Quote:
Originally Posted by formerroadie
By the way, here are some of the things the conservatives say the bill will do. This is the their propaganda and lies. The bill will:
Kill all old people
Raise health premiums sky high (which is already happening by the way)
Kill innovation
Fund abortion (yes, this is a uniquely US argument)
Kill private Insurance
Take away choice
Kill Medicare
Illegals will get free insurance
Government will set wages for doctors so that we go no more doctors of quality.
It's insanity.
|
It's not accurate. It sounds like a very exaggerated version of concerns that conservatives are trying to raise.
"Kill all old people"
Some folks read the language in one of the reform bills that included end of life counseling. They took that to mean that there would be conditions that would not be paid for, and some idiot (whom I believe was Sarah Palin, at least that's the first source I heard it) coined the phrase "death panel". Both conservatives and liberals here are stretching each other's words and meanings way beyond their original intent.
"Raise health premiums sky high (which is already happening by the way)"
It IS happening, I can't argue that. And benefits are changing yearly. I don't see that a government run insurance program would reduce premiums, that's for sure.
"Kill innovation"
It's cynical, but most capitalists believe that profit motivates innovation. Remove the profit motive and there's less reason to innovate.
"Fund abortion (yes, this is a uniquely US argument)"
Yep, it's a big concern. I don't want to derail the thread with another discussion that has strong opinions both ways, so I'll just admit that you're right.
It's a concern.
"Kill private Insurance"
Wouldn't it? Why on earth would anyone pay twice for insurance? If my taxes are already paying for my government-run health care why would I take more out of my pocket to pay for more insurance? Every time I see the term "public option" I laugh - will I have the option to NOT pay for the public insurance if I prefer my private 'option'? I can't see insurance companies surviving, at least without changes that would make them completely unrecognizable. They would have to market purely to people that could afford to pay twice, for a higher level of care.
"Take away choice"
See above. No competition means no incentive to improve.
"Kill Medicare"
Seems the government is already doing a fine job of that. I cringe when I walk into a doctors office and see a notice that they don't accept Medicare. In fact, Medicare is the biggest argument against a federal health care program for me - they've already proved they can't run one efficiently, why expand it?
"Illegals will get free insurance"
*shrug* I dunno, but illegals are getting free schooling in some states. To be honest, at least there would be a payer for illegals - right now if they need care they head to the emergency room, which is the most expensive care available. If they DID get free insurance maybe it would help get them into less expensive care. (Another uniquely American discussion I suspect...and again I don't want to derail the thread)
"Government will set wages for doctors so that we go no more doctors of quality."
I've never heard this argument, despite reading several conservative newsletters. Today, insurance companies and health care providers negotiate the amount that will be paid for various procedures. At some level, whether by mandate or negotiation, a government program would have to do the same thing. In fact, that is why some doctors don't accept Medicare - the amount that the Medicare program is willing to pay is, according to the providers, below the cost of the services. So the doctor would have to take a loss to provide the care.
I'm very frustrated by a lot of the debate over health care in the US. In my view, there are problems that have nothing to do with cost. We have a shortage of doctors. We have grossly overpriced medications. We could be talking about real fixes, such as allowing nurses to prescribe non-narcotics (already happening in some states) and diagnosing some common ailments. We could be spending money to help get more qualified students into (and graduating from) medical school.
I've NEVER seen a discussion about health care reform that didn't revolve around who was paying, and typically making the insurance companies look like the big bad guy. I admit I'm biased - I work for one of those insurance companies (albeit a non-for-profit one). Much of our discussion internally revolves around how to get more out of premium dollars, how to reduce the percentage of administrative costs that comes out of what our customers pay in to the system.
And as a conservative, one of my biggest gripes about the current discussion is that our Constitution reserves any power not specifically granted to the federal government to the states and the people. That means that the federal government has NO business even talking about this issue (unless I'm missing the clause that says Congress should be providing health care to the country?). I would have very little issue with individual states talking about health care reform.