GOP euthanizes perfectly healthy Truth
What's wrong with the GOP's attack on President Obama's health care plan? Plenty.
POLITICO (Washington) - As President Barack Obama tried to sell the American Medical Association today on his health care overhaul, the top Senate Republicans launched a familiar line of attack.
They warned of rationed medical care, lack of patient control and government bureaucracy.
"The American people will not stand for rationed health care," Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said Monday. "We believe that a one size fits all approach is the wrong approach."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a floor speech scheduled for this afternoon warned that what Americans "don't want is a Washington takeover of health care along the lines of what we've already seen with banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry. Americans don't want a government-run system that puts bureaucrats between patients and doctors."
Kyl and McConnell introduced a bill today that would bar the federal government from using "comparative effectiveness research" -- which, Kyl charged in a news conference timed to coincide with Obama's AMA speech in Chicago, would lead to rationing of care.
Kyl said that the research would result in the delaying of health care treatment to a patient based on cost, which he believes would weaken the quality of care.
"I don't want America to begin rationing care to their citizens in the way these other countries do," Kyl said.
[snip]
Senate GOP Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) predicted that Americans would begin to sour on President Barack Obama's call for a public option.
"Washington takeover are two words we've been hearing a lot from the Obama Administration these days," said Alexander. "That's a different direction that Republicans want to go."
Alexander vowed that Republicans would stay on offense on the issue.
"We intend to be players," he said.
The problems with the GOP's attack begin with the party's continued reliance on false choices. For now why don't we call these false choices "lies."
Lie #1: The president's plan will result in rationing of health care.
The Truth: Health care in the U.S. already is rationed. The GOP leadership is able to put this lie over on their party only because Republicans don't notice the rationing. They are universally rich and immune from rationing. They never sit for hours in a doctor's waiting room; they have their servants sit there for them. Nor do they ever have to wait for an appointment; they can get their doctor into the office just by veering the cart off the golf course. Most important of all, Republicans never have trouble being seen because either a) they are all insured by Lloyd's of London, or b) they can simply pay for face transplants and heart lifts with their lunch money.
Lie #2: The president's plan will take medical care out of the patient's control.
The Truth: Okay, this one's true. As everyone knows, American patients are always happy with their care and always involved in the decision-making. Doctors typically spend half an hour per visit explaining each patient's diagnosis, options and the best route from their office to the shopping mall. Under Obama's health care plan, Iranian clerics would decide if you live or die.
Lie #3: The president's plan will result in more bureaucracy and denial of care.
The Truth: The system already is controlled by a massive and unresponsive for-profit bureaucracy. In shorthand, let's call it "the insurance industry." If you've had a problem being denied care, welcome to private-sector health insurance. If your premiums keep going up while your care declines, again, thank the current system. Under Medicare, only 3 percent of costs go to administrative overhead. The private sector typically skims off 25 percent of revenue.
Finally, if Republicans are concerned that a public health care plan would siphon away 70 percent of the people currently insured by the private sector, let them stay in the 30 percent. The rest of us will muddle through somehow, just as we always have. Only this time, we'll be muddling through as volunteers, not as guinea pigs for a system that places profits above care.
















Ripper!
So nice to 'see' ya again. Hope all is well.
Terrific post. Appreciate.
Rec'd.
June 15, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the GOP rations is the truth. And as a result, Americans have little access to it.
That has to change. We need universal access to the truth in this country. The Republican plan? They don't want anyone to have that option.
The Republican plan only calls for universal access to lies.
June 15, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN had a GOP congressman from Georgia on a couple days ago and I was forced to watch it in a restaurant.
A Republican congressman from Georgia jawboned at length as to what is fair, not fair, or wrong in health care, what insurance companies should do or change. Yet, he and the likes of Senator Kyl (R-AZ) have not, in their long terms in Congress, done a damn thing about it.
They will never do anything to improve our health care 'system' because they don't give a crap about it except as an ATM for campaign donations from big insurance companies.
June 15, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sour on public option? I am of the opinion that single payer is inevitable... no idea how long it will take or I should say... how much time, money, and energy we will waste getting there.
A public option is good though... I'll take that. I like the idea that it will help make private insurance companies more honest. We'll see.
The GOP has nothing really substantive to offer the debate except their usual message of 'no'. I hear no better ideas...
