecedented 777 points. That experience helped persuade additional Democrats, and 91 of 199 Republicans, to go along with both presidential candidates and to approve the package.

And what if Obama had split with McCain and Bush, aligning himself with overwhelming public opposition to the bailout, and blocking its approval in Congress? When the market collapsed and companies went under, there’s no chance the public would have blamed the candidate criticizing Bush and Paulson more than they blamed the candidate (McCain) who backed them. In fact, populist opposition to TARP, combined with the resulting financial catastrophe, would have produced an even greater margin of victory for Obama and the Democrats. Instead of winning by 7 percentage points, the Democratic nominee could have easily won by an historic landslide of 20 points or more. [...]

Politically, it made no sense for Barack Obama to join Bush, McCain and the Wall Street establishment in backing TARP. His resolute support for his partisan rivals makes no sense at all without the sane, obvious assumption that Obama (like most politicians of both left and right) actually wants the best for the country, its economy and its citizens.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If Obama pulls it off at last, I'd never vote for another politician ever again.

It takes tremendous courage and political strength to reform what is - owing to its double status as the world's most costly and simultaneously most useless healthcare system - this world's most profitable organised plunder of ordinary citizens. In so doing, America will no longer be the one single developed nation without universal healthcare. What's more, Americans will regain what was once thought the American way: Obama will return power to the people, their financial and physical wellbeing taking preference over organised plunder of them again.

A tremendous feat.




Edit:
Sorry, not trying to be dense here or sway the debate by post three to a discussion about the actual merits of Obama's healthcare reform plan.

In the above scheme, it becomes obvious why Obama would make healthcare a break-or-make issue of his presidency.

If one considers it an exercise in Marxism, against the grassroots opposition of ordinary Americans, at the possible price of a single-term presidency, then yes, one must wonder why Obama would persevere. Rational souls not easily swayed to conspiracist thinking, will arrive at the conclusion that Obama must actually believe in what he's trying to achieve. Which then, perhaps grudgingly admitted, would be telling of courage.

[Centurion1]

I'm a conservative and i can see that Obama is making a "courageous" stand here. Doesn't mean i have to support health-care though. George W. Bush made a few stands of his own.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If Obama pulls it off at last, I'd never vote for another politician ever again.

It takes tremendous courage and political strength to reform what is - owing to its double status as the world's most costly and simultaneously most useless healthcare system - this world's most profitable organised plunder of ordinary citizens. In so doing, America will no longer be the one single developed nation without universal healthcare. What's more, Americans will regain what was once thought the American way: Obama will return power to the people, their financial and physical wellbeing taking preference over organised plunder of them again.

You and I have different opinions as to the efficacy of this approach to healthcare.

Edit:
Sorry, not trying to be dense here or sway the debate by post three to a discussion about the actual merits of Obama's healthcare reform plan.

In the above scheme, it becomes obvious why Obama would make healthcare a break-or-make issue of his presidency.

If one considers it an exercise in Marxism, against the grassroots opposition of ordinary Americans, at the possible price of a single-term presidency, then yes, one must wonder why Obama would persevere. Rational souls not easily swayed to conspiracist thinking, will arrive at the conclusion that Obama must actually believe in what he's trying to achieve. Which then, perhaps grudgingly admitted, would be telling of courage.

I did not say he was a marxist, though that IS the epithet with which Obama is being tarred and featherd by the radio right. I believe he's a Social Democrat in the Eurpoean tradition (watered-down socialism, heavy emphasis on unions to really represent the working class, marginalize religion as counter-productive, increase taxation to pay for broad social entitlements, cut defense spending (and never deploy troops for more than 30 days save in UN authorized peace-keeping efforts, central government has most of the authority -- yes, I know I'm broad-brushing here).

It is also a fact that most of the proposed budget shortfalls engendered by this bill over the next ten years could be offset -- and then some -- by doubling the budget for homeland security and reducing the expenditure on the military and military operations from 4.06% of our GDP to 2.6% France maintains. Even at that level, we would be spending more on defense then all of the G8 (aside from China) combined.

