You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
From Awful to Worse
2009-12-13
For most of this year, the liberal Holy Grail has been the so-called "public option"--a new government-run insurance program offered to working age people and their families, much as Medicare is available to senior citizens. But, despite a full-court press by liberal activists, the idea has foundered on its complete lack of sense.

The only plausible reason to put more people in government-run insurance would be cost control, but no one believes the federal government now knows how to control costs sensibly. Liberals say a new insurance bureaucracy should be given the power to use Medicare's price-setting and regulatory structure to cut costs. But that structure has never successfully controlled Medicare spending because price-setting doesn't address volume--and so creates an incentive for more and more spending. Indeed, the Obama administration admits that Medicare's current arbitrary bureaucratic payment systems are a prime source of the inefficiency and inequity throughout the entire health sector, driving up costs for everyone. That's why the president and his team are proposing to set up an independent Medicare commission to straighten out the mess. They know they don't know how to do it and can only hope someone else does. So if Medicare is a big part of the problem, how is its model the solution?
The whole objective of this year's healthcare pie fight has been to get that public option in place, which then gives the opportunity to grab the entire 17 percent of the economy -- and still growing -- healthcare boodle. That much money represents one hell of a lot of sweetheart contracts and a lot of fine-detail control of the lives of us hoi polloi. If they really wanted to extend healthcare to the masses it'd be cheaper and set up a network of Public Health Service hospitals to provide care to the indigent. But we don't do charity hospitals anymore, unlike our brutish forebears, who had them up until the mid-20th century.
Posted by:Fred

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2009-12-13 16:54  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-12-13 15:03  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: AzCat   2009-12-13 12:31  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-12-13 09:31  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-12-13 09:10  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: AlanC   2009-12-13 08:12  

00:00