Oh, Mitt. You are so finished.
Today, a blogger for the website Rightosphere, Kavon Nikrad, writes that he asked Romney at a recent book signing to clarify what was meant by the “worst aspects,” and Romney told him that he would oppose a repeal of the individual mandate.
Winning an election isn’t exactly rocket science. You push the principles you have that are popular and hold back the ones you have which aren’t. Sometimes it takes a certain amount of rhetorical tapdancing, but the voting public has always been willing to suspend a certain amount of its disbelief if the principles you push forward are really good ones. You know, like “hope” or “change”.
Mitt Romney is doing the exact opposite of what a winning candidate should do. The individual mandate is the very heart of Obamacare, which is about as popular these days as scrofula. His own health care creation in Massachusetts is doing a bangup job of covering people who might not have gotten coverage before but it’s also doing a fantastic job of bankrupting the state and emptying people’s pockets.
I have turned the health care problem over in my head six ways to Sunday and the only conclusion on which I’m prepared to stand firmly is this: You can not have government-mandated universal coverage and lower health care costs at the same time unless you are willing to place the entire country under tyranny. Direct control of every aspect of the health care system, including forcing people to work as medical practitioners has to happen in order to have both. Short of that, you have to accept one or the other.
Obviously, Romney has chosen government-mandated coverage. His job now is to come up with a plausible pitch to get America to accept the inevitable skyrocketing costs, both public and private. I don’t think such a pitch exists and, apparently, neither does Mitt, because he’s not even trying to develop one. So long as he’s living deep in that well of denial, he doesn’t have a prayer in 2012.
UPDATE: (1821 Eastern): The Romney camp has said he’s not in favor of an individual mandate. I’m skeptical, for the reason that Klein outlined in the update to his original post. However, I’ll tentatively take him at his word and wait for his actions to confirm what his people have said or to refute it.
“forcing people to work as medical practitioners”? Yeah, because that’s what has happened in every other country with universal health care. Oh wait… it hasn’t.
You can not have government-mandated universal coverage and lower health care costs at the same time unless you are willing to place the entire country under tyranny.
Really? So then America is currently the only Western nation in the world who isn’t under a tyranny because all the rest have government-mandated universal coverage.
You know that fact right? Every. Western. Nation. Canada, Japan, the Uk and the rest of Europe, every other member of NATO, all of them have government-mandated universal coverage.
Are you sure you think about this stuff before you talk about it?
And in every other country with “universal” health care, there either isn’t universal coverage (because of necessary rationing) or costs have risen dramatically. You know, like I said.
Wait a minute. Romney didn’t say what he is alleged to have said; his team has denied the claimed pro-federal mandate position; and he has not stated his position since the alleged book tour-stop quote.
Separately, in MA, if you don’t earn income, your “mandate” is paid for by Medicaid (and if you earn only a little). That, in effect, makes the MA “mandate” simply another, additional form of income tax that you can opt-out of if you get your own health insurance. While you may find that unattractive, doesn’t this kind of make MA’s mandate nothing more than an additional income tax, and not the work of the devil?
Stated another way,m I’m agnostic on the mandate concept at the state level, but if it’s just an income tax variant, is it really more socialistic than a state income tax?
I”m been sitting on that Klein article pretty much all day and hadn’t seen anything from it. He specifically asked the Romney folks whether he said it or not this morning and, as of 4:30 PM when I left work, there was no update.
And, as I said, each one of those nations have had to choose between universality and rising costs.
Wait. State regulatory authorities regulating premium increases, and mandating coverages pre-date MA’s mandates. The only thing the mandates do is get rid of the free-riders who can pay but don’t. Why does Romney get tared with what goes on down her in NY, even though NY doesn’t have coverage mandates?
Palin 2012.
She will cut through the complexity, not because she is stupid, but because she is NOT. She is the only “conservative leader” who can claim to be both a conservative… and a leader.
>And in every other country with “universal” health care, there either isn’t universal coverage (because of necessary rationing) or costs have risen dramatically. You know, like I said.