This is, I believe, also part of the objective. With national healthcare the new norm, it becomes almost impossible, politically, for anyone to do more than trim around the edges of the program. This will, eventually, necessitate cutting spending elsewhere. The only realy possibility for a meaningful realignment of funds in the US budget is a sharp reduction in DOD spending. This will, in turn, MANDATE a more collegial and less combat-oriented approach to foreign policy across the board. This too, I believe, is one of the objectives. Yes, I do believe he is courageous enough to pursue these macro goals despite the political ass-whupping the Dems may well receive in the short run. I am, in addition, awed by his leadership....he's getting a lot of Dems to go along with this goal even though they can see a personal precipice between them and the "radiant future."

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are traces of Euro social-democracy noticable in Obama, yes. Combined with Obama's other policies, it would qualify the current administration as moderate European centre-right liberal.

The only realy possibility for a meaningful realignment of funds in the US budget is a sharp reduction in DOD spending.

Or the US could, oh I dunno, start to collect tax again from it's top 1% wealthy. Considering that they represent 40% of the US' wealth, taxes amounting to 12% of their wealth could pay for the entire DOD budget.

If that's too Marxist, America could also consider simply raising taxes for its middle class - the actual tax-paying working people. The difference in defense spending between the UK/France and the US is only 2%. I'm sure you'll find a way to cover this 2%.

If taxes are too socialist, America can finance its defense the GOP way: by mortgaging its future by borrowing from Beijing.

Failing all of this, Obama might succeed in his ulterior motive: to destroy America's might and power by a healthy US population, yes.


(Though there are whispered rumours that suggest that because the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare - double what other developed countries pay - an alignment of the US healthcare system with the rest of the developed world would free up so much funds America could double its defense spending and still lower taxes considerably)

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blue are Marxist-totalitarian states. They have single-payer universal healthcare. Such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Sweden.
Green is Marxist-Leninist. They have universal healthcare through other means. Such as Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, south Korea, Taiwan. And even rapidly (re-)developing countries like China, Russia and Brazil.

Grey are free countries without universal healthcare such as Sudan, Birma, the Congo and the US.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

That all sounds combative, Louis, what with all these cynical, snide comments.

Time to fight back, eh?

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/about-us

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Or the US could, oh I dunno, start to collect tax again from it's top 1% wealthy. Considering that they represent 40% of the US' wealth, taxes amounting to 12% of their wealth could pay for the entire DOD budget.

If that's too Marxist, America could also consider simply raising taxes for its middle class - the actual tax-paying working people. The difference in defense spending between the UK/France and the US is only 2%. I'm sure you'll find a way to cover this 2%.

If taxes are too socialist, America can finance its defense the GOP way: by mortgaging its future by borrowing from Beijing.

Failing all of this, Obama might succeed in his ulterior motive: to destroy America's might and power by a healthy US population, yes.

(Though there are whispered rumours that suggest that because the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare - double what other developed countries pay - an alignment of the US healthcare system with the rest of the developed world would free up so much funds America could double its defense spending and still lower taxes considerably)

We have no system to tax wealth. Taxes are levied from income. Certain kinds of income are not considered income. This is insipid. I am not in favor of a wealth tax, but at least it would be more honest than the bastardized semi-progressive tax we're stuck with. I want a consumption tax. I want as close to pay as you go as it is possible to be. I will never see it in my lifetime.

We will end up raising taxes in one fashion or another. We can only run in the red for so long before the loans will dry up. Without raising taxes, we cannot maintain our defense spending at superpower levels. Side thought? Why did we spend so little on our war department most of the time, but we spend scads on a defense department? Who ever won a ******* thing on defense anyway (strategically speaking).

We will NOT decrease the percentage of GDP spend on healthcare. We will end up increasing it. Cost savings will qiuckly be offset by calls for broader services. Fat smokers will NOT be denied care but we will have to pay for them. Drug abusers will be rehab'ed ad infinitim (saving 5% on each go around) at the public nickel. Oldsters will consume a grossly disproportionate share of care dollars. The model for us will be medicare/medicaid -- not Euro-health. We will expand that aspect of our health system which functions least effectively -- but most inclusively.

Funding everything on Chinese credit is stupid....unless we get enough of it to welsh on the debt and put them under in a single shot.

Obama wants a healthier America. He especially wants the poor have nots -- the group for whom he was a political advocate -- to have care as good as anyone else in the country. He believes it is morally wrong for some rich suburban kid of asiatic extraction to have access to a pacemaker paid for by his father's health package while some hispanic lad languishes in the barrio because his hard working parents work two or three jobs each with no benefits and can't afford a glossy health care package. Equality must be of outcome, not opportunity.

