Health Care for All = the Fall of a Nation?

Friday, August 07, 2009

An article by Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic puts the debate about the health care plans into perspective.

“The passions out there are somewhat mystifying to me. Here is what we are debating: should we demand that insurance companies provide policies to anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions? Should we help the working poor buy that insurance with subsidies? Are competitive exchanges for health insurance a good or bad thing? Would a public option or a co-op help bring down healthcare costs? Does it make sense for the government to study the effectiveness of various treatments as a guide for doctors? These are all worth debating - and if you break it down into these questions, a majority would back them. Obama's proposals were very, very well illuminated in the campaign…”
If the media would discuss it in these terms, wouldn’t most Americans question the sanity or motives of those who are vehemently opposed? Screaming "nazi" and "fascism" when debating health care for kids seems a little out of the mainstream don't you think?

Real the entire article here.

Discuss.

3 comments:

Smitty 3:14 PM  

I do not get the impression that those items listed in Sully's article are exactly what's in the plan from either Chamber. In fact, the Senate doesn't cover "everybody."

The opposition certainly is disingenuous about the content and, more importantly since that's where their talking points head, intent of the legislation. But the MSM doesn't cover the actual content of the legislation. They just cover the fact that there was a screaming match at a Dem COngressman's event.

Steve would tell us that's a consequence of too many years of liberal bias in the MSM. ;) (long story if you don't read Mr. F's blog)

should we demand that insurance companies provide policies to anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions? Yes.

Should we help the working poor buy that insurance with subsidies? Yes, within well-defined poverty-level limitations.

Are competitive exchanges for health insurance a good or bad thing? Good.

Would a public option or a co-op help bring down healthcare costs? Much research has been done to show that co-ops actually do bring down costs while making premiums affordable for the members of that co-op.

Does it make sense for the government to study the effectiveness of various treatments as a guide for doctors? Sure, so long as the doc has the final say about the medical necessity of that treatment, and the forms and paperwork to declare "medical necessity" above and beyond the insurer's formulary are simple and fast.

I agree with Sully. If we can have an honest discussion about this plan, I bet most people would support it. Hell, they did during the campaign, obviously! It was one of Obama's selling points. But now we have a trained bully squad.

I'm glad Sully is rephrasing the argument. But Sully is hardly NPR, Brian Williams or Katie Couric or local newspapers.

steves 4:14 PM  

Steve would tell us that's a consequence of too many years of liberal bias in the MSM. ;) (long story if you don't read Mr. F's blog)

No, I wouldn't. Media bias is a complex issue and I am sorry that I let myself get sucked into a discussion on it.

Bob 8:33 PM  

"...and I am sorry that I let myself get sucked into a discussion on it."

I just went and read that whole thread. In the end it was a decent discussion.

You got sucked into a discussion. Oh well, you came out better than I have on a few.

Post a Comment

Followers

Potential Drunks

Search This Blog

  © Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP