Hot on the heels of passing R-67, Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is now trying to pass universal health care for everyone in the state of Washington.
Now, I go in skeptical, for two reasons: first, I despise the idea of universal health care, and second, Kreidler has already proven he is a bit loose with the truth.
And I wasn't disappointed. Well, I was, but only because I wasn't.
On Upfront with Robert Mak, Kreidler described the plan for state-controlled coverage for catastrophic care, "something over 10 or 20 thousand dollars in a given year, along some minimal level of what might be considered preventive such as an annual physical, immunizations, cancer screening, that type of minimal level, guaranteeing for everybody in the state of Washington that level of health care."
Mak's first question was about cost. Kreidler responded, "well it's not cheap, that's for certain, but we're all paying for it right now, it's not as if we're adding new money to the system; what we're doing is making sure that we have some form of assessment so that it's fair and it's equitable and broad-based, and whatever mechanism that might be, payroll tax or whatever it might be, is essentially supplanting what we're paying for already."
When Mak asked about employer-offered care, Kreidler responded, "I think what employers will find ... is that it's going to be easier for them to provide routine health care by virtue of the fact that the major medical -- the unexpected, catastrophic-type costs -- are taken care of."
Kreidler added, "this is going to be done ... all the way through private insurance ... if you like the insurance you have today, keep it and stay with it ... you will effectively have a regular routine health insurance, and then you would have the catastrophic coverage that is guaranteed to everybody in the state of Washington."
Wow. So, to recap to this point, based on what Kreidler said:
1. It won't cost any more money than what it costs right now. Raise your hand if you actually believe this. Then slap yourself with it.
2. It won't actually replace employer care, because it is not complete. It just covers most reasons you would go to the doctor, not all. And Kreidler thinks that it will free up money by your employer to use for expanded health care or other benefits for you. If you believe this and your hand is still upraised, slap yourself again. (Not even Kreidler believes this, since he already said we're not adding new money to the system.)
3. If you have an out-of-state employer, as I do, then you're in even worse shape: there is virtually no chance that I'll get any increased benefit or salary adjustment due to decreased health care cost to the company. In fact, I'll probably have to pay the same amount for my health care, because it's a group cost: every employee in every state pays the same, so chances are, people like me will be paying twice as much -- the same as before, plus the new taxes -- for health care.
4. If you want to "opt out" you're in the same boat: you still have to pay the taxes, of course. Plus, Kreidler also wants to try again to get control over the individual coverage market, which means you'll probably have a lot fewer choices there.
5. It will likely require an income/payroll tax. Rage ... growing ...
6. It applies to everyone in Washington, apparently including non-citizens, and people here illegally.
7. It is a separate insurance policy. Not only will this be a logistical nightmare, with your insurance policies battling out which policy covers something -- and yes, this will happen even if it is the same insurance company, because the policies are paid by two different payers -- but it relies on the private insurance companies actually deciding to play this new, complicated, game. Don't count on it; the companies might decide to just not play. You might lose your insurance company.
Feel free to add to the list.
One thing I don't know is how much control the governor has over any of this. Basically, how much can Governor Rossi do to help fix the problems?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 08, 2008 12:31 AM | Email This"I despise the idea of universal health care, and second, Kreidler has already proven he is a bit loose with the truth."
1. You never explained why you despise the idea of universal health care for citizens.
2. You usually call people liars, are you going easy on Krieder because he is the Insurance Commissioner?
I got to hit the sack, I'll check for the response tomorrow.
Yes it sure has problems, but think twice before you jump into this tiger cage.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 06:03 AM1a) If the state provides health care "insurance" for everybody, then how will the office of the insurance commissioner play the objective watchdog role that it is charged with. Seems like an awful conflict of interest that will wind up hurting the citizens in the long run.
1b) Since when is it the place of the insurance commissioners office to propose and push through legislation? Stick to watching the insurance companies please. Oversite is the only legitimate role of the office.
2) It is immoral to forcibly take money through taxation from one citizen to give to another directly. I can understand taxing for building roads, and schools, but not for providing universal health care. This new program won't create better "infrastructure" for society, it is a blatant redistribution of wealth. How does the state have any right to take money from me--an avid runner and healthy eater--to give to somebody who chooses to sit around, smoke cigarettes, and drink alcohol? The answer: it doesn't. Neither the federal constitution, nor our state constitution allows for this kind of forcible income confiscation. This kind of wealth redistribution is as unconstitutional and immoral as the use of eminent domain to seize property for private redevelopment.
3) If we allow the state to "provide" (remember the state has no money unless it takes it from somebody) us health care, we will lose all privacy in health matters and we will be subjecting ourselves to having our personal behaviors regulated. We all know that state programs are perpetually underfunded. That's what happens when you have "progressive" legislatures--they always spend more than they have. So when the state's health care fund comes up with massive shortfalls and we get more initiatives repealing the taxes, what will the legislature do? They'll start cutting benefits for people with "unhealthy" habits. You smoke? You're obese? You eat cheeseburgers? No state insurance for you, and you won't be able to buy insurance in the open market because free market insurance will be illegal.
The reason health insurance is so expensive has nothing to do with the "free market". The insurance industry today is so regulated that there is no "free market" and that's why it is failing everybody. Our employer provided system was set up in the Nixon era as a way to make health care insurance accessible to everybody. Unfortunately, insurers were no longer able to asses risk on an individual basis. People who have unhealthy habits pay the same as those who follow healthy lifestyles. It encourages excess since there is no true free market penalty for being obese.
If we want to fix the problem, deregulate the employer insurance programs. Allow individuals to form coops to negotiate group policies independent of their employers--something that is explicitly illegal at the moment. Image if you could join a "joggers" health-insurance coop. Insurance companies would be climbing over each other to provide policies to the group. Deregulation would also spark a second fitness craze in this country.
Anyway, I don't think we want the state stepping between each of us and our doctors.
Posted by: blindman on January 8, 2008 06:11 AMWashington needs to create a Milt Romney healthcare knock off/me too where everyone is required to have healthcare insurance
(just like auto insurance)
The state will set the minimums and each of us will provide proof of insurance biannually.
Since the state, county, and city already cover/pay for people who are uninsured via clinics and bad debt writeoffs at public hospitals, by covering everyone the total cost will be less.
Look at the recent Consumer Reports article on healthcare costs for a private payer versus being a member of a group.
Rossi and the Republican Party have a tremendous opportunity this year to go from being the "party of NO" to the "preferred provider of reasonable solutions"
Besides lower costs with everyone being covered in WA, Dino could show leadership by having "white papers" on various topics/issues that will improve the state.
What would happen if Dino merged all the statewide transit agencies together and spun Metro out of King County to head up the operation?
www.njtransit.com
NJ TRANSIT is New Jersey's public transportation corporation. Its mission is to provide safe, reliable, convenient and cost-effective transit service with a skilled team of employees, dedicated to our customers' needs and committed to excellence.
Covering a service area of 5,325 square miles, NJ TRANSIT is the nation's third largest provider of bus, rail and light rail transit, linking major points in New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia.
What would happen if Dino got some folks w/ project management experience who don't suffer from the Seattle "analysis paralysis" disease.
Wouldn't it be nice to have frequent train service from Olympia to Mt Vernon/Bellingham on BOTH SIDE of LAKE WASHINGTON?
Thank god Sound Transit was not project manager on the Pyramids, Great Wall of China, Grand Coulee, Cape Caneveral, and the 747.
The projects would still be "in development"
As with all things regulated by the government, those with the resources will find a way around the regulation. The rest of us will be stuck with VA-style health care.
These "progressive" programs do the exact opposite of what their proponents expect. The Robin Hood wealth redistribution doesn't make us all economically more equal, instead it recreates the feudal system of old Europe. The wealthy nobility will get the best, and the rest of us peasants will get welfare. The reason is the use of the state to actuate the redistribution. The inefficiency and immorality of government corrupts the good intentions and destroys any nobility in the outcome.
The best solution for this type of problem was figured out hundreds of years ago in Philadelphia: strictly limit the role of the state and maximize personal liberty.
Posted by: blindman on January 8, 2008 07:00 AMIf you say, "my doctor", then you will inevitably conclude that the state should have no say in who gets what coverage or treatments.
If you say, "government bureaucrats", then by all means, move to Canada or the UK. They are having a wonderful time as the doctors leave the country or refuse to practice, and the waiting lines for critical treatments grow longer and longer. Heck, in the UK, they've already started denying people treatment for a variety of reasons, all in the name of making ends meet. In Canada, the lines are so long that you won't get treatment before the window for treatment closes.
Funny, it wasn't hard to treat the poor before government got involved... in fact that was the purpose of almost every hospital ever built.
This is simple economic fact, as the past two hundred plus years have demonstrated. The fact is that government is inefficient, and government cannot create wealth. Rather, it destroys wealth every time it does something. (Wealth being, in this case, medical care.)
More at my blog: http://fwcon.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/how-to-keep-medical-costs-down/
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 8, 2008 07:08 AMBut as you point out, Green Lake Mark, that's not really the choice we are given. As us economic libertarians are a tiny minority, we have to work on solutions that are actually implementable.
I do think Mitt Romney-care would be appropriate for Washington State. It is a way of saying, "Here, we solved your so-called 'problems' and we did it in a way that doesn't destroy the medical industry." It puts the focus of the people on the right problem, making people think of newer ways to get better care for less money, rather than thinking of ways to get Joe to pay for Jill's surgery. Its benefit is readily apparent to all the parties involved, and only the hardest communist wouldn't support it.
This is why I support education tax credits over charter schools or vouchers. Again, it lines people up in the right way and moves the debate in the right direction.
Yes, there are good ideas out there, ideas that the republicans should champion. They may not be the ideal solution, but they certainly move in the right direction and are obviously beneficial to everyone.
As far as one, state-wide transit authority, I disagree that that is a good idea. I would rather have a market-based system, where anyone can "bid" to provide transit services and where the government subsidizes a part of the costs, with the users paying for the rest. Maybe the government should lay the ground rules, definitely government should build the needed roads, but let private contractors provide the actual service.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 8, 2008 07:18 AMAs it has been said so many times. (Be careful what you wish for WVH)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 07:22 AM2. I have a further question and it is about allocation of health care dollars. As far as I have been able to determine, if a person goes to the hospital they have to be treated and at least stabilized before they are dumped back on the street. The question is what is the most effective way of paying for health care since society will pay for it any way?
3. Romney's Mass proposal is at least interesting.
I support a two-party system as the best institutional structure to combat corruption. If your party doesn't address health care, my best guess is that Governor Gregoire will adopt something like Romney's proposal and you guys will be a rural based party for the next few years.
Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage, I'm not opposed to. Sort of like Medicare, but a little different: Everyone is covered for healthcare costs of over $15,000 in an individual year. Insurance companies and individuals are on the hook for those costs less than that. It's paid for through taxing ELECTIVE health care coverage. If you use an ambulance because of a hangnail (yes I know of a case out here where that happened), then you are taxed extra for that service. If you get a boob job, the sales tax on that service is 25%.
It's pretty simple, if you are using up the services of the medical profession electively, then you are part of the reason supply/demand is out of whack. Those people are taxed to pay for catastrophic healthcare coverage only.
Posted by: Doug on January 8, 2008 08:01 AMInfuriating.
And those of you suggesting we should do a Mitt Romney style plan where everyone is required to buy their insurance - I'm not a fan of you either. Who are you to tell me I must have insurance?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 8, 2008 08:22 AM1. My speciality is not medicine, I come to this topic as a consumer. I glanced at your article and did not give it an in depth study, but a couple of things stood out.
a. There is plenty of research in the education field that there is no correllation between certification of the teacher and academic achievement in a particular population of kids.
b. There is corrollation between certification standards of doctors and hospitals regarding a good outcome for patients. Best example the survival rate for patients in hospitals and whose doctors have strong certification in heart surgery vs. those that don't.
c. Like most professions, doctors are reluctant to give control to alternative medicine and nurse practicioners just as attorneys don't want to give ground to paralegals. Cost is forcing a different mattrix in care, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be minimum levels of skill.
2. As an outside observer of both parties there seems to be a battle in both for control. The Cindy Sheehan wing of the dems seems to me to be as impractical in terms of governance as the libertarian wing of the republican party. Many of your thoughts seem to dovetail into the libertarian philosophy, but I don't think they are workable, nor will they survive the political process. Politics is the art of the possible.
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 08:31 AMI am simply shocked that any Republican could possibly support a plan like this. It is taking away your liberty, your freedom, your money, your privacy, your time ...
Why are you a Republican?
If you really are a Republican, and you really believe in Republican principles, the now is the time to fight for those principles, by offering alternatives to government control. There are plenty of alternatives out there. As blindman said, we do not have a free market now. So how about offering free market solutions?
I mean ... for crying out loud. You talk about how it will be more efficient and lower costs, but not only can that be done through the free market, but it can be done for other things too. Why not have universal food and energy "coverage"? Your food and gasoline will be cheaper and everyone will get fed. Right?
What other Republican principles are you prepared to capitulate on?
And Jonathan Gardner, I fail to see how giving the government MORE control over our health care moves us in the right direction. On the contrary, it moves us precisely in the wrong direction, toward more government control over our lives, more socialization, less liberty.
Honestly, if Republicans are going to give in on this, then I see no point in being involved in politics. I am involved to help make things better and to -- as the Constitution says -- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our propsperity. If we're going to just give up those principles on an issue as important to everyone as health care ... I might as well just pack up my family and move to the mountains, because there's no hope left.
I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but if we won't fight for this, then why the hell are we fighting? Why did we bother even fighting the Cold War in the first place? Just what do we think we are doing?
I am actually optimistic, though. There is a HUGE resurgence going on in the GOP right now, as conservative Republicans who HAVE gone missing over the years are coming back, realizing that they are needed if we are going to win. We will fight this, and Dino willing ;), we will win.
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2008 08:57 AM2. What is the definition of a libertarian?
3. Are libertarians and republicans necessarily one and the same?
4. The state of Louisiana has and still has an ongoing struggle in the republican party with the takeover by Duke and his supporters when he ran for governor. Is this state undergoing a similiar struggle in the republican party with Paul supporters and libertarians? Are many republicans trying to mainstream Paul?
5. Rossi is running for governor under what banner, republican or Paul supporter/libertarian?
6. Does the republican party become more libertarian and concede urban areas?
Just asking.
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 09:13 AMAll government programs are backed up by social workers. We have to learn to obey them.
Already, I have watched in horror as a 25 yr old social worker ordered around a wonderful, experienced doctor. Govenment agents rule. Who do you trust with your health?
Posted by: ljm on January 8, 2008 09:29 AMMy doctor, of course. But that's not the question. The question is, do you trust your insurance company bureaucrats or your democratically elected representatives to make reimbursement policy decisions for you?
(OK, that's oversimplifying it. But the same can be said about your rhetorical question.)
Catastrophic health insurance is probably a good idea with medigap policies available for those who want coverage below that amount.
Posted by: Clean House on January 8, 2008 09:36 AMThink people. WVH. I'm in the medical field and I've been all over the EU.
It's great if you have a headcold or broken arm, but that's where it ends. Sorry to say even their medics are nothing like ours.
Just watch Calif if they go to their health care. I'll give it 6 years before health care cuts start.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 09:43 AMDo you believe in personal responsibility at all? Or just in the teat of big government?