I don't see things that way.

[drone]

So, what you are saying is that Obama is a Socialist bent on the destruction of the American economy, no matter what?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We will NOT decrease the percentage of GDP spend on healthcare. We will end up increasing it. Cost savings will qiuckly be offset by calls for broader services. Fat smokers will NOT be denied care but we will have to pay for them. Drug abusers will be rehab'ed ad infinitim (saving 5% on each go around) at the public nickel. Oldsters will consume a grossly disproportionate share of care dollars. The model for us will be medicare/medicaid -- not Euro-health. We will expand that aspect of our health system which functions least effectively -- but most inclusively.

Obama wants a healthier America. He especially wants the poor have nots -- the group for whom he was a political advocate -- to have care as good as anyone else in the country. He believes it is morally wrong for some rich suburban kid of asiatic extraction to have access to a pacemaker paid for by his father's health package while some hispanic lad languishes in the barrio because his hard working parents work two or three jobs each with no benefits and can't afford a glossy health care package. Equality must be of outcome, not opportunity.

I don't see things that way.

I think this shows two typical American fallacies.

1. An severe under appreciation of the extent of European Healthcare provision. Almost all of what you cited as increasing American costs is already included in European State healthcare, there is currently a scandal over the fact that English (but not Welsh or Scotish) pensioners are required to pay for their own care. The assumption is that the English situation should be better, not vice versa, in order to redress the balance.

As another example, my father, a poor 59 year-old bus driver, had his apendix out on Sunday. He is now back resting at home, having payed nothing, and the whole thing was done with no hassle. His only complaint was the food.

2. That the principle of "equality of opertunity" should apply to healthcare when most of those who need it (the young and the old) have no opertunity to ever improve their situation. If I said that "equality of opertunity, not equality of outcome" should apply to policing you would say the system was corrupt; yet you advocate exactly this concept with relation to your nation's basic well-being.

[Centurion1]

We will end up raising taxes in one fashion or another. We can only run in the red for so long before the loans will dry up. Without raising taxes, we cannot maintain our defense spending at superpower levels. Side thought? Why did we spend so little on our war department most of the time, but we spend scads on a defense department? Who ever won a ******* thing on defense anyway (strategically speaking).

are you kidding? There is no longer a "War Department", it was merged from the department of the Navy and the department of the Army as well as the department of the Chair force, excuse me Air Force into the Department of Defense in 1949. Of the department of defense it is made up into two separate major parts, the Department of the Navy and the joint Chiefs of Staff.

Please tell me you were just kidding SF. Please

[Louis VI the Fat]

We will NOT decrease the percentage of GDP spend on healthcare. We will end up increasing it. Cost savings will qiuckly be offset by calls for broader services. Fat smokers will NOT be denied care but we will have to pay for them. Drug abusers will be rehab'ed ad infinitim (saving 5% on each go around) at the public nickel. Oldsters will consume a grossly disproportionate share of care dollars. The model for us will be medicare/medicaid -- not Euro-health. We will expand that aspect of our health system which functions least effectively -- but most inclusively.

Unfortunately, I think the system could well develop in this way. It is difficult to take back entitlements once they start being considered just that. Plus, once a corporation or government has its snout in the through, it's impossible to overcome the vested interest.

Good luck with all of that! On the up/downside - the hailed French healthcare system will be unaffordable in the long run too.

Obama wants a healthier America. He especially wants the poor have nots -- the group for whom he was a political advocate -- to have care as good as anyone else in the country. He believes it is morally wrong for some rich suburban kid of asiatic extraction to have access to a pacemaker paid for by his father's health package while some hispanic lad languishes in the barrio because his hard working parents work two or three jobs each with no benefits and can't afford a glossy health care package. Equality must be of outcome, not opportunity.

I don't see things that way.

But the social Darwinism is obvious in the example given: its not the parent, but the healthcare of the minor that's at stake here. It is about equality of opportunity.

The problem with social policy is that a lot of your money ends up with people whom you didn't want it to go to. Pensioners? Fine. A twenty-one year old who's bumming out a few years - whatever. Disabled people - a sign of civilisation that one takes well care of them. But a family of eight, who've been on the dole for four generations, a third of their time spend in hospital with ever new complaints, a third spend in prison and the remaining third of their time spend thinking up ever new ways to make my life miserable - no. The Darwinist in me protests. Cut them off and let nature run its purifying course.

