At the link, Obama accuses greedy doctors for removing tonsils for the money. And this is our president.
Posted by Karol at
And stupid doctors have probably voted for him…just like many people from financial industry
I love how he’s the instant expert at everything, no matter how trivial. Just like he KNOWS that the Cambridge police acted “stupidly.”
He’s flailing now. Bringing Gates into the speech was just stupid.
Absolutely correct, Tatyana. Many in the financial industry, even ultra-rich who should have known better, supported Obama because they figured their support would temper his socialism into “regulations” they could tolerate.
Doctors supported him for the same reason, and even Wal-Mart is now supporting “reform” at the employer level. Maybe, they think, just maybe if they can influence Obama, it won’t be as bad as it could have been with full-blown federal control.
This is like a rape victim thinking that since something bad is going to happen anyway, maybe if she does a little foreplay, it won’t hurt as much.
The problem is that people are willing to compromise on their freedom. “Maybe if we feed the beast, he won’t eat us.” That never works. As long as you’re willing to feed the beast called Government whatever it wants, it’ll eventually run out of everyone else and turn to you for its next supper.
“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher
Perry, there is is old Soviet-era joke (gosh, how I hate it that ALL anti-Soviet jokes feek very adequate here and now!) – so, there is this joke about a guy who’s arrested on the street for no reason, brought to police (”militzia”, in original) precinct, beaten, tortured, then in the morning the captain tells him to come in the afternoon for his own hanging. “Any questions?” he asks. -Yes, bleats the Typical Soviet Citizen, “should I bring my own rope and soap?”
Doctors support O only because they are looking at the short term and the
245 Billion payment to keep them quiet.
Yes, it’s an incentive, but hardly a cash payment. Read more closely:
the approximate 10-year cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts
That’s like my boss telling me that I got a “raise” because my salary was supposed to be cut but is staying the same.
That’s not a very big piece of the whole pie, anyway, not even $25 billion a year. This program will run hundreds of billions a year from the start.
The President is saying that decisions for treatment are sometimes being made on the basis of what’s best for the insurer or the doctor, not necessarily what’s best for the patient. Is that incorrect? If it’s correct, is it a system of which you approve?
Of course Obama will say something equivalent to “I’m for motherhood and against sin,” particularly something so populist. Unfortunately his statement denies economic reality. Contrary to what you might think, I’m not an evil person who wants to see others suffer. I am, however, a rational person who is aware that this world is one of finite resources. It would be nice if we had this magic wand to wave and give everybody free and abundant health care, but it’s not oxygen in the air, nor something we can dig out of the ground or a mountainside. Health insurance is a complex resource provided by millions of people: doctors, nurses and paramedics with various levels of medical training; chemists; drug researchers; and yes, the executives and managers who run the operations along with the marketing strategists.
Now, I approve of any system where decisions are made on a purely voluntarily basis. This means that no one is forced into paying a price he doesn’t want and/or for something he doesn’t want (if you can refuse but don’t, then paying does not mean you’re forced into it). This also means that no one is forced into providing goods and services that he doesn’t want to provide (again, if you can refuse but don’t, you aren’t being forced into it). Voluntary transactions can be on the spur of the moment, like walking into a clinic and paying cash, or on the basis of an existing insurance policy (which is a business contract like any other).
If someone pays premiums all his life but happens to get something that isn’t covered, and he can’t afford the hospital, I’ll be sympathetic to the person but will still recognize that the insurance company isn’t liable. Similarly, if someone paid the first premium and suddenly develops a covered, non-preexisting condition, I don’t weep at all for the insurance company when it has to shell out more than it took in from the person. That’s the proper role of insurance, anyway, that you pay a small fraction of the benefit you might eventually receive. The problem is that people today think that people equate health insurance with health care, thinking that insurance should pay for everything. At that point, it ceases to be “insurance.” And then people wonder why they each can’t consume tens of thousands of dollars of health care resources for only a few hundred bucks a month plus co-pay.
I’m sure you criticize these insurance policies that seem to benefit doctors and insurers more than patients. However, doctors insurance companies are in business to make money. They’re not charities. If they weren’t seeking profits, then they wouldn’t exist in the first place. Yet there’s a flip side: if insurance policies didn’t benefit consumers, why are consumers bothering with them in the first place? Rational people do not exchange with others unless they think they’re gaining more than they’re giving. People don’t pay $X a month for an insurance policy unless they think it’s worthwhile.
Now, in the absence of the profit-seekers, government would step up to the plate and try to supply the best doctors and other professionals it can. Unfortunately that would necessarily be at the point of a gun, like in Cuba or the old USSR where people go into occupations they’re told. You’ll have some competent doctors, maybe even good ones, but never as many as needed, and never any significant development of advanced medical techniques or pharmaceuticals. Profit is much maligned, but it’s a powerful driving force.
Let me touch on something a few paragraphs back. It’s too bad when someone has cancer that his/her existing policy won’t cover, but I have no sympathy for the people who complain “It’s not right!” and want to force the insurance company to pay, or to make taxpayers to absorb the costs. Such people fall into two categories:
1. Too stupid to check their coverage.
2. Too cheap to have paid higher premiums for the coverage.
Everyone wants something for nothing, or as Bastiat said, “The state is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”