Wow, you don’t even read what you post… let’s review:
>You can not have government-mandated universal coverage and lower health care costs at the same time unless you are willing to place the entire country under tyranny.
Once again, (and please answer the question I’m actually asking) are you suggesting that America is the only Western nation who is currently not under a tyranny?
Do you just string words you hear on Fox News together in the assumption that they must be right so you don’t need to think about them?
Now, you’ll probably ignore all that because that’s what you do when you’re wrong so let’s address the cost thing.
You’re wrong.
Cost rises when profit is involved, I don’t think I need to detail that reality. For instance if you have for-profit health insurance and make a claim you can all but guarantees that your premiums will rise. This is not the case in universal coverage.
Furthermore because it’s one payer services can be bought in bulk which further lowers cost.
At least this is the what happens in every other country (which are not free and democratic apparently, you really need to explain that) with universal health care. They save money and uh-oh… here comes proof:
http://www.canada.com/vancouve.....mp;k=13532
It found that while the United States spent an average of $7,129 U.S. per person on health care in 2006, compared with $2,956 U.S. per person in Canada, more studies favoured the latter country in terms of morbidity and mortality. They covered a wide range of diseases and conditions, including cancer and coronary artery disease.
Salvage, you are way off the mark. Heart disease is a healthcare issue? No. It’s a lifestyle issue. And when you tease out auto deaths and violent deaths from the US stats, we live longer.
Moreover, the rest of the world is a “dumb terminal” connected to the US, which is the real medical CPU. WE advance medicine. WE create the technology. WE develop the drugs.
YOU are wrong.
Canada? No country rides piggyback on us in medicine, and every other way. How vapid of you.
So Canada has lower health care costs because it ‘piggybacks’ on America’s more expensive system?
How does that work?
Sorry didn’t notice your other post there:
>Heart disease is a healthcare issue? No. It’s a lifestyle issue.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America and it isn’t a health care issue?
Fascinating.
And are you suggesting that the only people who have problems with their hearts are fat lazy smoking slobs?
>And when you tease out auto deaths and violent deaths from the US stats, we live longer.
Yes! There are no auto or violent deaths in Canada or any other country.
I guess what you’re saying is if you exclude facts that don’t support your conclusion you’re right.
Sadly, the real world doesn’t work that way, you have to include all the facts, even the inconvenient ones.
>Moreover, the rest of the world is a “dumb terminal” connected to the US, which is the real medical CPU. WE advance medicine. WE create the technology. WE develop the drugs.
Ah American arrogance, never fails to amuse. Do you really think that there isn’t any medical science in any other nation? Really?
And what does any of that have to do with HCR? You do undestand that the only change is how the hospitals and doctors get their money? Instead of for profit insurance companies paying out (sometimes) the for the people government pays from money collected via taxes. Since profit isn’t their main concern everyone gets covered.
Terrible I know, people getting sick not being financially destroyed, what an awful thing!
But regardless that doesn’t really impact the R&D side of the equation.
Once again a perfect example of how you hear words from Fox News but don’t bother trying to understand them.
You strike me as an idiot. Nonetheless:
“And are you suggesting that the only people who have problems with their hearts are fat lazy smoking slobs?”
Actually, probably a good chunk are, but my point is that providing free heathcare is not going to re-educate people of their bad habits; and no, the US has the most violent deaths and auto deaths. PER-CAPITA. Ever hear of the term per-capita?
You know nothing but what the leftist have told you. You fail.
“Ah American arrogance, never fails to amuse. Do you really think that there isn’t any medical science in any other nation? Really?”
the USA is responsible for over 95% of everything new. You are a moron.
“Instead of for profit insurance companies paying out (sometimes) the for the people government pays from money collected via taxes.”
Since average healthcare insurance profits are in the 2-3% range, and most of that comes from investing premiums in investments, again, and that profit would pay for about two days’ worth of heathcare costs, you need to figure out what to do with the remaining 363 days. You are a moron.
