Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Oh Health Care Debate, how stupid are ye?
As a resident Alien from a land with universal health care, I would be amused by the ongoing health care debate if it weren’t so sad.
First things first. Neither Clinton or Obama is talking about Universal Health Care. Instead I guess they are both talking about universal ACCESS to health care. A noble goal, but certainly not the same.
They both have serious problems with their arguments. The crux of the Clinton plan is that it will mandate everyone (who does not qualify for free health care) to buy affordable health care. What’s wrong with that? Nothing really, except Clinton calls Health Care a right. How many rights are people forced to buy? Imagine, “You have the right to pursue happiness, but we’re going to decide how much you have to pay per year to pursue it.” It doesn’t work. That’s why her plan isn’t universal. The other reason it’s not universal and the reason that her oft used comparison to Social Security is problematic is that it doesn’t affect everyone. Something like Social security works because it is the same for every citizen. Just as universal health care in many countries is the same for every citizen. These government programs work when there is buy in from everyone, not just those who need it.
That is not to say Obama’s plan is so great. He gets around the problem of forcing people to buy it and being the resident alien that I am, it seems that is something that will be far more agreeable with most Americans. But again, calling it universal is plain silly. Cheaper health care is good, but the free rider problems and the fact that some people just won’t buy it is problematic. The other thing that is problematic is his argument for his plan and against hers. Obama’s premise is that people who don’t have health care don’t have it because they can’t afford it, not because they don’t want it. Then he sends out a mailer saying her plan will force you to buy health care even if you can’t afford it. Well clearly her plan is meant to make it affordable just as his is, so that people won’t be forced into it, since as he argues they will buy it once it’s cheaper.
The most ridiculous aspect of this though, is that people are arguing it all. Forget about the fact that two people with non-universal plans are arguing about whose is more universal. They are both Democrats. It’s 10 months before anyone will get even begin to propose a health care plan. Somehow I bet that whoever is the nominee might be able to tweak the plan in the 300 odd days before they introduce it to Congress. Perhaps they could even take a little bit from each others plan’s in order to make the best one possible. Some might call it flip flopping. It ought to be called smart.
Comments (9)
Like to describe what sort of math will take into account all possible variables to determine who can afford to maintain health insurance companies in the style to which they have become accustomed by paying out as little possible?
I imagine, though, it must be laughable watching two combatants talking about which has the worse plan for our primitive system.
Best, Terry
February 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been telling people this. They aren't talking about true Universal Health Care. They aren't talking about the hospital industry's price fixing. They aren't talking about the Pharmaceutical Cartel's rape of America. They aren't addressing any of the reasons Americans are burdened with excessive health care costs. They aren't saying enough about bankruptcy reform.
February 26, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post that brings some perspective to this debate that means almost nothing. In this case, I don't think the policy difference nor the debate over it sheds any light on the best choice for Democratic nominee. The fact of the matter is that the details of health care reform will be worked and tweaked by many policymakers, members of Congress, consumer groups, health care providers, health insurance industry, et cetera, et cetera. What matters it that the Administration is committed to the idea of coming to a solution that works for the majority of Americans (particularly those that can't afford it in the current system) without sacrificing overall quality of care. Both Hillary and Obama have displayed this commitment, and the details JUST DON'T MATTER.
February 26, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't have said it better myself.. and I've tried. Excellent post.
February 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a really valuable post. I've been wrestling with the relative merits of the two plans (often publicly, often on this site), but you cut right to the chase: practically speaking, there's not a lot of daylight between the two plans. The plans are both inadequate to the task, and debating the distinctions between them as though their passage is already a fait accompli is a little bit ridiculous (slightly less ridiculous, but no less speculative, is the debate about who can push a plan through more effectively).
This same point can be extended to the "preconditions" argument that the candidates are having re: meeting with foreign leaders. Does anyone really believe Clinton and Obama would act in all that differently when it comes to pursuing diplomacy? The question, once again, comes down to effectiveness.
Granted, I'm pretty biased, but I do tend to think that all these "distinctions without difference" (to quote Barack) ultimately work to Obama's advantage. I'd be interested to hear from folks who feel differently.
February 26, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have rights to retirement payments that you have to pay into.
You have rights to Medicare that you have to pay into.
That's 2. Any questions?
I know of European countries with "Universal Health Care" where payments are mandatory (different payments for different circumstances), but you have a right to coverage.
That's 3. Out of here.
February 26, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to pay into Medicare to get coverage. You only have to be receiving SSI or SSDI for two years. You only receive SSDI if you've paid into the system enough over a certain period of time.
You don't have to pay into any system to receive Medicaid. If your income is low enough you can get insurance for your entire family. Most people who are eligible don't take advantage of it.
One can argue that taxes you pay go to pay for those programs.
The people hit hardest by the health care crisis are uninformed lower middle class people who aren't aware of programs they could be using and the middle class who do not qualify for those programs and even with insurance pay a fortune for copays and deductibles.
February 27, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
To drive through Canada, in very remote areas, and to see the signs directing you to the local "clinic" is to feel the sense of a safety net .... that one wishes for here.
Thanks for your post.
If only....
February 27, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
health care reform that enables more americans to purchase health care is going to take an immense amount of work and politicking. i think both plans are actually quite pragmatic in that they don't seek to turn the current system completely on it's head, and that it's a move by the candidates to end up with something they can actually talk to republicans about. all this debate about the minor differences in the plan often seems like a waste to me; do we really think these proposals are the ones we'll end up with in the end? not that i think the candidates shouldn't put forth plans and debate them, but if you take that too far you forget to ask them how they plan on actually getting health care reform passed once they are in office.
February 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment