Thursday, June 11, 2009

Obama v. Conyers on Health

Well, well. Seems that there's some dissent.

Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) brought his annual government healthcare bill back to the table Wednesday, saying that if the government were to spend the same amount as individual Americans -- $2.5 trillion – universal healthcare could be a reality, adding that the current privatized system was “broken.”

Yah, yah...sure. Single-payer is a ticket to get in line, not to get treatment. We know about this.

Here's the fun part:

Doctor Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, said that while Obama’s ideas might improve care, they would not reduce costs. Conyers’ plan, she said, should be the national model.

Initiatives such as electronic records, disease management, preventive care, and comparative effectiveness studies may improve care, but experts agree that they’re unlikely to save much money,” Angell told the subcommittee.

“The only way to provide universal and comprehensive coverage and to control costs is to adopt a nonprofit, single-payer system like that called for in HR 676,” she said.

But, but mean ObamaCare (being written by Dodd and Obey) is NOT the magic bullet?

You mean that the seas will not part when Obama extends his hand?


Deekaman said...

Any government healthcare proposition is just snake oil. And very dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Question for Conyers...

Please explain to me how sending the same $2.5T to the government and having it filtered through several layers of administrative BS will be less expensive, more efficient, or provide better outcomes than what we have now?