Taking a Razor to the President's Plan

WASHINGTON -- To dissect today's health care debate, the crux of which concerns a "public option," use the mind's equivalent of a surgeon's scalpel, Occam's razor, a principle of intellectual parsimony: In solving a puzzle, start with the simplest explanatory theory.

The puzzle is: Why does the president, who says that were America "starting from scratch" he would favor a "single-payer" -- government-run -- system, insist that health care reform include a government insurance plan that competes with private insurers? The simplest answer is that such a plan will lead to a single-payer system.

The Lewin Group estimates that 70 percent of the 172 million persons privately covered might be drawn, or pushed, to the government plan.

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless:

Townhall

Just more manipulation by this Administration and a direct move into the Socialist State.

Make no mistake about it, this is where this Administration is leading all of us. I can not see how anyone with half a brain can deny it anymore.

Government owned GM

Now

A Government owned health care system that will essentially put all other companies out of business...

I once thought that Obama could not do any damage that we could not eventually fix, I am not so sure about that any more..

As I watch my Nation disappear right before my eyes..

Semper

Well good news is that public opinion on Obamacare is split at 41% to 41%. So everyday that passes and as more details come out it keeps losing support, also Obama's approval rating is dropping.

But like you I'm worried about the direction of this country. If we can defeat Obamacare, then the next up is defeating the eco-nazi bill. That shouldn't be too hard. When the media starts throwing out big numbers people step back and scrutinize what is being proposed a little closer.

had to say this, didnt you know the obamanizer is an indigo? he is allowing all of this to happen for the betterment of man kind!

seriously we are in deep trouble! thanks for the post

Originally posted by tatersalad
had to say this, didnt you know the obamanizer is an indigo? he is allowing all of this to happen for the betterment of man kind!

seriously we are in deep trouble! thanks for the post

Nice!

I have to disagree Semper, I don't think that anything people do to this country can permanent.

While I agree socialist programs are for the most part detrimental to a free society. I have to wonder if there isn't room for some socialized programs to benefit those that cannot afford it themselves.

The idea of socialized medicine itself I feel is quite beneficial to the well being of the whole of the nation. After all a healthy nation is a productive one.

On the subject of medical insurance, frankly in this country, costs for health care are far to high, creating debt where there needs not be. For example, Singulair 10mg tablets costs $4.00 a piece, I am sure that it does not cost that much to produce a single 10mg tablet.

Let us not forget the oath that each doctor is supposed to heed.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Source www.pbs.org...

For someone that I am sure takes oaths and vows seriously, surely you can attest that a doctor should take his Hippocratic oath seriously.

But as well I don't think that a complete and total socialist medical reform is necessary, but I think that people that desperately need help should be able to get it. I think that it is in the benefit of all Americans that people should have access to quality and reasonable health care services when needed.

It's as I always have said about car insurance, if they require you to have it, why don't they offer it?

It's the same principal here. People should be able to be treated and get medicine to better themselves without going into bankruptcy for it. I don't agree that doctors should not be paid their worth, nor do I think that we should have a completely state run system. But something has to be done.

After all, it's much easier to contain an outbreak of some potentially deadly pathogen if a patient is able to go to the doctor at the onset of the disease rather than having to wait until the virus becomes a pandemic.

Perhaps a middle ground is what is needed. Something that keeps private physicians able to practice, and also helps people in need get the care they require without having to rely on sub standard care because of their economic shortfalls.

Im not going to bring up polls here, what I can tell ya is that the vast majority of americans agree there needs to be some public healthcare plan, and with Obama's plan coupled with the choice to stay with your own plan or move along, I dont see anybody been forced into anything with this plan.

The rightwing, including some media outlets, like townhall, have in the past taken a sharping standing against any public plan, citing "socialism" as if there is such thing as a socialist free government, or any other country for that matter. Now Im hearing a change of tone... its gone from the horrors of socialism, to just "the presidents", and the more the rightwing realize how tight the corportations have them and afew dems/libs around a stick, the sooner they may verywell continue to back away from the excuses.

With all the socialist calls, one could swear the red states of america to be the only "free" part of the world, and everybody else is a socialist. Oh noes... the poor poor multi-billionaire dollar corporations will have their businesses threated by an option other than paying on somebodies health. Funny though, anybody who buys this crap and stood at the sideline in 2003 shouting "love for troops" are the same hypocrites who are turning a blind eye to these same heros being cheated out just like everybody else.

A choice between a public plan or a private one. But those poort multi-billion dollar corporations wont get to have a monopoly on the lives of americans anymore. Boo hoo.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The Lewin Group estimates that 70 percent of the 172 million persons privately covered might be drawn, or pushed, to the government plan.