Good to see you ripper. I've been wondering what's going on with SCAMMD(it's been a while so I'm not sure if I got that right).
June 15, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
SCAAMD died of neglect and the syndrome so eloquently summarized in coonsey's post here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/coonsey/2009/06/are-we-really-so-shallow.php?ref=reccafe
June 16, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Really? Funny, I remember it's demise was due to poor organization, lack of leadership, questionable purpose, and unrealistic expectations.
These "SCAAAMD" volunteers thought their time was better spent knocking on doors and phone banking for Obama.
how shallow of them...
June 16, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I remember a lot of people backing out of their commitments. But it's always easier to bitch than to get off one's ass and DO something. Thanks for designing the SCAAMD logo, bwak.
June 16, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My final comment on this subject.
Synchronicity asked a question others may have wondered about. It deserved an honest answer. I gave it.
No one was more frustrated than I that SCAAMD died of neglect. I put hundreds of hours over many months into developing and building the site, constructing the code that it required to function, with the assurance that others would contribute their efforts to its maintenance when the time came. With a few short-lived exceptions, that did not happen. SCAAMD sits there today with no one to operate it.
Over the course of those months when I worked literally night and day to finish the site, I drove myself further into poverty despite a few monetary donations from a very few supporters. I thank them for helping sustain my efforts.
My problem with all of your ranting, bwak, is that "I" was never supposed to be SCAAMD. It wasn't my idea in the first place. It wasn't supposed to be my responsibility or any one person's responsibility alone. After the outside developer that one of our members asked to design the site completely dropped the ball, I took it upon myself to build the site based on the design criteria the group had agreed on. When it was completed shortly after the Republican convention, no other members seemed to have the time or interest to update the content or even bother to learn how to administer the site.
You wanna go toe to toe with me on this, bwak? Bring it on. I still have all the group's emails.
June 16, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, and lousy timing. I think I said what I wanted to say. I think it's bad form on your part to say people were shallow. I made my points and moved on long ago.
I am sorry you haven't, and I hope things are going better for you.
June 16, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weird because I went offline for several months after the beginning of the year and when I came back I think TheraP and others suggested that I might want to get involved with SCAAMD but I saw and heard nothing...
Well. I am hoping something emerges out of the chaos of what is going on in journalism.
June 16, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ripper. Welcome back. Glad to see you fired up again about an issue that affects us all.
June 15, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical GOP -- if the facts contradict what you believe, sweep'em under the rug. NO RESEARCH, NO HOW.
Don't give the doctors enough data that they know when to say no to the medical industry.
June 15, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder sometimes, in medical clinics all over this country, people waiting like they are at the DMV for their appointment that was 'scheduled' over two hours before...How are they responding to all of this hubbub?
Those with a smidge of insurance waiting in a ER after their little girl fell downstairs and complains that she hurts and cannot feel her toes...
We all see ER, in various forms, all day long.
Who do these repubs think they are foooooooling?
June 15, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this one drives me the most mad:
Americans don't want a government-run system that puts bureaucrats between patients and doctors.
Since these fellows feel so strongly about this, I think they should opt out of their current Congressional health care plan.
June 16, 2009 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are universally rich? That will come as quite a surprise to quite a few on the right I would suspect. Republicans are no richer as a group than democrats. Otherwise, good rip.
If the GOP leadership were smart, they would use this issue to address their pet peeve of a "government plan" while actually offering coherent solutions. There are reasons to be against "Medicare-for-All" that have nothing to do with fear of government intervention. Why not offer a new classification of nonprofit for health insurance companies and regulating the living hell out them? We have taken profit out of a number of industries relating to social services and have been rewarded with great performance in the sector given the relatively small budgets involved.
I don't think the current Medicare system is scalable to 320 million, so the health care reform we come up with will most likely be a hybrid of competing solutions operating under the same set of fairly stringent rules. Americans will organically move toward the mjost efficient solution, whatever it ends of being, over how many ever number of years it takes for the above to play out. I actually think a public plan is better administered at the state level or via a local non-profit mechanism, so perhaps Medicaid or a public-private partnership is a better way to regionally distribute the combined benefits of a national group plan.
I don't expect the GOP to be smart for at least three or four election cycles. However long it takes for the grassroots to finally say enough is enough and send new people to Washington. The democrats are still wrestling with that and they have a much bigger pool of local progressive choices.
