A View From The Press Box

What we need to remember in all this is that merely introducing the federal government into this mess is not going to change anything. History seems to suggest there is a good chance it will make thngs worse.

There is a lot of bad information out there, including the number of so-called "uninsureds." There is also the presumption that things are better in England, Australia--even Cuba. I can tell you things are not better in these countries in terms of quality, timeliness and overall cost of services. In fact things are worse in these countries.

So, if there is a pressing need to fix our system--as opposed to merely a politically convenient one--we should take a serious look at what's out there, determine what is and is not working, and as we move forward, make sure to address the concerns of all parties, including the untold number of working stiffs who will not only be picking up most of the tab, but receiving substantially worse coverage than they are presently enjoying.

One last thing--any new plan should pass this litmus test--everybody in the federal government, including the 535 politicians who approve the plan, should be participants--no exceptions.

SAM RESPONDS:

I love your last point, Charlie! Right on!

There was a TV show a few years ago along the lines of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, with Josh Brolin in the lead as an idealistic U.S. Senator.

To promote tax reform, he introduced a bill to require all members of Congress to fill out their own tax returns without professional help. That way, he figured, they would realize how crazy the cockamamie system had become and would be forced to simplify it.

The same logic should be applied to the health care reform debate!!!

This was Pat Moynihan's finest hour as a Republican consultant...Nixon took his plan for universal health coverage and ran with it

The current system is broke. The large corporations that for so long footed the bill for health insurance won't do so any longer.

If we don't find a suitable solution, it will become a taxpayer-funded program by default, as the sick flood hospital emergency rooms for treatment and the taxpayers get stuck with the bills.

Make all government employees, including Congress and the Executive, part of the plan is a sound start. But it's just that...a start.

When medical services at hospitals are free for large numbers of people, why should they make any provision at all to pay for their medical care, by living frugally and saving money or buying health insurance that they can afford (which may mean insurance with sizeable deductibles and co-payments).

"Free goods" are always abused. That's a big root of the problem--the government mandate that hospitals must serve anybody that shows up, regardless of ability or intent to pay. Repealing that mandate would be a necessary step to solving this problem.

SAM RESPONDS:
That's one approach--denying sick people without health insurance any care at all, and allowing them to die in the street.

However, another approach would be the establishment of a universal health insurance system. Since every other industrialized nation on Earth has such a system, isn't it about time our citizens enjoyed the same safety net?

I agree totally that hospitals should not be forced to treat people for free. That is a back-door universal insurance system, with the providers carrying the complete burden (and probably passing along such costs, as they can, to "paying customers.")

What we need is to open up a front door and mandate that everyone come on in. By pre-funding a universal insurance system, providers won't be left holding the bag, and everyone will have access to medical care.

MIKK's RESPONSE:
I'm advocating incentives, you're advocating coercion.

You know the four ways to spend money:

1. Buy for yourself with your own money--you get what you want and can afford; and you drive a hard bargain.

2. Buy for someone else with your own money--you drive a hard bargain but you know how it is with gifts. Most of them are a waste.

3. Buy for yourself with someone else's money--this is expense-account living. Only the best will do, with no regard for cost.

4. Buy for someone else with someone else's money--this what the government does. Price is no object, utility and quality don't matter much, and cronies get the business. Enough said.

Right now, our health care funding system uses the third option. No wonder costs are out of control. Any you want to go to the fourth option--even worse!

I advocate moving the system back toward the first option.

SAM'S RESPONSE:
I am curious as to just how you propose dealing with legitimately sick people who insurers shun and who cannot afford health insurance at the prices the market set? Do you propose just letting people die in the street for lack of insurance/care?

Sounds like you are against any government safety net-Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. Is that accurate?

MIKK RESPONDS:
It's accurate that I am against government social safety nets. However, we now have whole generations of people who have become dependent on these nets because, knowing they were there, they've failed to provide or contract for safety nets for themselves.

We cannot suddenly yank the government safety nets away and dump the unprepared people who now depend on them. However, we should start moving back away from this model of government safety nets, not get ourselves ever more enmeshed with them as you advocate, so that in 20 or 40 years, people will no longer have to depend on them.

We should not be using European social models as examples to emulate. That's a dying civilization, as long as it follows its present path, losing population except for whatever immigration they allow from mainly the Muslim south, which will supplant the native Europeans in a matter of only several generations. No dynamism, innovation or growth there.

There is a glaring omission in your "Republicans Weren't Always Against Universal Health Care"--the fact that the Democrats (in particular, that bastion of universal health care advocacy, and HMO original advocate, Sen.Ted Kennedy) were against the Nixon concept, even though Democrat and Financial Services Committee Chairman Russell Long was for it.

So maybe the headline should read "Democrats Weren't Always for Universal Health Coverage--A Matter of Fact They Were Against It"

Of course, Sam, one could wonder, if your partisan leanings were showing by this inadvertent omission.

SAM RESPONDS:
I'll have to study up more on the history of which you speak. I was not aware of the Democrats' resistence. But was it universal health coverage the Democrats opposed, or Nixon's approach to it???