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless:

is that they advance the Democrats' dependency agenda. The party of government aims to make Americans more equal by making them equally dependent on government for more and more things.

Town Hall

I doubt that the 172 Million that have private health care would agree with you. I know I don't.

Why would I want to be forced to give up the excellent health care I have worked all my life so hard for, in exchange for a Government run program?

Unlike some, I have no desire to be on welfare...

What program has the Government ever run successfully?

Semper

Also for all of you that are so vehemently anti-corporation, let's hear you all stand up for the bankruptcy and dissolving of GM and Chrysler..

The heck with the lost jobs and lost tax revenue..

They are just horrible corporations after all..

Of course they are the same horrible corporations that came to the rescue in WWII and saved us by mass producing for the military.. But still they are evil so let's let them fail..

People can get jobs with..... Exxon.. Nope.. Another evil corporation that the government needs to go after..

Oh yeah, people can just sit home and get a check from Obama.. Now where Obama is going to get his money once those evil corporations stop putting the BILLIONS into the tax coffers and people are all unemployed and can't pay taxes, is another issue..

Sorry for the Off Topic rant...

Semper

[edit on 6/21/2009 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by semperfortis
Make no mistake about it, this is where this Administration is leading all of us. I can not see how anyone with half a brain can deny it anymore.

B.S.

How many countries in the world have system like we do here ?

Are all those countries with nationalized health care half-brained for putting their citizens before corporations ?

Do you (or does anybody) know how much money (and for how many years) big corporations here in USA invest (through "our" representatives) into brainwashing population that health care is a PRIVILEGE (which basically means poor should die and rich should live) ???

Originally posted by semperfortis
A Government owned health care system that will essentially put all other companies out of business...

It better. They deserve to frigging DIE (faster and more painful then GM).

Why should I pay $1000 out of my pocket for MRI (which is $4000) even though I pay $400/month for my insurance (which is still only 80% with co-pay and $500 deductible) just because the hospitals, pharmaceutical and insurance companies thugs are encouraged by USA government to milk us all dry ?

Just because they have no competition ?

Yep.

They are all conspiring against "consumers" (and doctors are playing along) big time for many years and it's NOT what our people want...

Why is there always a cheap communist/socialist scare tactics used but true issues and problems are never discussed ?

But, again, some of you think corporations should come first, it's America, lol screw people, those hard working American people, even though it would be NO corporations without those very people, lol.

Country first my ass, that is main reason why Republicans lost, utter dishonesty, it would resonate much better and as more truthful if their slogan was Capitalists First

Originally posted by semperfortis
Why would I want to be forced to give up the excellent health care I have worked all my life so hard for...

You do not OWN your health care (they do), neither you worked hard all your life for it.

Try to skip 1 single payment and you will see how quickly reality will kick in

reply to post by 5thElement


Your premise is sound, it is your results that are flawed...

If you would concentrate more on shutting down the Liberal supported frivolous law suit trend, your health care would not cost so much.

Not nearly

As for the rich and the poor..

Do I deserve the health care I work for? Absolutely...

My wife is a Charge Nurse and I can tell you poor people get health care just fine, and for free...

FACT

I live it, so it is not some supposed number taken off of some liberals head, it is a fact...

If the poor want better health care than they can get for free at local clinics located on every corner, or at every hospital in the nation, they should get a job and work for it..

Or sit around and cry about it until Obama changes it all and then it wont matter how hard any of us work.. We can all just quit and go on welfare..

Semper

Edit to add..

I worked for my health care, you are wrong

Perhaps you get your free, but I work every day and have for 40 years..

[edit on 6/21/2009 by semperfortis]

My impression of the article is mixed . State Owned Enterprises do suffer from political interference from time to time but they don't tend to squeeze privately owned firms out of the market place . The fact that there are 1,300 health insurance company's and there isnt affordable pricing available indicates that either the regulatory frame work has failed or the private sector watch dogs are useless . I really like the idea of giving people without health insurance a electronic card loaded with credit and allowing them to select there own insurance plan . Given that I don't expect to collect an old age pension finding a private sector solution would certainly be preferable in this case .

reply to post by semperfortis


I don't think you should give up your health care benefits. You indeed earn them.

But I think I should receive the same level of care if I go to a hospital for the same illness.

Do an experiment Semper, go to a unknown hospital somewhere, and tell them you don't have insurance, see what kind of care you receive.

Then go to your own doctor, the one who knows you have insurance for the same problem and see what care you receive. Ill be willing to bet you won't receive the same level of care.

I have had good insurance through an employer before, I do know there is a difference.

I once had a cyst on my neck, it wasn't cancerous, but without insurance, and having enough money to pay the bill, I was told it would go away on it's own.

Go to the same exact doctor with insurance? All of a sudden I get to go to a specialist to get it removed.

I don't think that people in this country deserve sub standard care just because they haven't the means to buy health insurance. I think there has to be a middle ground. I think that a dirt poor person should have access to the same level of health care as someone who is able to have insurance does. I think that it's wrong for people to be treated like meat sacks because of their inability to pay.

And this doesn't just go for people who are physically ill. People who are mentally ill should be able to receive care as well. On your daily routine how many times have you seen some obviously mentally ill homeless person wandering the streets? Obviously if they aren't a danger to themselves or to others they can't be taken in. But because they haven't the means to get treatment for their condition, it becomes worse and worse, to the point that eventually someone like you has to step in and do something about it.

I'm usually a supporter of Obama, but his healthcare plan is irking me to the max.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm REALLY irked by his healthcare "ideas".

reply to post by 5thElement


OK i'm Democratic too and I don't agree with Republican viewpoints, but I think there IS a middle ground.

While public-owned corporations may be "socialist" or whatever, the fact you can't deny is that (hopefully, if Obama does this right) there will be a SAFETY NET to catch whoever falls through the cracks of corporate healthcare.

What this (hopeful) middleground means is that people who have insurance and CAN afford it, will get the healthcare of a higher quality, which means they get better meds, etc. etc.

But those who CANNOT afford it/don't have insurance will NOT be neglected either, because state-owned companies (yes, like GM, if you will) will be able to "catch" them and provide the mandatory things like yearly checkups, simple meds like aspirin, antibiotics.

Granted, the treatments aren't equal, but hey, the people's incomes aren't equal anyway.

In a world where inequity is rampant, you can't expect the one derived demand, healthcare, to be equitable. It's not economically sound, and unfortunately, that's how the world works.

Sorry, but that's reality.

The middleground is all people can do, it's all Obama can do (again, hopefully), and it's all we have got. Unless you can propose an alternative that doesn't incur losses for privately-owned companies.

It's not about being Republican or Democratic, this IS the best way economically. No one wants to make losses, especially not in this economy. The Republicans, IMO, would have handled it worse, by privatizing to increase competition (thus increasing the quality of meds in the market) but causing the Safety Net to disappear. Democrats would choose the Safety Net over the increased consumer choice, which is better equitably. That is, again, considering Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius do things right and exactly as promised.

As for the Occam's Razor thing, the simplest method IS the best method, yes, but in this case: There IS no simplicity. You can't just LABEL a state-owned company as socialist that will run all other companies out of business. There is absolutely NO GUARANTEE that it will turn out this way. Not unless Obama goes again the rational ideas of healthcare.

If you read my above proposal you would see that the "safety-net" issue does the best job without putting financially-sound businesses, well, out-of-business. People who can afford better meds will CHOOSE to go to these private companies for better treatment, but people who cannot, get healthcare anyway. It is not as black-and-white and simple as saying "State profits = Private losses", but it WORKS. Occam's Razor is weak here.

Unfortunate as it is... IT IS. These people who say "there are better alternatives" and that the responsibility of healthcare can fall across all sectors need to think harder. As in, unless you can give me these solutions, don't criticize others. Granted, Obama right now hasn't done ANYTHING substantial with healthcare now, but if he does his job right the "safety-net" system will be the best one that doesnt compromise the profitable (read: economically-helpful) pharmaceutical system.

As for doctors responsibilities to treat people, that should not be in this thread. That IS A GIVEN. Meaning that doctors should be given the power to help regardless of money, that they can help on the streets, help whoever comes to them, and with regards to money, the state should take up responsibility by reimbursing the doctors with claim receipts, or allowing credit with regards to healthcare, so the middle-lower-class doesn't get left behind just because they cannot pay. These credits and reimburses aren't the same as profits they might make if they were to treat the middle-upper-class.

So really, BOTH state-owned and private-owned companies CAN exist. It's the "Safety-Net" system all over again, but this time with practicality attached and no compromise on the Hippocratic Oath.

So... how do I match up as President of the United States?

Should I run?

[edit on 21-6-2009 by KarlG]

You know, in this thread here I covered a reasonable way to have a universal health care plan, that would not raise taxes one penny.

That's right, not one penny, it would also allow for doctors out of med school to pay off their student loans.

If you want to take the time to read it it's there.