EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Basketball analogies have been really popular lately, like Sarah Palin’s “pass the ball and leave the court” point guard talk. So here’s my analogy for where Obama’s health care plan has ended up after last night’s speech: he drove to the net, lifted off the gleaming hardwood court of ideals, and split the double team of industry interests and Republican fear mongering. Did the ball go in? It seems to be swirling around the rim, but I’m hopeful. Health care coverage is a result of the problem, not the problem. The real issue is the structure of the $2 trillion health care industry. This is not a new contention, but has been wrestled with by American Presidents like Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Bush. As President Obama noted, “I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.” Successful smoke and mirrors by the health care lobby has kept the focus on the people not covered, which keeps tax payer dollars flowing toward increasing coverage, not fixing the problem and saving money. Think about it, a con that even Ocean’s 11 would be proud of: a tightly knit industry with no competition screams “socialism,” (see where we are going here?), convincing tax payers to demand that the government spend more (yes, it’s true) on health care coverage (like President Bush did by expanding coverage for children and retirees) rather than fixing a non-competitive industry that is anything but “capitalist.” I can picture silk ties flying as health care executives jam out to their theme song, Alanis Morissette’s “Isn’t it Ironic?” As President Obama noted, “in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.” The key to fixing the system is introducing competition, where today very little exists. A public option was the apparent solution and health care industry kryptonite. President Obama seemed determined, as he stated, “an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance.” Rep. Charles Boustany, a Representative from Louisiana, gave the Republican response. Simply put, he wants to expand coverage and have tax payers pay for it. He does not want to change the system. As a former heart surgeon who made his fortune through the system that exists, I guess I’m not surprised. So it was a beautiful and inspiring drive, but as he rose to the net, the ball swirled around the edge of the rim. The question that remains is if the game is actually over, or to return to the former Alaskan Governor’s analogy, if Congress will walk off the court with time on the clock. |
Comments
Great post, Mark. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Thanks, Christy! I've been enjoying your prayer posts. Can see that book emerging!
Mark,
I guess I am one of those "fear mongerers". Naturally, you never addressed any of the questions that Obama's motives. It is very simple, Obama wants a single payor system He is on tape saying that over and over again. His Acorn and SEIU mobsters want that. He knows that as he said, it might take 15 to 20 years to get there, but introducing the government option is the vital step towards that goal.
Why don't you just be honest. You want a single payor system which is socialism. Medicare is broken and it going to break our countries bank just as it is breaking Europe.
The reason why there is little competition in those states is BECAUSE of government regulations. I live in MA and there are so many rules and regulations that the State has put on the companies, few are willing to do business in the state. Also, due to Mediscare, the government already owns about 50% of the medial market (socialized) and is the biggest purchasor of goods and services from hospitals. They are the monopoly and they are the reasons for much of the problem.
I also do not see you coming out for obvious strategies to take down costs:
Medical Savings Accounts
Accross State Line purchasing
Allowing Associations instead of Unions to purchase health policies
Tort Reform
Liberalizing the way care is delivered
Also, you forgot to mention the $150million dollars of contributions Obama has gotten from Pharma, GE and other folks involved in the "health care lobby". It is the reverse of what you are saying, people are rising up...Wall Street is whining (over the past 8 yrs, Wall street has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dems).
Deal with substance, not rhetoric Mark.
Dan
Thanks for that post Dan. It seems that some always want to villify Republicans which really always means conservatives, which I consider myself.
Thanks Jody,
I am not a republican, but I am a conservative. Also, sorry for the misspellings as I was typing on a small screen. There is much to fix in the health care system, but those who think that a government take over is going to bring down costs are going against historical fact. Health care premiums started skyrocketing once the government entered into the healthcare market due to the regulations imposed upon the American people. There are many good things about Medicare, but Mark specifically says that the reason for costs being high are due to insurance companies. They contribute, but are reactive to government regulations. Most insurance companies are in bed with the government, which is why there is so little competition.
