Today’s San Diego Union-Tribune carries a rebuke to the “Sicko” maker for extolling Britain’s National Health Service by Liz Mair, a writer and political consultant who “serves the needs of center-right political organizations, political leaders and candidates.”
Ms. Mair seems to have a thing for Mr. Moore. Her web site recently savaged him for attacking CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta phonetically by pronouncing his name “‘Dr. Saaanjay Guuuupta,’"laying incredible emphasis and vitriol on his foreign name. Without doubt, it was an oblique comment on the reporter-cum-doctor's ethnicity. What a crazy and unacceptable way to discredit a foe.”
A former resident of London, Ms. Mair wants us to know that “no matter how great socialized medicine may sound, the best that it achieves is dishing up very poor care for all, as opposed to good care for all, or even most.”
The main point of Ms. Mair’s indictment is health care for all at times involves longer waiting for services, which is presumably a horror not visited on U.S. patients since so many of the riff-raff have no coverage and are not clogging up the waiting rooms. They go to hospital emergency units.
While Ms. Mair keeps harpooning Michael Moore, elsewhere she has advice for Republican Presidential candidates. Attacking Mitt Romney for attempting universal coverage in Massachusetts, she suggests to the others: “Since excess regulation contributes greatly to skyrocketing costs--which in turn makes it tough to buy insurance if you're among the working poor--rather than proposing more regulation, Republicans might consider pursuing deregulation of the insurance market.”
While Ms. Mair keeps harpooning Michael Moore, she is busy trying to dismantle the pitiful controls that do exist on HMOs and private insurers. It makes one wonder if she consults for clients other than politicians. Or is she just idealistically wrong-headed?
Showing posts with label "Sicko. Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Sicko. Show all posts
Monday, August 06, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Health Care, Seriously
“Sicko” aside, health care is moving front and center as the domestic issue for Democrats while Republicans still maunder about keeping us safe from terrorists.
A Washington Post headline today sums up their approach: “For Democrats, Pragmatism On Universal Health Care”
It’s a little like saying, “There are burglars in the house, but let’s be cautious about getting them out.”
The burglars are private insurers who take almost one out of every three dollars we spend and give us the most expensive and some of the worst care in the world. But no one wants to get them out, lock the doors and start over.
Whenever good sense enters the debate, lobbyists for the thieves yell “socialized medicine” and politicians duck for cover. But when the rest of America complains about anti-social medicine, they turn deaf.
The situation is neatly summed up by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who has become, according to the Post, “possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” But even the realist knows better.
"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, a consultant for the three leading Democrats. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better--I just think they're political non-starters."
The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it, would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”
Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.
We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers. Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.
As we gird ourselves for the headache-inducing health care plans of the Presidential candidates, someone should stand up for the “non-starter,” a potential cure that none of them has the courage to propose.
A Washington Post headline today sums up their approach: “For Democrats, Pragmatism On Universal Health Care”
It’s a little like saying, “There are burglars in the house, but let’s be cautious about getting them out.”
The burglars are private insurers who take almost one out of every three dollars we spend and give us the most expensive and some of the worst care in the world. But no one wants to get them out, lock the doors and start over.
Whenever good sense enters the debate, lobbyists for the thieves yell “socialized medicine” and politicians duck for cover. But when the rest of America complains about anti-social medicine, they turn deaf.
The situation is neatly summed up by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who has become, according to the Post, “possibly the party's most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” But even the realist knows better.
"Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over," said Gruber, a consultant for the three leading Democrats. "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better--I just think they're political non-starters."
The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it, would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”
Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.
We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers. Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.
As we gird ourselves for the headache-inducing health care plans of the Presidential candidates, someone should stand up for the “non-starter,” a potential cure that none of them has the courage to propose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)