> >And in every other country with “universal” health care, there either isn’t universal coverage (because of necessary rationing) or costs have risen dramatically. You know, like I said.
> Wow, you don’t even read what you post… let’s review:
> >You can not have government-mandated universal coverage and lower health care costs at the same time unless you are willing to place the entire country under tyranny.
> Once again, (and please answer the question I’m actually asking) are you suggesting that America is the only Western nation who is currently not under a tyranny?
Wow, you don’t even read what you quote. Honestly, this isn’t that hard to parse. The claim in the post is simply that there are no nations which are 1) not tyrannical, 2) have universal health care, and 3) have lower health care costs. Your question seems to assume that all other Western nations have universal health care and lower costs. And that (presumed) belief is what Jimmie was trying to address in his comment.
But maybe that really is what you believe. If you stand behind the blanket statement: “Cost rises when profit is involved, I don’t think I need to detail that reality,” then it may not be possible to argue fiscal issues at all, because you seem to live in a world without economics.
Let me say that you really do need to get up to speed on what I think of health care in general. It’s not difficult to find. I have an entire category and a tag dedicated to the subject.
Here is what I am saying. No nation that claims to have universal health care actually has universal health care because, in order to cut costs, they are forced to ration, sometimes dramatically, the care they give. If you can not get the treatment you want or need when you want it or need it, you are not actually covered, no matter what the government says.
Yes, actually, you do, because what you said there flies in the face of how economics actually works.
The sad truth is that we know what happens in the United States with far greater accuracy than what happens elsewhere; yes, in Cuba, but even France or the UK or Sweden, where statistics are much more edited and redacted for political end.
The other issue is the Americans, for a variety of reasons (everything from immigration to an excess of riches have more of an ability to live unhealthy, excessive lifestyles–things which has nothing to do with access or cost of heathcare–are less healthy.
Costs rise with profit? Compared to what? A fictional government-run system? No, the inefficiencies of a government-system create overhead that exceeds profit margin in almost every case–where have you been Senor EricH.
>You strike me as an idiot. Nonetheless:
Awesome! Can I start insulting you now, I bet I’m better at it.
>>“And are you suggesting that the only people who have problems with their hearts are fat lazy smoking slobs?”
>Actually, probably a good chunk are,
Actually, probably? So I’m the idiot and here you are contradicting yourself in the first two words of your sentence. I suggest you look up “actually” and “probably” and understand what they mean and why you can’t use them right after another like that.
>but my point is that providing free heathcare
Who is talking about free health care? The only people on this planet that get free health care are in third world crap holes and anyone else who doesn’t pay taxes. See you don’t even understand the nature of the system you oppose and that’s why your opinion is worthless as it is ignorant.
> is not going to re-educate people of their bad habits;
It’s not?!?! Well then why did I say it would?!?! Oh wait, no I didn’t. I know it’s hard for you but can you just focus on what I say?
>and no, the US has the most violent deaths and auto deaths. PER-CAPITA. Ever hear of the term per-capita?
…
Okay let’s say that’s accurate for a second (and it’s not, Iran has the most auto deaths PER-CAPTIA,) what is your point exactly? That American health care costs are higher because there are more violent and auto deaths?
Hmmm, I think I see the problem, maybe if doctors stopped TREATING DEAD PEOPLE costs would go down.
See dead people? They don’t need health care, very cheap to take care of a hole in the ground does the trick.
>You know nothing but what the leftist have told you. You fail.
True, I didn’t take into consideration how expensive it is to heal the dead and that’s why you should give your money to insurance companies rather than your fellow Americans.
>the USA is responsible for over 95% of everything new. You are a moron.
Wow! Really? That’s pretty impressive but I’ve never heard of such a thing, can you provide some sort of proof of that rather grandiose statement?