Side thought? Why did we spend so little on our war department most of the time, but we spend scads on a defense department? Who ever won a ******* thing on defense anyway (strategically speaking).

As a side thought to the side thought: if it were up to me, the US had expanded all the way to Cape Horn and had a billion inhabitants....

But it's not too late! After hegemony, you can still exert influence and your cultural preoponderance will ensure vast swaths of the planet will adopt your culture and freedom just like we did in Algeria where all the theaters we build are not closed and no terrorism and anti-Western agitation developed as soon we no longer called the shots and

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The problem with social policy is that a lot of your money ends up with people whom you didn't want it to go to. Pensioners? Fine. A twenty-one year old who's bumming out a few years - whatever. Disabled people - a sign of civilisation that one takes well care of them. But a family of eight, who've been on the dole for four generations, a third of their time spend in hospital with ever new complaints, a third spend in prison and the remaining third of their time spend thinking up ever new ways to make my life miserable - no. The Darwinist in me protests. Cut them off and let nature run its purifying course.

This, cher Louis, is a pretty good point. Some degree of charity is necessary to a civilization. I prefer it to be done privately or by NGO's -- but some degree of charity IS a hallmark of civilization. I truly believe that government running the charity -- service -- etc. all too frequently creates such a "dolist" mind set (and yes some corporate entities <cough sounding strangely like Archer Daniels Midland> are just as subject to this effect). Such an outlook, historically has always undercut the very civilization that allowed this "entitlement" mentality to calcify.

As a side thought to the side thought: if it were up to me, the US had expanded all the way to Cape Horn and had a billion inhabitants....

I don't think we make very good hegemonists. I just wish we'd really figure out our priorities, get our house more or less in order, and then move forward on that consistent basis. Are we the world's policeman? Answer honestly and then structure things to do the job or not, etc. I also think "defense" department as a nomenclature is silly. It's W-A-R, as in killing people (some of whom will be innocent) and breaking things. "Defense" is pseudo-Orwellian.


Centurion:

My last comment above is really what I am after. If we are going to be a quasi-isolationist state, then we should pull in our horns and run a 2% GDP military with virtually no overseas presence save for USMC landings to protect/extract. If we're to be the lead cop of the UN, then we should be able to dial back to about 3% GDP and a lot of money for UN projects had better come from other coffers. If we're going to be the superpower, then we should UP the DOD budget and get a lot more boots. Right now, there are too many buttocks needing a swift kick and we have to hop too many times between kicks. Pick a role then make it viable.

[Lemur]

It's W-A-R, as in killing people (some of whom will be innocent) and breaking things. "Defense" is pseudo-Orwellian.

Hmm, "defense" is a misleading contruct meant to distract the listener from the meaning of what it describes. That's pretty much full-on Orwellian, nothing pseudo about it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I accept your correction my proto-simian friend.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Even moreso than Obama, for actual political courage one needs to watch the votes of House Democrats. Especially those in districts won by McCain. They could well sign their own death warrant by voting the bill.

Will Obama get his 216 votes?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...care-dems.html


Ooohh! The suspense of it all!

[CountArach]

Tremendous courage would have been devoting himself to this from Day 1. The last year has been nothing but dancing around the issue and seeking out a bipartisan watered-down solution to a problem that, I believe, must be done with one ideology in mind. Mixing and matching can't work for something this momentous because you just end up with a lot of half measures that only go halfway to solving the problem.

That said, given that it is either a half measure or no measure at all, I hope the Bill is passed and most of the jaded Left agree with me.

[PanzerJaeger]

I guess it requires some level of courage for an elected official to ignore the will of the electorate and impose this travesty on them during a severe economic decline.

A Profile in Unrelenting Gall -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

[Beskar]

I am guessing the electorate was happy with their 3rd World Healthcare and had to resort to bail-outs just to get treated for things we wiped out in this country 40 years ago, PanzerJaeger?

[m52nickerson]

I guess it requires some level of courage for an elected official to ignore the will of the electorate and impose this travesty on them during a severe economic decline.