June 16, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
a bit of snark you missed there, jem, intended to make Republican rank and file realize they also wait
June 16, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid republicans aren't well-known for their Snarkometers. :O)
June 16, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting delusional perspective from David Brooks on health care:
"There is the liberal way, in which the government takes over the health care system and decides who gets what. And then there is the conservative way, in which cost-conscious consumers make choices in the context of a competitive marketplace."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinion/16brooks.html
June 16, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative Plan: Whoever has the most money gets the most treatment.
Progressive Plan: Whoever is sick gets treated.
June 16, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's hittin the nail right on the head Gregor!
June 16, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. bingo, Gregor
June 16, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This THE NEW YORKER article is a "must" read if you want to know where the waste is in our current system. A very long article, but well worth the time. Additionally, it knocks down several strawmen that have cluttered the debate.
The Cost Conundrum
What a Texas town can teach us about health care.
by Atul Gawande
June 16, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My brother lived over seventeen years in Europe (Switzerland first, then Germany). His two children were born over there, and his wife treated for a heart condition. He (and I, who had a few odds and ends taken care of at a very reasonable price with no waiting) were delighted with the system, the care provided, and the cost to the consumer. If more Americans were less insular the bogeymen raised by Republicans would have to join the dust bunnies back under the bed where they belong.
June 16, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
" If more Americans were less insular the bogeymen raised by Republicans would have to join the dust bunnies back under the bed where they belong...."
Brilliant, AMike. And the bonus of laughter.
June 16, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the biggest problem we have is not our insular fellow citizens so much as it is our cowardly Democratic members of Congress who have cowered and shaken in their boots for two generations every time the Republicans raise the prospect of "government run" healthcare. If they would spend more time leading and less time hiding we would be further along on a whole host of vital issues. Though we are unused to it, the people really would follow if our elected officials would actually have guts enough to stand for something real and lead them.
But the Democrats now face a fundamental dilemma in the way they do business. It is something they have not had to contend with in the past, at least not to this extent. They want to placate the people and also satisfy the interests of predatory wealth at the same time. This used to be a viable strategy when the economy was sound and growing. Under those conditions there were plenty of goodies to distribute that would provide for the Democrats to keep their voters thinking (falsely) they were being well represented while simultaneously keeping things cushy for the predator classes who would, in turn, continue contributing to their campaigns so they could stay in Washington and continue failing to represent the people who elected them.
We are now in a new depression and the goodies are gone.
Our leaders are attempting to fashion a "compromise" on health care like those they loved in the past where the predators are taken care of and the people take what little they can get. Well that will be impossible under current and forseeable economic conditions. No health care reform bill at all would be better than another worthless Democratic half a loaf (or less) that pleases the predators and does little for the rest of us. You may have noticed that frustrated Democrats, unable to peform the old tried and true shell game on this issue are now starting to talk in terms of just passing some kind of bill. Nothing currently under discussion even covers the entire population, let alone has reasonable costs. That's because they are trying to keep the for profit, purely predatory insurance industry and their BFFs in the drug indsutry fat and happy at the same time. You cannot cure the cancer by feeding the tumor. The only way for the patient to make it is to cut the tumor out completely. That's what needs to happen in America on health care reform. At a minimum, no "compromise solution" will solve anything without throwing the insurance and drug kingpins, who have been raping our countrymen for decades, out of the game. They comprise the bulk of the tumor that is killing the economy and harming the nation's families.
If we common people are ever to see a decent health care system in this country that is focused on the health of Americans instead of the wealth of the predators, then the Democrats need to grow a pair. It needs to happen first in the White House and then on the Hill and and they must proudly proclaim that the time for not-for-profit, government sponosored health care has come.
I ain't gonna hold my breath of course. I don't think there's ever been a crowd of Democrats on the Hill in our lifetimes with less backbone or conviction than those we have there at present (overall of course as there are a few decent liberal Democrats who actually have the courage of their convictions). What a sorry lot they are in general! This is particularly galling that they are such weaklings and wimps considering that the Republicans are, at this moment in time, as unpopular and despised as they are ever likely to be. Yet Democrats can't find enough courage to do the right thing even now. They aren't even discussing real solutions to the health care crisis. How can they when they are trying to figure out how to do it with the predators who have brought us to this point? How disgraceful! How contemptible! How sad.
June 16, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink