ONNtv.com, which bills itself as Ohio’s channel for news, is one of the latest media outlets to casually pass along one of Mitt Romney’s favorite campaign messages—the one that blames Obamacare for “killing jobs.” ONN reporter Jim Heath, traveling with Romney on his campaign bus, sat down for a one-on-one with the presumptive nominee. Romney told Heath: “Get rid of Obamacare. It’s a cloud over small business and it’s keeping jobs from growing in this country.” He went on:
When you have three quarters of American small businesses responding to surveys saying that Obamacare is making it less likely for them to hire people, and when people need good jobs, you know we have to get rid of Obamacare.
Romney has been saying that for quite a while now, and on the stump his rivals for the GOP nomination sent out the same message, pinning some of the blame for the sour economy on health reform. In a March op-ed, Rick Santorum wrote that “Illinois has seen first-hand how ObamaCare kills jobs and hurts the manufacturing sector.” Santorum noted that John Deere and Caterpillar are both based in Illinois, and he claimed that compliance with Obamacare will cost each company more than $100 million. The rhetoric apparently plays well in Peoria, and media outlets like the Ohio news channel have been happy to pass it along—without any pushback about its veracity, thus allowing it to stand as factual without contextual evidence.
But signs of skepticism about the GOP’s claim have surfaced among some media types, who have expressed doubt that Obamacare equals job loss. Last week The Christian Science Monitor held a Q&A breakfast featuring Douglas Elmendorf, who heads the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a pretty reputable source. Elmendorf told reporters, “We don’t think that the healthcare law is having a significant impact on the economy today. Elmendorf smashed an underpinning for the GOP job-killer claim: He said the Republicans use a CBO estimate that predicts that once the law is fully implemented, “it would reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by about a half a percent at the end of the decade.” But, Elmendorf said, “Most of that is people choosing not to work because they can obtain health insurance at an affordable price outside of the workforce.” Elmendorf seemed to be saying people would be leaving the workplace not because they were thrown out because of Obamacare, but for other reasons, and of their own choosing.
Meanwhile, Forbes staff writer Frederick Allen examined a study from the Urban Institute, which found no evidence that the Massachusetts reform law, the model for Obamacare, killed jobs.The study reported:
There is no evidence of a more pronounced decline in overall employment in Massachusetts than in the rest of the nation over the 2006-2010 period, nor is there evidence of a more pronounced decline among the small firms, industries, and workers, where such declines would be predicted if health reform had dampened economic growth in the state.
Brian Beutler over at Talking Points Memo also pointed to the Urban Institute study, arguing that Republicans “claim without evidence that coming rules that will apply to employers are creating regulatory uncertainty and dissuading businesses from hiring.” The fact that most provisions have yet to be implemented, Beutler wrote, “hasn’t stopped Republicans from attacking the Affordable Care Act as a job killer.”
When the House voted earlier this month to repeal a tax on makers of medical devices—which the health reform law calls for to help fund subsidies for the uninsured—Romney issued a statement saying, “We can’t afford policies that kill jobs and stifle innovation in one of America’s most dynamic industries.”
But there’s a back story here that needs to be part of future reportage.
- 1
- 2
It's time for a defense of the indomitable, monopolized force of national socialism — uh, I mean those poor, embattled, "humanitarian govt initiatives." Don't worry: you have all the expert-lobbyists from the mega-corps, PHARMA, HMOs, NGOs, govt agencies, et al., to back you with "facts." These highly credible folks have nothing to gain politically or financially from healthcare "reform"; anyone who claims otherwise is a Republican-conservative-libertarian-racist-bigoted ideologue who hates poor, sick, elderly people.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 25 Jun 2012 at 01:14 PM
The fact that corporations are making record profits, and yet not hiring tells you that the problem isn't with money, it's lack of demand. Suggesting that having to pay a smidgen more money is going to keep them from hiring is pure bullshit.
I prefer the experts from the CBO to the "expert-lobbyists" from the corporations that will do anything to avoid paying taxes.