A Profile in Unrelenting Gall -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

Welcome to a representative democracy. Which survive because unlike direct democracies they will sometimes enact unpopular measures that are needed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I guess it requires some level of courage for an elected official to ignore the will of the electorate and impose this travesty on them during a severe economic decline.

A Profile in Unrelenting Gall -- Barack Obama and Healthcare

The divide amongst partisan lines is complete.

Me, I say it takes quite some gall for a minority party and lobbyists to obstruct to this extent, during a time of severe economic troubles brought about by their policies, a bill that will return power to the people and drastically reduce the deficit.

The US Congressional Budget Office says the final version of the Democrats' healthcare plan will cut the federal deficit by $138bn over 10 years.

The non-partisan body said the proposed legislation, which the House is expected to vote on at the weekend, would cost about $940bn over a decade.
President Barack Obama said the bill represented the most significant effort to reduce the deficit since the 1990s.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8574969.stm

[PanzerJaeger]

I am guessing the electorate was happy with their 3rd World Healthcare and had to resort to bail-outs just to get treated for things we wiped out in this country 40 years ago, PanzerJaeger?

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

Welcome to a representative democracy. Which survive because unlike direct democracies they will sometimes enact unpopular measures that are needed.

Wonderful. The bill is certainly unpopular, but I'm wonder what part of it is needed?

Me, I say it takes quite some gall for a minority party and lobbyists to obstruct to this extent, during a time of severe economic troubles brought about by their policies, a bill that will return power to the people and drastically reduce the deficit.

The Doctor Fix is in, ladies and gentlemen.

[Ironside]

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

Wonderful. The bill is certainly unpopular, but I'm wonder what part of it is needed?

Are you going to disagree with that the US have the most expensive healthcare in the world? And that those costs are increasing rapidly?
Are you going to disagree on that the amount of people that can recieve proper healthcare is decreasing in the US?

Are you going to disagree that if Obama fails, then it's pretty much confirmed that touching healthcare is political suecide, making any larger reforms impossible until the system is publically known to be on the verge of collapse?

[Centurion1]

Hey look i have a deal with congress if they drop their Cadillac plans ill jump full steam behind this bill, drop my tricare, and use this health care. But if this isn't good enough for them they can kiss my ***

[m52nickerson]

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

Glad that you have access to it, not everyone in the US does.

......perhaps that is why it is needed.

The Doctor Fix is in, ladies and gentlemen.

The Doc fix is normally voted on every year, so it Doctors payments will not be cut. Even if health care does not pass the Doc fix will still be needed.

[Beskar]

3rd World healthcare? Which country are you refering to? In my country, I have access to the best healthcare in the world... healthcare that people in your country come to my country to get.

No you don't, oh wait, I am forgetting you are not actually talking about your healthcare and some random clinic which no body can access unless they are millionaires.

Because the number 1 in the World is actually France. United States of America is number 37 rivalling the likes of Cuba and Slovenia, whilst the United Kingdom is number 18.

Otherwords, remove your head out of your behind.

Source: World Healthcare Organisation.

[Subotan]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blue are Marxist-totalitarian states. They have single-payer universal healthcare. Such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Sweden.
Green is Marxist-Leninist. They have universal healthcare through other means. Such as Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, south Korea, Taiwan. And even rapidly (re-)developing countries like China, Russia and Brazil.

Grey are free countries without universal healthcare such as Sudan, Birma, the Congo and the US.

[/CENTER]

Woo, go Bhutan!

We have no system to tax wealth. Taxes are levied from income. Certain kinds of income are not considered income. This is insipid. I am not in favor of a wealth tax, but at least it would be more honest than the bastardized semi-progressive tax we're stuck with. I want a consumption tax. I want as close to pay as you go as it is possible to be. I will never see it in my lifetime..

Taxes on consumption are regressive.

[Don Corleone]

I have one simple statement to make.... I owe Lemur a hand delivered 8-pack of Guiness ( the bet was a 6 pack, but I wouldn't put the bottled *^! in anyone's hands, and the canned Nitrogen goodies only come 4 or 8 at a time).

Second statement... I have no idea what is in the bill I will be inflicted with tomorrow. Nobody here does. But I know by virtue of the fact that none of the 535 members of Congress or Obama's staff are signing on for it, it cannot possibly be good.

"We are all equal. And some of us are more equal than others.".

