Most of what I read is online stuff: all of the major newspapers provide the bulk of their content for free as well as Daily Beast, Slate, CNBC, The Street, Slashdot, Macrumors – all kinds of stuff. Despite all the free content, I still cling to two print publications: The Wall Street Journal and The Economist. WSJ is pretty much straight up business stuff but Economist covers all sorts of stuff and from a vastly different perspective than most other mags. I don’t always or even usually agree with Economist’s take on things but I do enjoy reading it.
I was reading this weeks Economist and found this column about the current Health Care Debate. It is titled “The politics of death” (which is just a bald attempt to get me to read it) but is sub-titled “Americans fear health reform because they fear the Reaper”. You never know what’s going to strike your fancy but that sub-title drew an immediate thought: Nobody wants the reaper to visit before he has to but Americans fear health care reform because nobody seems to know what the hell they are doing!!
Think about it. The President, who has talked quite a lot about this has declined to offer a plan. As in the stimulus debate, he seems content to farm out policy-writing to the Hill. The net result of this is that there are about 5 different plans on the Hill, none from the White House and confusion reigns. This was always going to be a contentious debate and these situations require leadership but it ain’t there and many people are just tuning out. Mr. Obama is wasting his Presidency because he just won’t stick his chin out and take the necessary licks.
Most Americans think that the government needs to live within its means. Most also think it would be good if we could get health care spending under some semblance of control. However, most adults don’t believe in magic anymore so the idea that you can expand coverage to everyone and have it cost the same or less doesn’t make any sense.
For my part, I don’t want to see the Feds setup a “Public Option”. The Federal government can’t possibly run something like this efficiently and it isn’t clear that those on the Hill really understand what they’re into beyond the buzzwords. If this is to be our priority then we should proceed methodically and work our way into this with care. Explain to people like me how all of this fun and games will save money (beyond, of course, mandating costs!!). The Country is broke and, if this will save us cash in the near future, lay it out. By not doing so, it makes me think someone is hiding something…..
September 7, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Today’s Washington Post (09/07/2009) had an interesting story on the front page about health care in Japan and at present, still low cost. Really had to shake my head that someone could see a doctor 14 times a year.
The aging population aside, the article gives a sad state of affairs especially with shortages in the hospitals.
As for the plans in Congress, well, your right Andy they are all just so much verbage. Funny part of it is, there are other bills in both the House & Senate aimed at fixing issues in health care – doing it on specific Medicare & Medicaid issues vs. trying to overhaul in one shot. What most don’t realize is that in order to fix those two programs, the Social Security Act has to be amended at the same time amending the Act that created those two programs.
Still, an interesting comparison between the state of health care in Japan and the USA.
September 8, 2009 at 10:50 am
Hi Andy, a coupla thoughts, all friendly:
No white house from either party typically offers a detailed bill on any complex issue (such as energy or health care). Detailed legislation is always left to congress where there is at least a degree of expertise on majority and minority committee staffs, and where lobbyists for all stakeholders of all stripes are expected to converge and offer views. The last time a major, detailed legislative initiative was developed in the white house it was (drum roll here…) the Clinton health care plan of the early 1990s which met instant death. If there was one primary lesson to be learned there it was let congress write first on complex and divisive legislation.
It is quite true that “most adults don’t believe in magic anymore so the idea that you can expand coverage to everyone and have it cost the same or less doesn’t make any sense.” It’s also true that getting good health care at the early stage of a disease can result in lower or no catastrophic costs later on. In this sense, expanded coverage can result in lower costs. (I’m not supporting the bill but I am reflecting on the argument.)
It is also true that “it isn’t clear that those on the Hill really understand what they’re into beyond the buzzwords.” Actually, that’s true of all legislation let alone complex health care legislation. At best, the senior staffers of the bill’s sponsors, and the relevant committee and subcommittee staffs, have a “developed” sense of things. Seldom, if ever, does anyone else, in either party, “really understand” any legislation. That’s just the truth, across the board.
Ultimately, that is the accurate perspective for us to keep in mind when legislation is developed. Quite frankly, I don’t know a single senator, no matter how bright and hardworking, who could fully appreciate several hundred pages of any draft legislation. No cynicism there, only truth.
September 24, 2009 at 7:45 am
asdf
November 23, 2009 at 11:35 am
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.