Mark, I am a not one of the dumb right wing crazies (whatever that means in your head) that you continually demonize in your blog posts. I have multiple graduate degrees, manage more than $100m of assets, run a company that employs many people and have taught at the college level. It scares me that you might be feeding your propaganda to your students. I see no balance in your blog posts...just republican bashing. I should not be surprised as most universities have become left wing indoctrination factories.
Dan
Dan, you are soooo funny! You want to deal with substance, but you talk about how I “continually demonize” people. Dude, let’s try to be consistent here. You posted before and had already listed your degrees, the size of your company, and how many people you employ. Like I said, that's terrific! Good for you! I don't look down on you, Dan, there is no need to try to define yourself.
Read some of my non-health care posts. Some are even conservative! Christian! But maybe I'm demonizing demons, and I'm sure that will tick somebody off.
Jody, what does it mean to "vilify republicans?" How do you distinguish that from being held accountable? Not rhetorical question, honestly curious.
Dan, first, thanks for posting a comment. I really appreciate you taking the time.
I'm curious, what is Obama's "motivation" in your view? You noted that I did not hit that issue, and I wonder what you think his motivation is and why.
I like you list of other strategies. I have posted about four other blogs on health care, and some of those strategies were included. However, my bottom line conviction is that it's a systemic issue, which can be helped by more superficial approaches, but not fixed.
So you believe that the current system is a model of capitalism? That's very interesting, Dan. How do you account for what's happening re. competitiveness? Does that bother you at all?
Hi Mark,
I believe Obama is clearly a Communist/Socialist. His motivation is to take over large sectors of the economy and have it run by the government. Obama went to a church that was run by a communist (his church is part of the liberation theology movement which is a mix of the Gospel and 1960's communism). He joined a socialist party in the mid 1990's and was an advocate community organizer for an avowed communist organization and his mentor was a communist. These are indisputable facts.
I do not believe that this current system of capitalism is working well. We do not have capitalism in most sectors of our economy. We are run by oligarchies. For instance, the major reason for the downturn (for a scholarly view read Thomas Sowell) in housing was due to government interference. This government interference lead to an oligarchy where Freddie and Fannie created a massive bubble in the housing market. For instance, when Clinton came into office, these quasi agencies had about 3% or so of their portfolio's in sub prime loans. By 1999, that had grown to 44%. This is due to the CRA 77 legislation which lead to Bruce Marx of SEIU and Acorn suing Bank of America, Fleet and a host of others to force banks to loan to home owners that were not qualified. When people rail against banks and mortgage companies, they miss the point. The point is that Acorn thugs (Obama's breeding ground) went to the elementary schools where bank loan officers and presidents sent their kids. They protested the kids by telling them that their parents were economic terrorists. This was not an isloated occurence, but a FACT that spread throughout the country through the offices of Acorn.
Therefore, if you did not make these subprime loans, you were seen as a racist. Well, the banks initially were forced to make these loans by Freddie and Fannie, but Freddie and Fannie said to the banks...guess what, we will take the paper back! Therefore, the banks had nothing to lose and everything to gain. They did not need to own the paper.
Well, what did Freddie and Fannie and Barney Frank do??? They went to their old buddy, Robert Rubin at Goldman (a deomocratic wellspring of donations and former democrats in the Clinton White House) and they came up with a product to package these loans to take them off of Freddie and Fannie's hands! AIG insured them and viola, we had a housing boom.
This is not the example of capitalism, but a perfect example of government intervention resulting in an oligarchy. Bush II tried to fight it, but was called (ho hum) a racist by left wing anti intellectual racists. Stupidly, he decided to ride the train and brag about home ownership being at the highest leve in the history of the country! Well, it had risen from 63 to 68% under Clinton due to federal intervention and went to 69% under Bush.
This is what is going to happen when we socialize health care (though the government already is the biggest driver of higher costs because they own over 50% of the health care dollars spent). It is a joke ot say that costs are going to be lower when the government gets involved. History shows that the costs will be higher. If Obama came out and just told the truth to young people...expect 65% tax rates and we will give you free healthcare, then I would respect him. He outright lied when he said costs would not go up. He only cares about the means to an end.
