The JSOnline headline is one way to phrase it.
Another possibility: "Economic Crisis to Jumpstart HillaryCare"
Of course the first question is: "How in blazes do HillaryCare and 'economic crisis' get into the same headline?"
The answer, of course, is that Rahm Emanuel was speaking very clearly when he counseled Obama that 'the bigger the crisis, the better the opportunity' (for establishing Big Brother's control over your life.)
The article mentions what will be the most controversial proposal:
$1.1 billion to establish a research center to evaluate the effectiveness of medical treatments
TaxDodger Tom Daschle proposed this a long time ago; the idea is to have an appointed body of "experts" who will decide, in effect, who gets treated for what.
And the "experts" prefer that you don't ask a lot of questions.
Altman, of the Kaiser Family Foundation, doesn't dispute that.
"When you get to the details is when you really flesh out what the opposition will be," he said.
The window for significant reform will be brief. Altman sees it as the time between the passage of an economic recovery plan and the start of campaigning for the midterm elections.
"A protracted debate is the enemy of health care reform," he said.
Something that King David Obey knows very well, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Dad,
Of course the first question is: "How in blazes do HillaryCare and 'economic crisis' get into the same headline?"
Must be a rhetorical question right? The first begets the latter..that's how they are connected!
Government spending is a good thing right now. And there's already people deciding what treatments you get and don't get--it's your insurance company. Besides, doesnt the government pay a lot of health care bills via medicare and medicaid? Don't you think they should know something about which treatments are effective and cost-effective? Your private insurance company surely does.
Scott, you start with a very poorly worded premise. INTELLIGENT Gummint spending is ALWAYS a good thing. Most of what is in the Porkulus is not intelligent, to be very kind.
Yes, insurance companies decide that--ALONG with the MDs/hospitals. And you missed an important point: WHO gets treated will also be part of the decision, not just 'means of treatment.'
Finally, you imply that Medicare/aid is currently incompetent to make decisions. They will suddenly get smart? You're arguing both sides to the middle again, Scott.
Scott,
I think that my personal doctor of 12 years knows what treatments are best for me, and that's the way I'd like to leave it.
Move to Canada if you want a bureaucracy to decide what and what is not best for your health.
Government spending is a good thing right now. And there's already people deciding what treatments you get and don't get--it's your insurance company.
Yeah. And guess what? There are dozens of them out there. So I can choose a company that will/won't cover particular treatments.
Can't do that with the government.
Scott, another bit of the issue you missed is how many doctors are opting out of taking medicare/medicaid patients. If this program was so great for expanding medical coverage, wouldn't you think it would be the other way around? If anything, What is happening with M/M programs is support for the fact that govt. doesn't know how to manage health care.
So -
if an insurance company reviews coverage for treatments and makes decisions - its evil,
but if a government bureaucrat does it - its OK.
wow - the mental gymnastics of the left are tiring just to watch.
Post a Comment