>Since average healthcare insurance profits are in the 2-3% range,
AAHAHAHAH! Wow, you are so smart! 2-3% of what? What’s that in actual money? Did you know:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5968.....endar-year
Health insurer 2009 results:
As the nation struggled with rising health care costs and a lingering recession last year, the nation’s five largest health insurance companies racked up combined profits of $12.2 billion – up 56 percent over 2008. WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Aetna and Humana covered 2.7 million fewer people than they did the year before. The report Thursday said three of the five insurers cut the proportion of premiums they spent on their customers’ medical care, Reported results are based on company annual financial reports for 2009 filed filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
>that profit would pay for about two days’ worth of heathcare costs, you need to figure out what to do with the remaining 363 days. You are a moron.
Yes! I am the moron and will be an even bigger one when you explain how you arrived at these numbers.
>Here is what I am saying. No nation that claims to have universal health care actually has universal health care because, in order to cut costs, they are forced to ration, sometimes dramatically, the care they give.
What is this rationing thing? Like death panels you keep on going on about it but never actually explain what it is.
From Canada to Japan to Poland to Australia people are getting the health care without it devastating their life savings. That is the main point of HCR.
But let’s say for a second that this rationing thing is accurate what that would mean (if I understand what you’re saying and sometimes that’s… difficult) is that some people would see doctors?
Well, isn’t that the case now? They’re not seeing doctors because they can’t afford to. They let their medical problems get worse until they qualify for emergency care (which is of course more expensive that preventative). So what would be the difference then?
As for costs rise when profit when you sell something for profit are you going to charge more, less or at cost? A not-for-profit system has lower prices, they’re not worried about profit. Insurance companies exist for profit, for the enrichment of the stakeholders, that expense comes from the customers.
I’m not sure if I can explain it any simpler.
Now, you still haven’t explained the whole tyranny angle or are you not going to bother?
>No, the inefficiencies of a government-system create overhead
It’s weird how that inefficient government of yours has somehow because the world’s leading economic giant.
I find is hysterical the way you run down your government while at the same time crowing about your country as if one has nothing to do with the other. Only the most supple of minds can work with such dichotomies.
Check your facts: http://healthcarehorserace.com.....-from-fat/
I look forward to people of your ilk, the leftist morons who know nothing, feeling real depressed on the first Wednesday in November. You elected leftists via a lot of ignorant people. Buh bye.
In other words, health insurance companies are not breaking the bank.
And in England they’re dying by the hundreds and thousands because of sub-standard care, doctor shortages, and bureaucratic cost-cutting. In Canada, they’re waiting months for hip replacements because the waiting list is so long. In England they’re not getting pain medication for their back injuries and are living in excruciating pain because of cost-cutting measures.
Doesn’t seem like they’re getting the health care they need. Seems like they’re getting the health care the government says they can have, and not a bit more. That is the outcome of government-run health cae.
You have explained it quite simply, yes. And incorrectly.
From your link:
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.
Fascinating, they’re not making much of a profit but they’re 35th place out of 500?
But again you stray off point, it’s not that they make money that’s bad, it’s that they don’t pay out when people need it. They build their polices in such a way to ensure profit over people. Now that’s fine in most industries but not health care. It’s one of the rare cases where the good of the many come first.
>And in England they’re dying by the hundreds and thousands because of sub-standard care, doctor shortages, and bureaucratic cost-cutting.
Uh oh! It’s a JimmieFact! Jimmie says something crazy (still waiting to hear about the tyranny thing) and when asked to provide some sort of proof…?
It’s weird how the people of the Uk don’t seem to notice this, they’re in an election right now, you’d think one of the parties would pick up and run with that but strangely not one of them is talking about scrapping the NHS. Gosh, I wonder why?
>In Canada, they’re waiting months for hip replacements because the waiting list is so long.
Yes! And if we paid thousands of dollars to Blue Cross each month those waiting lists would disappear! Why no one waits for anything medical in America.
Now I live in Canada and over the last three years have had a fair amount of direct contact with our health system and it works on a triage system. My mother had to wait a few weeks for some tests and a buddy of mine had to wait three days for brain surgery. They diagnosed the tumor on Friday and by Monday he was popping his Oxycontin making me terribly jealous.