#2 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Mon 25 Jun 2012 at 09:19 PM
This is basically the Mitt Romney campaign in a nutshell:
"Obamacare kills jobs, hurts businesses, and stifles innovation. I should know, since I implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts."
Ugh. The reality is businesses are not investing because of DEMAND! DEMAND, goddamn it!
For crying out loud, this isn't rocket science. Small business - hell, any business - avoids spending money when there's no prospect of increased sales. Consumers who have low wages, maxed credit, negative worth assets (houses underwater), and minimal job security + job prospects do not increase sales. You can't fix business "uncertainty" while consumer uncertainty is high.
Yes, a small portion of business uncertainty may be due to worry about consumers who are required to buy insurance products which might be an extra weight upon higher income middle class families, but the majority of the uncertainty is caused by the economic climate which is driven my a global financial industry run amok.
We don't know if our banks are going to get pasted again, like they did in 2008, because of some big dumb bet on European debt default which is only a risk because the global finance industries in Europe made big dumb bets on American houses. We are living in times where our governments have to publicly insure the financial decisions of big reckless bankers because when they lose to the house, they lose our houses.
When you read about the Chinese economy slowing down or the EU breaking up, you don't get to think "that won't affect my job at the plant" anymore:
a) because guys like Romney stripped your plant and sold the business to China.
b) because we have in our minds, "Is this the next big collapse? Division by zero? Oh shi-"
That is your uncertainty. Healthcare regulation is peanuts. Environmental regulation? BWAHAHAHAH. Many key democrats take coal/oil money. The only certainty there is that there's not going to be any regulation until the seaboards are underwater.
Your uncertainty in business is nearly all in low sales prospects - because of bad consumer balance sheets and job prospects - and financial uncertainty because you don't know if a banker's errant keystroke is going to trigger the next algorithmic panic sell (yay automated trading) that wipes out your bank and your not-as-segregated-as-you-thought funds.
And Mitt Romney has less than nothing towards a solution in dealing with that (Obama having little better than nothing).
The press has got to do better reporting on these issues. COME ON. The press has had near 5 years to figure this stuff out, 22 years if you count the experience of the 1990's experience of Japan, 50 years if you count the experience of the Great Depression.
It is inexcusable to talk about "economic uncertainty" NOW while maintaining the focus of the reporting on regulation.
"DEMAND and RECKLESS FINANCE. How do you plan to address these issues, Mr. Romney and if you give me the standard conservative tropes about 'regulation' and 'big government', I will hit you. How do you plan to address these real problems requiring real solutions? How will your approach differ from the Bush approach which got us into this ditch in the first place - especially since your campaign is bringing together Bush era 'experts'?"
That's how it is done (with of course, some modifications for the purposes of civility). DO IT. To both Obama and Romney. DEMAND and RECKLESS FINANCE. Goddamn DO IT.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 25 Jun 2012 at 10:02 PM
LOL...
"Professional journalism" at work once again in Lieberman Liberal La La Land!
Ask not why our President promised that Obamacare would create "thousands" of jobs!... Ask instead why Romney keeps harping away at the Reality that Obamacare is costing jobs..
And to accomplish our redirection, we need a little of that Ole' Liberal "Bait and Switcheroo"
We need to compare an apple to an orange.
So we compare a study of the effect on employment of healthcare reform in a different era in a single state, to a study of the effect on nationwide employment of Obamacare six years later.
This is just patently dishonest advocacy, and it certainly doesn't come close to approximating any sort of "journalism"/
You know what we're NOT seeing in Trudy's desperate defense of Obamacare? We're not seeing anything to refute Romney's claims at all.
Show us a study that shows that OBAMACARE IN 2012 (not Romneycare in 2010) isn't costing jobs all over America (not just in Massachusetts) and then maybe, just maybe, we can have an honest discussion about it, Trudy.