[Tellos Athenaios]

Right. After seeing that list I have now vowed never to fall ill or become injured in the USA. The simple fact that the Netherlands is up at place 17 makes me not even want to contemplate how bad it must be down at 37. *shudder*

EDIT 2: Better had post something useful too. Interesting link: http://allcountries.org/health/usa_h..._2008_nyt.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

Funny how it's the people outside the US saying how terrible our system is.

Even funnier how Canadian ministers come to the US for treatment.

I really hate this bill. Another huge expansion of the government, which will guarantee increased costs and more taxes. And for what? Most people - the ones with jobs and healthcare already, won't benefit.

Instead, we have a massive overhaul just so the poor can have their healthcare paid for even though they haven't earned it. Apparently I'm now responsible to pay for the employment benefits of other people. Your company won't pay for healthcare because you don't produce enough in the way of GDP? Well lets take money from more productive people and give it to you.

Oh, and does this bill do some really simple fixes that could help make insurance cheaper? No! Can we buy healthcare across state lines? Nope! Will the taxes on individually bought plans be done away with? No!

Will more medical schools be founded, or existing schools expanded, nuts to the AMA? Nope!

No, we just get a whole bunch of government controls, which will make all insurance more expensive! And then we'll get a slew of new restrictions on what care we can get. If helping the poor was the only objective, we could just give $1k or something to those in poverty for buying health insurance and co-payments and say they can keep whatever they don't spend.

Oh, yeah, we have the federal government demanding I buy insurance. So much for freedom of choice.

I'll end with an excerpt by the incomparable Milton Friedman:

The first major change in those arrangements was a byproduct of wage and price controls during World War II. Employers, pressed to find more workers under wartime boom conditions but forbidden to offer higher money wages, started adding benefits in kind to the money wage. Employer-provided medical care proved particularly popular. As something new, it was not covered by existing tax regulations, so employers treated it as exempt from withholding tax.

It took a few years before the Internal Revenue Service got around to issuing regulations requiring the cost of employer-provided medical care to be included in taxable wages. That aroused a howl of protest from employees who had come to take tax exemption for granted, and Congress responded by exempting employer- provided medical care from both the personal and the corporate income tax.

Because private expenditures on health care are not exempt from income tax, almost all employees now receive health care coverage from their employers, leading to problems of portability, third party payment and rising costs that have become increasingly serious. Of course, the cost of medical care comes out of wages, but out of before-tax rather than after-tax wages, so that the employee receives what he or she regards as a higher real wage for the same cost to the employer.

A second major change was the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. These added another large slice of the population to those for whom medical care, though not completely "free," thanks to deductibles and co-payments, was mostly paid by a third party, providing little incentive to economize on medical care. The resulting dramatic rise in expenditures on medical care led to the imposition of controls on both patients and suppliers of medical care in a futile attempt to hold down costs, further undermining the kind of private practice that Dr. Oreschenkov "cherished most in his work."

The best way to restore freedom of choice to both patient and physician and to control costs would be to eliminate the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. However, that is clearly not feasible politically. The best alternative available is to extend the tax exemption to all expenditures on medical care, whether made by the patient directly or by employers, to establish a level playing field, in terms of the currently popular cliche.

Many individuals would then find it attractive to negotiate with their employer for a higher cash wage in place of employer-financed medical care. With part or all of the higher cash wage, they could purchase an insurance policy with a very high deductible, i.e., a policy for medical catastrophes, which would be decidedly cheaper than the low-deductible policy their employer had been providing to them, and deposit all or part of the difference in a special "medical savings account" that could be drawn on only for medical purposes. Any amounts unused in a particular year could be allowed to accumulate without being subject to tax, or could be withdrawn with a tax penalty or for special purposes, as with current Individual Retirement Accounts—in effect, a medical IRA. Many employers would find it attractive to offer such an arrangement to their employees as an option. . . .

CR

[Don Corleone]

Responding to Seamus's point in the O.P.... I disagree. Categorically. The speaking head of a minority bent on a takeover of 1/6 of the GDP of a country is not in and of itself courageous. Were Sacco and Venzetti "politically courageous"? Was McCarthy? As I understand it, when Pol Pot first came to power, most Cambodians did not agree with him either, hence the need for his "healthcare reforms". Was he courageous by making it so?