This is just like when he said that if we pass the spending bill, we will not have more than 8% unemployment...well at 9.7% (really closer to 14%), we know how much we can trust him...also add $2Trillion to his "projections" of Debt over the next 10 years.
Dan
Dan, first I want to say thank you for a thoughtful and engaging post. While I may not agree with you, I really appreciate you laying out a thoughtful and detailed argument.
I guess I get stuck on your first point, that President Obama is a Communist. You seem very committed to that thought, but I find it hard to connect that claim with what I know. Communism, when the state owns all means of production, seems a far cry from having a public option. Or, towards your point about the banks. Most economists agree that the government had to act to avoid a depression. That George Bush's push for a "nation of ownership" as part of the problem.
Dan, how do you feel about other areas of our economy that are very dominated by the government. Farm support, tarriffs, steel production. Do you see all of it as bad, or do you think that at times it is appropriate?
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your kind response. Communists and socialists have taken the gradual approach to transforming society. The "public" option is one of those steps. President Obama specifically stated that his goal was to have a government owned, operated and mandated system, though he acknowledged it might take 15 years to accomplish this. This is on Youtube and he has said this many other times, so I am not putting words in his mouth.
We all know that he was enrolled in the Socialist party in the mid 1990's. Acorn is part of the worldwide socialist movement. I worked with Bruce MArx, one of the henchman for SEIU and one of the true criminals in the country. He said that his scheme to sue Bank of America and Fleet were part of his and his friends goals to "bring the whole system down." This is exactly what Obama's goal is.
It is impossible to argue that all of his mentors were not communists or socialists that wanted to transform society. We all know the list. Just look at what he has done for 9/11. He has changed it to a day of National Service. My 3 friends that died in 9/11 spouses are not so thrilled that he could not even make the service the FIRST year he was in office...the reason is that he wants to transform society.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I just deal with the facts.
Great questions elsewhere: I am against Farm Support, though I am completely against allowing monopolies to put small farmers out of business. I believe the government should regulate fair competition (Teddy R.). I am not completely opposed to government being involved in certain areas of the economy, but I believe they should regulate for the benefit of the freest possible market. Oligarchies destroy the free market-just look at the amazing things that happened when the Bells were broken up. We should do the same with health care and Microsoft (thogh the market may do it anyways) as well as other monopolies.
A good example are the car companies. I am not a global warming freak, but just look at how the oil and the car companies have destroyed research into other types of energy sources. This is wrong and hurts the free market. When you see an excellent football game, the refs keep the game moving quickly, but call holding and blocks behind the back. This is what the government should do.
Dan
Dan, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on President Obama. I appreciate your passion, but I just don't follow it. I can certainly see why some of the proposed reforms would concern you, but I'm looking at them from a different angle and see positive. While I agree that there are large issues even if health care reform is passed, like how it impacts the deficit, I still believe in the long run it has to happen for our country to live to its ideals and to survive.
I wonder where you think the "reform" will actually end up this year. I'm thinking at this point that we may end up with the worst of both worlds, expenses concessions to coverage without any substantial change to the system (like the legal reform you had mentioned earlier).
Hi Mark,
I would love to know why you disagree. If I am incorrect, I would like to know it. Do you disagree that Obama is a socialist? If so why. Do you disagree that ACORN and the community action Obama was in was not a sub unit of ANSWER?
What are the countries ideals? I am curious what you think of the ideals.
I have no idea where the "reform" will go. What I find interesting is that the left is condemning the tea parties and the upsurge of conservative "grassroots communiyt organizing" as something negative. I guess when the left organizes, it is for the good while when the right does it, they are Nazi's. I did not go to a team party, but I was pleasantly surprised by the American people coming together to oppose socialism.
This is interesting. Lenin defined "socialism" as a "transitional stage between capitalism and communism." Wikipedia defines it as "theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals." I think in either definition President Obama finds himself to be a socialist, and his ideals certainly line up with the Socialist US Party. "our aim is the creation of a new social order"- Obama's words, or from the Socialist Party? Tough to tell. My point is not to defend tradition or fight change, etc., but merely point out that via his policies, words, and print, President Obama would be defined as a socialist.