Deal with Obamacare's failure to create the jobs your Obamessiah promised. Deal with the fact that premiums are skyrocketing in the face of your Chosen One's promise to save families $2500 per year. Deal with the fact that Obamacare will cost taxpayers more than TWICE what Obama promised it would cost them. Deal with the fact that people are losing coverage in droves and that they can't keep their plans, as Obama promised.
Do all this in analyzing the claims of our current president, and then you may have earned the right to contest an opposition candidates claims (if you can, though you can't because Romney is absolute right about job losses).
This dishonest Obama-grovelling is nothing but tripe.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 12:57 PM
"Show us a study that shows that OBAMACARE IN 2012 (not Romneycare in 2010) isn't costing jobs all over America (not just in Massachusetts) and then maybe, just maybe, we can have an honest discussion about it, Trudy."
'Show us a study that proves a negative OR YOUR a BAD JOURNALIST! And don't bother looking at Romneycare paralells because I say so! And play this flaming piano with your toes because COMMUNISM!'
Before listing any problems you have with Obamacare, keep in mind that it was the conservative plan, the heritage foundation plan, the Romney plan, to dealing with a social problem through a market solution and minimal government intervention. You don't believe that the lack of universal coverage is a social problem but that's because you're an awful person, not because the lack of universal coverage in a rich society isn't a real problem.
Liberals, including Trudy, have been at the forefront of Obamacare criticism. Unfortunately, because this represents the closest conservative approach to a solution and the conservatives mindlessly hate everything Obama does, all the conservatives have done to critique the plan is scream SOCIALISM and hurl pablum out of their bowls. They can't criticize the plan any deeper than that, since that would involve justifying cutting off cancer survivors and the like from the possibility of coverage (which they know will make them look inhuman, hint hint you feckless democrats) or attack the beneficiaries of the plan - the insurance and medical industries who helped write it (and will give plenty to political campaigns to their friends, not foes). So you have liberals who have made substanzive arguments against the plan from the beginning, and yet recognize that it's the closest attempt running to fix the hideous social problem that America has got - unique to it amongst countries of similar development, and you've got the raving lunatic republicans putting death panels on their facebook status.
Responsible and good journalists would do well to ignore the whacko claims of the brain damaged side of the political spectrum and focus on the realities of american healthcare and this law.
The brain damaged can, to America's detriment, afford the commercials to televise their latest foam spurts. Your job is to discredit the lunatics, by providing the hard information that shows them wrong and mendacious (eg. anything Romney claims is evil about 'Romneycare Version Democrat') and to discuss the realities of the people under the law, at all sorts of various tiers of income and health.
Cont
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 06:25 PM
As digby says:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.ca/2012/06/qotd-will-wilkinson.html
"[The GOP] understand very clearly what's at stake for them. And they have built a very efficient infrastructure to ensure that their goals are met and liberals' aren't. It's that simple...
I have my doubts about the ability to shame the modern conservatives. After all, they weren't too upset to see people cheering and shouting "yeah!" at a presidential debate when Wolf Blitzer asked if Ron Paul's plan was to "let them die." But what the hell, maybe they still have a shred of decency about this sort of thing that can be activated.
But I am not letting the Democrats and the president off the hook so easily. Health care reform was in the works for decades. Universality was always the assumed goal of comprehensive health care reform until the political decision was made to make it about cost. That wasn't done on the fly, it was a conscious choice to back away from the moral argument in favor of a technocratic financial argument. At no time did they even try to pass real universal health care.
Now, I understand why they did it. The Republicans, after all, had been going along with a privatized health care solution based on those technocratic reasons until the day the Democrats looked like they might actually pass it. But without the moral argument, there was just not much to hold thing thing together, once the conservatives went their way (as anyone should have expected.)"
http://digbysblog.blogspot.ca/2012/06/mandate-madness.html
"The mandate was just an added [republican] agenda item among all the others that were designed to make people feel they were losing something instead of gaining.
And the mandate issue was a good one. Even a lot of liberals, including yours truly, were queasy about it because we hated the idea of being forced to buy a product from sleazy insurance companies who are making a profit from this government edict. It wasn't all that difficult to see that it would be controversial."
Liberals were right, centrists were feckless and stupid, conservatives were lunatics.
It's too bad being right doesn't get you the biggest bullhorns.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 06:39 PM
More juvenile ad hominem from our resident representative of the "tolerant" left...
It is not a "whacko" or "brain-damaged" claim to say that Obama promised that Obamacare would create jobs and save families $2500 per year. It's called a FACT.
Similarly it is not a "whacko" or "brain-damaged" claim to note the REALITY that Obamacare will cost taxpayers more than TWICE what Obama promised it would and to not that insurance premiums have skyrocketed since Obamacare was enacted.
I don't mind any journalist questioning Romney on the effect of Obamacare on employment, but certainly the claims of the President warrant even more scrutiny..
Or at least they would anywhere but in Lieberman Liberal La La Land.
Yes, the conservatives initially espoused the individual mandate... But they ultimately rejected it, and they did so well before Obamacare was debated.
So what?
The past position of Obamacare's political opponents have no relevance whatsoever to the effect of Obamacare on the unemployment rate, though the issue does present a convenient dodge for liberals who can't reckon with the facts.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 08:05 PM
"More juvenile ad hominem from our resident representative of the "tolerant" left..."
Tolerant? I'm not tolerant of lunacy whether it be the sociopathic kind, which knows what's right but veers wrong anyways because there's no conscience there, or the idiotic kind, which is in Conspiracy-land where nazi-communist-witch-doctor Obama is going to take your guns away after he's finished soshulisming your healthcare.
And I'm not going to accept a lecture on civility from someone who uses the phrase "Lieberman Liberal La La Land" a couple of paragraphs down from his holier than thou moment.
I'm not that kind of left. I'm right and proud of it. You want me to try being more tolerant? Take some 'personal responsibility' and try being more tolerable.
"It is not a "whacko" or "brain-damaged" claim to say that Obama promised that Obamacare would create jobs and save families $2500 per year. It's called a FACT."
Yeah, it's a fact that OBAMA made that claim. Did I? Did Trudy Lieberman? Oh yeah! Liberals have been complaining about the plan's lack of cost control since 2009. I know I have, check the archives. So what was your point again?
PS.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/
"Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans jumped a startling 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, and Republicans have blamed the federal health care law. But they exaggerate. The law — the bulk of which has yet to be implemented — has caused only about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in premiums, according to several independent experts. The rest of the 9 percent rise is due to rising health care costs, as usual.
Furthermore, the increase caused by the law is a result of the increased benefits it requires, a factor Republicans generally ignore. So far, insurance companies have been required to do the following:
Cover preventive care without copays or deductibles.
Allow adult children to stay on parents’ policies until age 26.
Increase annual coverage limits.
Cover children without regard for preexisting conditions.
On the other hand, the fact that the law caused any increase at all cast more doubt on Obama’s promise that the law “could save families $2,500 in the coming years.” We’ve been calling that claim into question for several years now. The plain fact is that — so far — the law has caused an increase in premiums, though not so large an increase as some Republicans claim."
"Similarly it is not a "whacko" or "brain-damaged" claim to note the REALITY that Obamacare will cost taxpayers more than TWICE what Obama promised it would."
What can I say that I didn't say already? Liberals were worried about the lack of cost control? Check. Liberals aren't Obama, so you can't use Obama's promises to paint Liberals as liars? Check. Hmmn. Can't think of a thing.
PPS.
Well, there's this.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/health-care-costs-didnt-double/
"Conservatives quickly jumped on the new CBO report, falsely claiming it said the cost estimates were now double what the CBO originally estimated...
So it would be fair to say that CBO now estimates that the law is going to be more expensive than originally thought — about 9 percent... But the notion that the new CBO report shows costs doubling is wrong."
WRONG. If you want me to try being more tolerant, take some 'personal responsibility' and try being more tolerable.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 03:01 AM
"Yes, the conservatives initially espoused the individual mandate... But they ultimately rejected it"
[citation needed]
"The past position of Obamacare's political opponents have no relevance whatsoever to the effect of Obamacare on the unemployment rate, though the issue does present a convenient dodge for liberals who can't reckon with the facts."
Tell me more about the "facts"
The fact is jobs are being lost because of RECKLESS FINANCE and low DEMAND, not because of some stupid belief in healthcare regulation uncertainty.
FACT.
PS..
On the feeling-human side of things, comes this good article:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/June/21/houston-texas-uninsured.aspx
"They say everything is bigger in Texas, and the problem of the uninsured is no exception. The Houston metropolitan area has one of the highest rates of uninsured people in America, and a health safety net imploding under the demands of too many people and too few resources. Almost one in three residents – more than a million people -- lack health insurance, and about 400 are turned away every day from the county hospital district's call center because they can't be accommodated at any of its 23 community or school-based centers.
Those seeking care at the public hospital's ER, meanwhile, arrive with blankets and coolers full of sandwiches and drinks in anticipation of waits that may go 24 hours or longer.
"If the Affordable Care Act is overturned, the rest of the country should take a good look at the situation in Texas, because this is what happens when you keep Medicaid enrollment as low as possible and don't undertake insurance reforms," said Elena M. Marks, a health policy scholar at Rice University's James Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former city health official...
"Seventy percent of the people we see here are employed," said Dr. G. Bobby Kapur, associate chief of the emergency room at Ben Taub General Hospital, part of the taxpayer-supported Harris County Hospital District.
"They're hourly wage earners, nannies, [people] working in lawn care services or dry cleaning or real estate, or people working two part-time jobs and neither will pay for health care," he said. "Many are small business owners who are well-educated and well-dressed."..
Houston's hospitals are world-renowned, drawing patients from all over the globe for its highly specialized care -- primarily to those who can pay.
But the hundreds of thousands who work for small businesses, tend the city's lawns, cook its food and care for its children often lack a regular source of primary care."
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 03:19 AM
1200 words of vapid nothingness.
Romney is right. Obamacare is killing jobs. And there is no study you can cite that says otherwise. PERIOD.
Trudy is engaging in her typical subterfuge. A study of Romneycare that concluded in 2010 has no import in considering Obamacare in 2012. It just doesn't.
Show me an article where Trudy has ever called into question Obama's integrity regarding his Obamacare claims, and then we'll talk. Good luck with that.
Until then, you've got a whole lot of nothing.
Obamacare will cost taxpayers more than Obama promised it would. According to your own sources. Premiums are skyrocketing when Obama promised they would plummet. That's just a fact. PERIOD.
And yet, Obama gets a free pass in Lieberman Liberal La La Land. His integrity is never questioned. Nothing to see here, people... Move on. It's not Obama's fault. Who cares?...
This Lieberman tripe is just a bunch of liberal silliness, disguised as "journalism".
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 10:21 AM
So yeah, last night I was exhausted, really exhausted, from a 5 in the morning shift.
And, to make matters worse, I had to read a bunch of wonky crap to end my day.
So I forgot to ask, how would you solve the lack of 'universal coverage' again? What is your plan? What is Mitt Romney's plan? (ooo, ooo, I know this! Its called "Obamacare minus Obama") What is the republican plan?
I mean, yeah, there's this, but I was hoping you had come up with a more detailed proposal since then.
How do you fix the lack of universal coverage problem? Liberals have ways that are time tested and proven, we've seen these methods implemented in Sweden, Japan, and even you recommended France's model.
Single payer or highly regulated, managed competition between non-profit insurance companies with subsidies available so that the poor can afford coverage. And a public option.
Those are our choices. Where's yours?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 10:28 AM
"Trudy is engaging in her typical subterfuge. A study of Romneycare that concluded in 2010 has no import in considering Obamacare in 2012. It just doesn't."
Scream as red faced and teary eyed as you like, you won't change the fact that Romneycare is, for all intensive purposes, Obamacare and that we can extrapolate the future effects of Obamacare from our experience with Romneycare.
You're going to have to come up with a better argument than 'It just doesn't!11!'
"Obamacare will cost taxpayers more than Obama promised it would."
You said double the cost. The true figure is about 9%. The lies are in the specifics. You lied.
"Premiums are skyrocketing when Obama promised they would plummet. That's just a fact. "
Premiums have always been skyrocketing, they averaged between 9 and 12% a year during the Bush Administration
http://www.kff.org/insurance/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=13836
So how would you deal with that again?
"And yet, Obama gets a free pass in Lieberman Liberal La La Land. His integrity is never questioned. Nothing to see here, people... Move on. It's not Obama's fault. Who cares?..."
Lieberman was challenging Obama projections while the bill was going through the sausage making process in Baucus's closet.
If you don't know the first thing about someone's work, just shut up about it.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 11:36 AM
Since Padi is taking his time coming up with ANY conservative solutions to the universal coverage problem, allow me to present Mr. Tyler Cowen's ideas, the most reasonable framing of the conservative position I've yet to see:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/06/what-kind-of-mandate-should-the-right-have-supported.html
"2. A rejection of health care egalitarianism, namely a recognition that the wealthy will purchase more and better health care than the poor. Trying to equalize health care consumption hurts the poor, since most feasible policies to do this take away cash from the poor, either directly or through the operation of tax incidence. We need to accept the principle that sometimes poor people will die just because they are poor. Some of you don’t like the sound of that, but we already let the wealthy enjoy all sorts of other goods — most importantly status — which lengthen their lives and which the poor enjoy to a much lesser degree. We shouldn’t screw up our health care institutions by being determined to fight inegalitarian principles for one very select set of factors which determine health care outcomes."
And what if they're not 'poor', but suffering from conditions that make coverage unprofitable or premiums too expensive?
NEVERMIND.
"7. Society should firmly believe that it is the duty of the government, first and foremost, to protect us against foreign enemies, environmental catastrophes, pandemics, and other existential threats."
Which conservatives believe, with the exception of climate change, of course. (Mr. Cowen is of a different mind on the validity of the science, to his credit).
"History shows that such existential threats are real. Alleviating individual sufferings through governmental charity can be a useful source of mutual advantage but it should be subordinate to these broader goals. Furthermore we should be determined to resist the creation of a large class of perpetual beneficiaries who will strangle the government fiscally and pull it away from these more basic duties."
So the government's duty is not to preserve and protect the welfare of its citizens, it's to preserve and protect the borders of its citizens from threats human and natural. Health is a commodity, not a right. That's life, until you've emptied your wallet.
"I agree, by the way, with Ezra Klein’s analysis of the “motivated reasoning” of many particular individuals when confronted with ACA a few years ago."
Good article, again to Cowen's credit.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 01:21 PM
LOL....
Look at Thimbo desperately trying to change the tone of this debate away from Trudy's Obama cheerleading and toward the prospect of health care in general.
We've gone from criticizing Trudy's one-sided hackery to a general discussion of health care.
What the Hell. I'll play.
There is no "universal coverage" problem. This is just a liberal straw man. We don't need a plan, because there is no problem.
Medical care is readily accessible to all Americans and free to indigents. If you have money, buy medical care. If you don't have money, you get Medicaid and all your care is free.
Of course, there is no such thing as "universal care" and it will be a snowy day in Hell when a liberal actually defines the term.
To start with... What do you mean by "care"? Let's define that term first. Do you get Viagara on the Gubmint's dime? Marijuana? Breast augmentation? Lip injections?
If you need a prosthetic leg, do you get a wooden peg, or are you entitled to a bionic titanium leg? Do you get any cutting edge experimental treatment you want?
The liberals will never be able to define the "care" they demand because they know that there is no way the Gubmint can afford to pay for the best possible care for every person.
Tossing the Gubmint into the equation will only lead to misery. It always does. Medicare loses BILLIONS of dollars to fraud and it has recently turned out that Cuba is filling its own bank accounts with Medicare fraud. Great system we have going there, alright.
However, my plan to provide quality care to everyone is a very simple one. Pay your damned bills. Do some damned work, earn some damned money, support yourself and your family and pay your damned bills.
If you can't (or won't) take care of yourself, the government should take care of you if you want it to. You check into a Gubmint facility where the doctors and keepers make sure you don't smoke, don't drink, eat the right food, get enough exercise, maintain a healthy body weight, maintain curfew, etc. You get the best care available in a secure environment. You should be required to work to the extent medically possible. But you don't get to mooch off the Gubmint while you are simultaneously engaging in an unhealthy lifestyle and you don't get to suck off the Gubmint teat while you're free to roam the streets. Freedom and Gubmint dependence are mutually exclusive and antithetical.
If you won't work or check into a secure facillity, and if you commit a crime, you go to jail and get health care from the Gubmint.
If you won't take care of yourself or your family, you won't go to a facility voluntarily, and if a court determines that you present a danger to yourself or others, then you get committed involuntarily and get health care from the Gubmint.
There's my plan, Thimbo. Truly universal coverage. What's wrong with this plan?
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 03:59 PM
"Look at Thimbo desperately trying to change the tone of this debate away from Trudy's Obama cheerleading and toward the prospect of health care in general."
The tone? "Look at thimbles! He's trying to change the pitch of this debate from c# to f. Trudy Lieberman's a commie!"
What a pile of fail.
Ps. The subject is about healthcare, so if you want to be stupid, you can fault me for talking about healthcare and not cheerleading.
I'm guilty. You got me Poirot.
"There is no "universal coverage" problem."
As I mentioned, awful human beings believe that.
"Medical care is readily accessible to all Americans and free to indigents. "
Free to who? We all pay for it, and that way it costs multiples of what it should and uses desperately required emergency resources. Texas heathcare is not a solution, it's the problem.
"If you have money, buy medical care."
Unless you can't because of a physical condition you have no control over renders you incapable of getting expensive treatments or expensive coverage. The American system, as is, is not designed to care for patients who are liabilities. If there is a risk of loss from proffering you coverage, you won't get it. If there is no coverage for treatment, you will not afford it. Your options at that point are death and charity.
You can't absolve the system of responsibility by telling some morality tale that blames a born diabetic or cancer sufferer for their condition. By the grace of god, there goes we. Are we that selfish a people that we'll rely on 'the grace of god' to provide the care necessary for their survival?
As we have seen from the yelpers at a Ron Paul debate, to their most respected economic thinkers, to their commenters on a journalism site - yes. Yes, we are that selfish. If someone's life steps between me and my tax cut, then they should die quickly.
"Of course, there is no such thing as "universal care" and it will be a snowy day in Hell when a liberal actually defines the term."
The healthcare systems in respectable countries have defined it pretty well. It's a system where people have access to the basic care required to maintain a productive life (which excludes cosmetic and elective surgery except in the cases where critical need can be established) and access to extreme care in catastrophic circumstances. It is a system with no preconditions, no maximum lifetime costs, low deductibles and premiums that are in relation to income, covers immediate family members, and reduces the economic insecurity which kills jobs.
Because in societies like China, where there are no safety nets nor universal coverage, if you haven't saved enough of your meagre wages to afford treatment, you die. Therefore, you don't shop until you've saved a BUNCH, and that missed shopping by millions of individuals is lost economic opportunity.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 11:33 PM
"The liberals will never be able to define the "care" they demand because they know that there is no way the Gubmint can afford to pay for the best possible care for every person."
Funny, other countries manage to do it reasonably well at less than half the per capita cost of America.