>In England they’re not getting pain medication for their back injuries
What? There are no pharmacies? No opiates? Here we have another example of you saying something without giving it much thought. And is it only back injuries? If it’s a ankle no problem?
>Seems like they’re getting the health care the government says they can have, and not a bit more.
Yes! Before the doctors do anything they call the government up and ask if they can.
Actually that’s what happens with insurance companies, they daycare treatments “experimental” and that means they don’t pay and that means people go without care.
It’s fascinating that you don’t seem to get the point of an insurance company, it’s not to help people, it’s to sell stuff at a profit. And again normally that’s a great thing but not when it kills people or degrades their lives.
>That is the outcome of government-run health cae.
And again, the fact you can’t seem to understand, every, single, Western, nation, has, government-run health care and if it’s such an awful system why do you think they keep it? Perhaps that’s part of the tyranny thing you refuse to explain?
>I’m not sure if I can explain it any simpler.
>You have explained it quite simply, yes. And incorrectly.
So, are you saying that for-profit businesses are cheaper for the consumer than not-for-profit?
Really?
You need only have spent a little time outside the tourist zones of Paris, or London, or Rome to realize that much of what most people think of Europe is projection: we project/assume our affluence and market-based superiority onto them even though it’s not actually there.
Europe’s healthcare doesn’t match our own. Do they have more universal access? NO They have more universal insurance coverage, but insurance coverage for second-rate healthcare is not better than first-rate healthcare with some insurance coverage flaws.
Gee, Mr. Salvage, should I assume you are troll-ing, or that your mental powers can’t fathom how 34 industries could have profit margins in the 0-3% range? And of course, profit is evil, because it’s just money that sits in a safe and does nothing…
Again, hie thee to the archives. I wrote a post perhaps a month ago with about five or six links full of proof. Do your homework before hitting the “submit reply” button.
Actually no. That’s not the point of an insurance company. But since you really don’t get economics, explaining how insurance works isn’t likely to help all that much.
In a fair market? Yes. Really.
(Except in the very short term, or the very small scale–for instance, any business can be cheaper than the competition by selling at a loss.)
Glad I could help clear that up for you.
>first-rate healthcare with some insurance coverage flaws.
Flaws like the company pulling coverage because they don’t want to pay out? More feature than flaw.
>And of course, profit is evil,
Ha! Ha! Yes that’s what I said!
>I wrote a post perhaps a month ago with about five or six links full of proof.
That’s weird how in those posts you felt the need to provide proof but here not so much. Convenient that. Is there a link explaining how the rest of the Western world is really under a tyranny as well?
>Actually no. That’s not the point of an insurance company.
…
Really? They’re not doing it for profit? Wow, why are they doing it then? Why do they refuse to pay out for “experimental treatments” or “preexisting conditions” I wonder?
>In a fair market? Yes. Really.
(Except in the very short term, or the very small scale–for instance, any business can be cheaper than the competition by selling at a loss.)
Huh, really? You should explain that to your local credit union.
And in this specific case you’re obviously wrong as health care is cheaper per person in the nations with universal government run coverage.
Because they’re not concerned with profit.
But apparently that’s only because America doesn’t have universal health care and everyone else “piggybacks” on it… somehow. Like many of the JimmieFacts in this thread that point remains unsubstantiated and unexplained.
My tax-exempt local credit union? I did say ‘in a fair market,’ didn’t I? Yes, I’m sure I did.
Whether health care is cheaper or not, this argument is fallacious. Whether or not government run healthcare is cheaper, the claim that ‘A’ causes ‘B’ is not supported by evidence that ‘B’ is true. Even if you say “because of A” afterward.
No, it’s because they can set whatever price the government desires. Profit is not the issue. Indeed, what you call profit in the private market is called “pork” in government. I leave it to you to educate yourself on that subject as well.
Government-run does not mean “cheaper”. Refer to the legendary $5,000 toilet seats for a useful reference.
Leftists and “liberals” compare reality to a fantasy “better”. They are children, which is why we are in deep… right now.