Posted by: WeepForFreedom on January 8, 2008 10:29 AM1. Physicians are salaried. You don't have a lot of choice in what physician treats you. Physicians are told by the State how to treat patients, what treatments are acceptable, what medications. In my experience, they were forced to see up to 50 patients a day. It was a factory conveyor belt. Fairly soon in their careers, they burn out. Doesn't matter how skilled or idealistic they were to begin with. Eventually they don't really give a crap because they are being forced to treat not the patient, but the bureaucracy, as paper pushers. At that point, they begin to accept the little blue envelopes (the ones no one can see through) from patients that contain bribes for better medical treatment.
2. Pharmaceutical shortages rule the day. What we consider normal, every-day pharmaceuticals used during procedures become luxuries. For instance, I have experienced the joys of both a root canal and a D&C without even local anesthesia, much less general. Lots of fun. Life sustaining medications such as insulin become hard to obtain, and patients find themselves going to hospital pharmacies and bribing them to give them same.
3. Maternity hospitals are manned by mid-wives. OB-GYN's are called in only if there is a problem, and heaven help you if you need a Caesarean over the weekend, because no anesthesiologists work over the weekend. You're on your own.
4. The natural follow-up to Socialized medicine is state mandated paid sick leave, unlimited. That results in patients who want a little time off fabricating symptoms to the doctor, the doctor writing a script to employer for time off, and endless abuse of the system.
The system is evil, numbing, non-innovative, and relentlessly destructive to patients and physicians.
Posted by: katomar on January 8, 2008 11:24 AMThe answer is yes. I am from the Dr. Bill Cosby school. I am also a pragmatist. A lot of your libertarian/Paul hogwash works if you live in a rural area where everyone is just like you and you shoot outsiders. If you have to run a complex state with international commerce or you live in an urban area, then a lot of your theory is garbage.
I am an independent, but I do not support corruption of any type. The road to a corrupt system is one-party rule, no matter the party.
I assume that you are a republican or libertarian.
Your party is frankly not competitive outside rural areas because you have a litmus test and all the buzz words like "nanny state." Got anybody to run against Larsen?
Increasingly Pugetopolis is becoming more pragmatic and you wingnuts will have a harder time fielding candidates who can win in most areas. That is bad for us all. Corruption takes hold in places like Chicago, Louisiana, and many large cities and your worries about individual responsibility will pale in comparison to what corruption and corrupt systems will cost you.
Why is it you people always wear sheets?
d@d.com or whatever phony address you use for the moment
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 11:26 AMIf your insurer denies coverage for doctor-recommended treatment, the sum total of your remedy in court is the cost of the treatment. If you suffer injury because treatment is delayed, too bad. If you can't afford to litigate in federal court, too bad.
If you die, really too bad - then your heirs can't even recover the cost of the denied life-saving treatment. Your family has no remedy. None. No damages are allowed.
It's called ERISA. It's been federal law since 1974, and it preempts any damages in state court for wrongful denial of health benefits by employer-provided health plans.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Posted by: It's called ERISA. on January 8, 2008 11:30 AMExcept, I like midwives. They are a good alternative, and MDs are always just a few steps away. But they shouldn't be forced on anyone.
General and family medicine doctors are moving their practices to a more doctor friendly NH, they are moving into specialties and sub-specialties (which have less regulation and government intrusion, they are moving into research or they are simply moving out of medicine all together.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 8, 2008 12:17 PM
Published: January 3, 2008 - 5:00 AM
Pay attention, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and everyone else who thinks that government-mandated and government-run universal health insurance is a panacea:
It's being field-tested in Massachusetts right now -- and it's not pretty.
The BEST comment in that thread:
"Hmmm...doctors opting out of a system that will force them to accept patients who don't care about themselves and be forced to accept payments for said services which won't even cover their expenses and then force them to be audited every couple of years to assure that they aren't overutilizing services?... Who wouldn't want that?"
This type of talk is uncalled for!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 12:48 PMYou've never been in court have you.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 12:54 PMApologies to Steve Taylor for appropriating his song title, but it's further appropriate in this discussion: I think many Republicans who give in to this type of proposal are just tired of fighting. Once they give up, they can stop worrying about it. Give up hope, and feel a lot better. It's the American way, right?
I frankly think that Kreidler is pushing this because he KNOWS it will fail, and will make people beg for full universal care when they are buried under double paperwork and double payments and the hassles of dealing with double policies. What does Kreidler do every time there's a problem? He says, "give me more power, and I'll fix it." So when people complain about living under his new proposal, should it be enacted, he will give the same answer: "give me more power, and I'll fix it."
Who do we have who can run against this guy?
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2008 01:06 PMYou can thank people like Edwards for that mess.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 01:07 PMEvery time I hear about a friend who has had a C-Section, the story is almost always the same. The doctor says that the fetal heartbeat was declining, so they had to do a mandatory C-section. This is after all kinds of pain medication and other invasive process has been attached to the mother. Of course no one wants to jeopardize their child, so they immediately submit. It then becomes a very expensive surgery. And after one C-section it is not prudent for VBAC, so of course any subsequent children will require an equally or more expensive C-section to deliver as well. The US has the highest rate of C-section delivery, and by a lot. It's simply due to an increased ability to perform C-sections when they are needed, but because they are often prescribed for convenience of the mother, doctor or both. This is in direct violation of the hippocratic oath, and costs a huge amount, thereby increasing healthcare costs for all.
The fact is that the C-section rate is rising dramatically in the United States because it allows for a huge price tag for a common procedure that is performed on healthy people, and thus has a high success rate. And part of the problem too is ambulance chaser lawyers that create specific known procedures that are less likely to cause law suits, even if they are more expensive and more dangerous to the patient.
And this is just one of many unnecessary and expensive procedures and drug regimens that are often not needed, but since there is no financial relief valves, there's no protection from fraud, waste and lack of personal responsibility.
All of these problems and more will be fixed as soon as we have a more privatized health care system. Such a system encourages both the patient and doctor to do as much possible to improve their own health care and manage their own costs. We do the same with auto insurance and costs are appropriate because we all know that we are rewarded for having fewer accidents, maintaining are vehicles for safe operation, etc.
And we do the opposite for health care. We don't know how much anything costs, and we allow doctors and insurance companies to charge exorbitant costs for simple procedures because there is little oversight. And the whole thing is managed by employers and other third parties removing the consumer-price relationship.
It's no wonder there are growing trends for obesity, heart disease and many other preventable health care problems. People don't take responsibility for themselves, and they are all too willing to be lured in by snake oil salesman like Mike Kreidler with socialist agendas.
Personally, I manage my own policy and keep a higher deductible so that I am incentivized to stay healthy. I eat right and exercise every day. I hardly ever have to see a doctor, and when I do, it's usually an exploratory visit to make sure there is nothing going wrong. If everyone did as I do, then healthcare would be cheap, and highly focused on preventative and detective care. Instead, we continue down a path that allows for socialized medicine that will increase costs for all, and worsen the care for all. A recipe for disaster that has been intricately demonstrated in Canada and Britain.
I don't think Americans will be as stupid, but then again, we are in the Progressive Peoples Republic of WA. And there are a lot of ignorant or even malicious socialists in Seattle that will be more than happy to ruin it for everyone.
But midwifery and natural delivery are definitely not anything to fear as per the conventional Western medicine's wisdom. The fact is that more of the world's population is born without doctor involvement and everything is just fine. I absolutely believe in Western medicince and think it should always be present. But I don't think there is any knee-jerk need to view every birth as better with pain killers and C-sections or every mercurial boy as a a Ritalyn candidate, etc.
And the tendency toward these over medicated procedures is not due to capitalism, but instead due to the overwhelming and stifling regulation that already places most of the control of healthcare into the hands of the insurance industry and not in the hands of the doctor / patient relationship where is belongs. The government's involvement creates artificial monopolies and removes all of the key relief valves that a more open market would provide. The government's regulation should be minimal and involved more around preventing fraud and malpractice.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 8, 2008 02:06 PMOf course the reality is that none of us could exist without for profit motive. Most of Seattle's ardent progressives also operative for profit businesses or work for them to get their pay. And they love stocks, success and personal wealth. Yet they succumb to the rhetoric of emotion out of feelings of guilt or if they are lazy, because they will get more by playing victims than by being productive.
The sooner we make our medical system directly tied to profit with all parties seeing the open benefit of providing great service at a great price, the healthier we will all be.
We all expect great service when we pay to have our clothes dry cleaned or our cars maintained. And the market rewards those with good service at a reasonable price. The same would be true with healthcare. And where there is more market competition with elective procedures such as vision correction, there are great doctors and many options, which have continually decreased price while providing better results. Doctors flee from mandatory healthcare towards more elective or privately funded practice because they can't make money with guns held to their heads.
And as I outlined above, the biggest tragedy with socialized healthcare is the decline of health that will inevitably occur when people and worse, the doctors and healthcare providers, no longer have any incentive to use personal responsibility.
But this is the goal of the socialists. They want to remove personal responsibility and replace it with government responsibility. And they will lie, cheat and steal to get their way, because their ideas would never stand if they were allowed to compete in an open market.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 8, 2008 02:57 PMI don't think they can raise any taxes or fees on their own right now, without a two thirds majority vote, which will not happen, thanks to the people voting for Tim's last initiative.
They can dream of an income tax all they like, they just can't get one past the legislature or the voters.
Get rid of these pick pockets this November!
Posted by: GS on January 8, 2008 03:25 PMBut elect their sorry A's and it will be first thing on their agenda in 2008.
Except for those rascal voters who will shove it where the sun don't shine.
Posted by: GS on January 8, 2008 04:34 PM
Where did you get the idea I was socialist other than you don't like my comments? I simply stated the obvious which is that one of the party's will act on medical care. Whichever party acts, well they will be in the lead in this state. Call it what you will.
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 08:58 PMI have not studied Romney's plan, but I would hardly call him a socialist. These are my comments and I believe that one party will act.
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 09:01 PM"Why do people bother responding to WVHanymore? Since I gave up hope (for Wilda), I feel a lot better!"
I bet you gave up hope because your candidate Ron Paul was exposed for the bigot he is in the New Republic. You have been trying to mainstream this idiot for months and it has finally been uncovered. I guess instead of calling people liars, you now give up hope.
The real issue is you can't answer the following questions which any leader of a district organization can. I bet Ivan has a reponse.
So, Mr. District Chair:
1. What is the definition of a republican? Is this why Fred Jarrett had to leave your party?
2. What is the definition of a libertarian?
3. Are libertarians and republicans necessarily one and the same?
4. The state of Louisiana has and still has an ongoing struggle in the republican party with the takeover by Duke and his supporters when he ran for governor. Is this state undergoing a similiar struggle in the republican party with Paul supporters and libertarians? Are many republicans trying to mainstream Paul?
5. Rossi is running for governor under what banner, republican or Paul supporter/libertarian?
6. Does the republican party become more libertarian and concede urban areas?
Just asking
So, you couldn't mainstream Paul, not to worry, David Duke is still churning out clones.
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 09:09 PMGood for you. But I'd be surprised if many people -- whether they have a low deductible, high deductible, or no insurance whatsoever -- let that affect their lifestyle. If the risk of being sick or incapacitated or dead doesn't motivate someone, will the risk of a medical bill motivate them? Do you really think uninsured people live healthier lifestyles than insured people?
It's true that high deductibles (or no insurance) can sometimes motivate people to use the healthcare system more efficiently, although they motivate others to avoid care that would save money in the long run.
Posted by: Bruce on January 8, 2008 10:12 PMWhat country is that? In reality, all countries with national healthcare pay far less for medical care than the US, and most get better outcomes. There's no perfect solution, but I don't believe your claim.
Posted by: Bruce on January 8, 2008 10:23 PMAnd by the way, Bruce, do you think I am not telling the truth because it's something you don't want to hear? Sorry, dude, can't help you there. It is what it is.