Ps. "The best" isn't necessary in the majority of cases to get the job done. That's why Japanese can offer 150 dollar MRIs to their patients on demand when the American version costs 10x as much. The lower cost MRI machines used are enough to make a diagnosis 90ish percent of the time. Single payer systems can negotiate these levels of care which take care of 90% of the cases at low cost. The for profit system doesn't want low cost. It's designed to extract money from the public by providing high cost service with no measurable benefit in life expectancy.
This, again, is not a problem for awful people. Every system, according to them, is supposed to pursue profit to the best of their ability, the limits to their ability being those of consumer choice and consumer cost tolerance.
This is the evil of the issue when their ideology is applied to the healthcare system - the fact that modern treatments are based on an accumulation of research resulting in patents and intellectual property restrictions means that consumers often don't have choice. Supply constraints and coverage constraints in the American system mean that the consumers don't have choice. The reliance on doctor expertise for treatment means the consumer doesn't have choice. In this scenario in a normal market, the consumer can take it or leave it. If the consumer can't tolerate the price he can walk away.
But in a healthcare system, you're lucky if you can walk away. Saying no to treatment equates to saying no to life. This is a special class of problem.
Libertarians insist that government should stay out of private transactions so long as coercion has not been used to conduct the transaction. Healthcare systems, by their very nature, are vulnerable to extortive pricing since to refuse the transaction equals suffering or death. This is why most people in America are a medical condition away from bankruptcy. This is why other, more respectable, countries provide systems to take away the uncertainty of what will happen if your child develops leukemia or your father has a stroke requiring long term care.
The conservative says "pay your million plus dollar bill or die quickly!" If you're Charles Koch, paying this bill isn't a problem. Everybody else? They pay whatever they can and hope they die slowly - and that's fine for conservatives. "Live and die on your own dime, not mine!"
Like I said, awful awful people.
Respectable countries don't run their healthcare this way. Even Padi and the editor of reason prefer the French method.
But the reality was that, in America, due to brain damaged conservative pig headedness, Romneycare was thought to be the best America could do. For liberals, this was a huge compromise from day one.
But the reality is, due to conservative pig headedness, America isn't even good enough for Romneycare. In which case, America needs to make a choice between punishing conservatives for being such awful people, or to accept the fact that they will be living in the United States of Texas. Stop voting for awful people!
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 12:31 AM
Given the SCOTUS' endorsement of Obamacare, I wonder if Trudy is going to throw some heat on Obama for lying to the American people about the true nature of the individual mandate - the tax that he said didn't exist.
Yeah... I expect a stinging rebuke any day now.... Not...
I've just read the SCOTUS opinion and I think Roberts got it right. The mandate is fundamentally a tax and Obama and the Dems just lied to the American people to cram Obamacare down their throats.
I suppose the question is how that's going to play out in November?
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 07:32 PM
The trouble, Thimbles, is that you are just playing semantics.
You've traded the undefined term "universal care" for "basic care".
What is "basic care"?
HUH?
Is it waiting more than three months for an MRI like you do in Canada?
Is it dying of thirst in a Gubmint hospital like happens in England?
Do you get cutting-edge treatment? Do you get a peg leg, or a titanium prosthesis?
Do you walk into any doctor's office you want, or does the Gubmint pick (or limit your choice of) your doctor? How often can you go?
The problem you guys have is that there is no way the Gubmint will ever provide universal care with an acceptable level of quality. Not possible.
France's care is good because of one simple reason... You pay out of pocket every single time you go the doctor and you wait for a partial reimbursement.
Instituting this one requirement would instantly cut costs here. I'm all for it. Not by federal fiat, but through state insurance laws.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 07:41 PM
Missed this on the last run.
France's system is better because it has a better system, not because of user fees of which America has more expensive versions thereof resulting in much less healthcare utilization by the public.
Anyways, McClatchy has a couple of infographics up of interest:
First, the way things are.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Jul 2012 at 10:07 PM
And the way things will be.
Bonus, propublica's highlighting of the best healthcare journalism.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 1 Jul 2012 at 10:14 PM