What a wonderful day!  I got the chance to drive down and play golf with Dad and our friend, John Gould.  I say our friend since John was complaining about only having one friend (Dad) and I graciously volunteered to be friend #2.  By the end of the outing, Sally had agreed to be friend #3, but David declined to be friend #4.

One of the things I love about playing with these two fine gentlemen is the camraderie and laughs.  No one gets a free pass from the teasing and yet everyone cheers everyone else's successes.  The highlights of this round were John's birdie, Dad's and my (and John's) multiple pars, and a rather amusing slip of the tongue by yours truly.

I was yanking all of my iron tee shots to the left.  As John and I left the tee box, I allowed as to how I used to always slice the ball.  "But now," I said, "I'm more of a hooker."

Then I put my finger on my lips and said, "Hmmm...I don't think that came out quite right!"  I'm sure I'll hear about that one on future outings for years to come.  The only downer of the day was that we were supposed to be joined by my sister-in-law, Donna...and she couldn't make it at the last minute.  (We missed you, Donna!)

Given that I drove for 3 hours today, I also got the chance to catch up on my podcasts.  On one recent "This Week with George Stephanopolous," Senator Lindsay Graham was on.  George (just easier to type than Stephanopolous...it's not that I know him on a first name basis) asked Senator Graham about his opinions on the healthcare reform bills currently being marked up in the Senate and the house. 

Not once, but twice, Graham responded with the Republican talking points that a public health plan was "socialized medicine" and would lead to a "bureaucrat standing between a patient and healthcare."  Two comments.

1.  I fail to see how a public health plan that allows choice between current health plans and the public plan is "socialized medicine."  Nice buzzword designed to drum up fear of a European style of medical care (a type of care that few Americans bother to research enough to know that even if Graham's falsehood were true, it wouldn't be as bad as the hype).  But it's not true...socialized medicine implies a single payer system where the payer is the government.  And that's not going to happen.

2.  I don't know about you, but I currently deal with a pretty good health plan.  And even so, there's a bureaucrat standing between me and proper healthcare on occasion.  It's an insurance bureaucrat, but it's a bureaucrat all the way.  Again, another bogeyman designed to instill fear rather than a legitimate argument against a choice of the government plan.

As an adjunct, I should mention that I was intrigued by one idea being floated by Senator Max Baucus of Montana--co-op healthcare instead of a government run program.  I'll have to read more, but it seems like it may be a reasonable compromisel 

(See, I'm a Democrat and I'm not for socialized medical care...how can that be?)

Enough.  Off to the couch to rest up after my glorious day of golf.

 


Comments

Hal

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:10:53

Ya know, I just dreamed up an interesting way to tackle the health care crisis. Remind me to talk about it on our next adventure.

 

Laura

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:34:19

Can you give me hints?!!

 

Steve Peden

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:04:32

Why is it that people who are of, basically, a socialist (or perhaps more accurately, a "democratic socialist") mindset so thin-skinned when we call a spade a spade? If you're not proud of your socialist tendencies, why do you continue them? Call me a conservative/libertarian, and my response would be "Thank you."

That snark having been gotten out of the way, first, why in the WORLD do you believe Obama's protestations ("Methinks the lady doth protest too much") that he DOESN'T want the public option to displace private insurance when (i) he is, historically, a proponent of "single payer," and (ii) one would not be unreasonable to observe his actions and conclude that he is more of a proponent of government than free market. He SAYS he doesn't want to displace private insurance - but why should I believe him?

More to the point, his "public option," and the legislation around it, are DESIGNED to put the private insurors at a disadvantage. Point one: employers who don't provide, or stop providing, private health insurance to their employees would pay a tax, or fee, of $750 per employee per year. Ever try to buy health insurance for $750 a year? If I'm an employer providing health insurance at, say $1,500 or $2,000 per employee per year (a fairly low annual premium, actually), why WOULDN'T I tell my employees, "Hey, I'm terminating our private plan - go sign up for Obamacare." I just reduced my health insurance costs by more than 50%. Not ALL employers will - but many will.

Also, Obama's cynical "If government programs are so inefficient, why are they worried about competing with them?" statement notwithstanding (and although I know it is MONSTROUSLY dishonest political theater, I can give him props for a good line), the government plan would have one aspect that would make it, ultimately, impossible for private plans to compete with - it never has to make a profit, and it can never go broke (at least until the entire federal government goes broke - an event that is becoming more likely by the day).

So, what's the answer? Question: Name two aspects of current U.S. health care which are (i) outside the realm of both private and government insurance programs, and (ii) involve constantly increasing and improving technology (which, we are told, is one of the contributors to rising costs), and (iii) are replete with PRICE WARS between providers? That would be cosmetic surgery and LASIK. Why are these two virtually unregulated, uncovered (by government and virtually all private insurance), arguably unnecessary sectors providing more and better care, with better technology, at lower and lower prices??

"Umm, let's see . . . could it POSSIBLY be market forces??" DING, DING, DING!!!!! Right answer!

When people spend their OWN dollars for health care (or anything else), they shop more carefully, and make more efficient buying decisions. Physicians offered CASH for services can have certainty (no "will Medicare/insuror approve this" issues), quick A/R turnaround, etc.

So, the ANSWER is simple - let people establish (pre-tax) health care savings accounts to cover their day-to-day health care. Form buying coops to make contractual arrangements with primary care providers. Buy REAL health care insurance (and what we have now is NOT "insurance") for catastrophic health care issues.

There. Problem solved.

That was easy.

 



Leave a Reply