Posted by: katomar on January 8, 2008 10:37 PMWhether you mentioned Romney or not, he came up with a plan. Arnold is also looking at a plan. My point is simply whatever party comes up with a plan has the momentum. Yes, I realize the devil is in the details, but if republicans think they can stand to the sidelines and scream socialism, well Governor Gregoire will clean your clock.
Posted by: WVH on January 8, 2008 11:11 PMSorry about that. Got a gripe? Talk to your representative. I'm going to be busy seeing to the sniffles of that illegal immigrant and her seven anchor babies.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 9, 2008 12:16 AMso there you have it....the state can't even keep its word on Medicaid or pay people properly...
and those that need the treatment are being screwed!
Posted by: lee on January 9, 2008 12:20 AMRemember them 500 dollar hammers for the DOD.
WVH hope you love higher taxes, because it's coming and just watch how DOC's will leave the system when they are told what to do and how much they will make.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 9, 2008 08:17 AMI simply stated the obvious which is one party or the other will come up with some sort of health care plan to run on for the next governor's race. That is the reality of the situation. Your party can choose to do nothing and scream socialist, higher taxes, the heart has been taken out of conservatism and people who support universal health care kick dogs and little old ladies, whatever. It will happen with or without your support. It is called winning an election. Governor Gregoire gets that this is where most of the voting electorate is, maybe not you, but you weren't voting for her anyhow. Should your party not come up with some plan, I hope you folks have some big rec rooms because space in houses will contain most republicans for the next few years.
Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2008 08:50 AMSorry but your wrong. If Rossi and others get out the real truth about GOV care people will run. PLUS the huge taxes that will required to support a failed system. (show me one gov system that has come in at cost)
You talk about the childern all the time, well how do you think they shall like it when taxes will go thru the roof to pay for us.
Just look at medicare and S/S.
It's going to fail wvh unless huge taxes are placed on OUR KIDS! Again you need to take a look at EU and what is happening to them.
I try to live in the real world. Some one will propose a plan, what it will look like, I don't know. Here is politics 101. Nature doesn't like a vacuum. Governor Gregorire will propose a plan. Rossi can choose not to propose a plan or not. The electorate wants a plan. Given the fact your party has conceded urban areas and that is where the population of the state is. Heck, you couldn't even keep Jarret in Mercer Island, not Seattle's Capital Hill and you have no one to run against Larsen. Evangelicals have the phrase speak the truth in love. The truth is even a lame stupid plan will win over no plan because that is where the electorate is.
Posted by: WVH on January 9, 2008 09:11 AMWhat in the heck are you talking about?
It's cost and when people really see it (hopefuly) they will say no. If not get ready for a very substandard health care with huge taxes.
IE payroll to start off with!
There are many plans out there to help solve the problems without giving more control to government, and Democratic politicians lie when they say they have a plan and Republicans don't. And it's pathetic that anyone believes their lies.
Posted by: pudge on January 9, 2008 11:33 AMWhat people like WVH and sorry to say so many others don't understand. Right now 40% of our budget is going for gov services as in S/S, Medicare and other support services. The CBO is saying by 2030 it will be 70%.
Now where in the heck do they think they will find the money to pay for healthcare. Cuts is what the EU is doing and so will we!
NUTS.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 9, 2008 11:40 AMPlease can someone give me an example of a state government "service" that is run to the efficiency that you would expect from your doctor, then tell me that you want the state to run your medical care.
Posted by: Fred on January 9, 2008 12:46 PMWrong question. The relevant comparison is between government and the current US healthcare system, not government and "your doctor".
Medicare has about 3% overhead, compared with 15% for the average private insurance company.
Posted by: Bruce on January 9, 2008 03:28 PMI don't know a lot about Medicare, I'm sure it's not perfect, and I don't know exactly what we should do about healthcare. But anyone who says government cannot be part of a good solution is wearing ideological blinders.
Posted by: Bruce on January 9, 2008 03:59 PM