Jeffrey S. Flier – the dean of Harvard Med – has thrown a haymaker at Obamacare in today’s WSJ – Health ‘Debate’ Deserves a Failing Grade: In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system.
Game, set, match, tournament. But, hey, it’s only the Dean of Harvard Med. What would he know compared to such great clinicians as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? This would be magnificent black comedy were it not our lives and – more importantly – those of our children that were hanging in the balance. The rush to enact this self-serving legislation is pretty much the most disgraceful US governmental act of my lifetime – at least that I can think of at the moment – and, as readers know, I am no longer in my twenties (!).
Here’s another memorable sentence from Dr. Flier: “Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.”
How’s that, Mr.Obama? That’s the word from your alma mater. Mean anything? Probably not. It’s all politics all the time to you and your crew. Shame on you.
Harvard will now be portrayed as not a real university. At least the the medical school but not the law school where alum seem not to understand that when in positions of power, one shouldn’t declare a defendant guilty and will be executed so as not to adversely influence the “fair” trail.
I constantly make fun of the soft science departments of our “best” universities—and never their hard science departments. A medical degree from Harvard is still worthy of respect. Thankfully, the affirmative action mandates have yet to severely damage its well earned reputation. Barack Obama acquired a law degree. So what? That’s not really a big deal. This merely means that he can pass a state board examination. It does not make him into another John Adams. The Communist Van jones readily admitted that he chose Yale, for instance, because that school does not grade its law students! The none too bright Hillary Clinton and John Kerry also attended Yale. Can’t be too difficult.
Since few, if not none, of Obama’s constituents could ever dream of getting into Harvard, this will definitely be discounted by all of them.
Obamacare is a joke.
Ummm, that’s not what Dr. Flier said. He actually wrote: As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I’d give it a failing grade.
Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama’s agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive.
He was referring to the health-reform debate and not “Obamacare” (Or is that “Pelosicare”? You guys are getting sloppy with your talking points labels.)
BC, try reading past the part you want to read.
Well, you have a point, BC, but only slightly. There is no Obamacare. N’existe pas. All there is an attempt to enact “something,” that something being “a thing in itself” and not a thing of substance or need. If you wish to call it “Pelosicare,” that’s fine with me. Or simply terribly thought through, deeply reactionary, legislation. Yes, reactionary, BC. Those things have flipped.
BC,
Did you even read the rest of the article?
“Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that’s not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system.”
I think its clear that he believes Obamacare is crap.
B.C. is dishonest and intentionally deceptive. Flier makes a subsidiary point about the poor quality of the debate, but Roger’s opening quote fairly summarises his view on Obamacare. Read it and see.
Ummm, yes he did, BC, about two paragraphs down from your selective quote. If you actually read the entire Op-Ed he seems to be enamoured with neither the debate nor the proposal. In fact, almost immediately following your bit one can read his thought that “as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.” (emphasis added) A timely quote, considering your pointed denial that the good doctor did not write what Roger extracted verbatim from the very same Op-Ed you reference.
“BC: Ummm, that’s not what Dr. Flier said.”
Ummm, it’s a direct quotation.
Harvard?!? I, uh, haven’t,, uh paid much attention to it,, uh ,, in a,, uh, while,, but let me be clear,, I, uh, think they are, uh, wrong, uh,, uh, about this,, uh,, one…………
OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
(the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)
-It’s never too early to campaign-
Roger,
You have been tricked. So has the Dean of Harvard Medical School. PelosiCare(tm)/ObamaCare(tm) is not about healthcare per se (costs, reach, effectiveness, efficiency, scope, etc.), it is about Democrats staying in office. The bet is that unionizing and federalizing millions of healthcare workers into SEIU and AFSCME will result in hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions and billions of tax dollars to hand out to its supporters. The Democrats are about buying elections and under that evaluation the House Bill is perfectly constructed.
Rob
What we should be doing is taking a good look at his motives. How much does Harvard’s endowment stand to lose if universal health care is established? I am quite sure that Harvard’s endowment makes a lot of money for drug company stocks and other health-care related companies that would not be able to continue to rape all of us for their massive profits when Obama ensures good health care for everyone. Plus, I though Harvard people cared more about women, minorities, and gays, who are getting sub-standard health care under the current system but would have equal health care thanks to Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Flier has received an honorarium or two from the drug companies that are fearful that our health care sytem will be reformed and made more fair for everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, or national origin.
Read the referenced article, BC. Dr. Flier clearly refers to the “proposed legislation”, which is Obamacare/Pelosicare.
You guys are getting sloppy with your reading comprehension.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Flier has received an honorarium….”
Not projecting, are we, Vinny B.?
You guys should leave poor BC alone! As a liberal, he can’t point to facts to support his premise or argue rationally; instead, it’s all about leaving a comment peppered with the party-supplied talking points.
As for your article, Roger, it’s pretty clear that Obamacare isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Good to know that even the dean of the Harvard Medical School can see that…
Interesting, and potentially useful in derailing the ObamaCare juggernaut, but I take a dim view of arguments from authority generally. Dean of Harvard med school or not, adduce your evidence and your reasoning and I’ll draw my own conclusions, thanks.
Vinny B,
As an aside, please remember that every country that has subsidized their drug companies (pharma) does so at the expense of the American taxpayer in that we pay higher prices to offset the poor returns they get from Canada, U.K., France, etc.
Let’s see, if the old folks don’t like it, that is because they are scared and don’t know any better, if the Republicans don’t like it, that is because they are bad people who are enslaved to the evil insurance companies, if the people don’t like it, that is because they don’t know what is good for them…I wonder what the problem will be with Harvard?
Occam’s Beard, normally I would agree with you about the “argument from authority,” but when it’s a medical school dean vs. a politician on questions of science, well… I don’t know about you, but I’m going to pay more attention to the person with a background. Look at the debate over global warming. It’s filled with opinions from politicians who wouldn’t know the Second Law of Thermodynamics from their mother-in-law.
“ObamaCare(tm) is not about healthcare per se (costs, reach, effectiveness, efficiency, scope, etc.), it is about Democrats staying in office.”
That is correct. The Obama health care push is all about the gaining of overwhelming political power. At best, they are lying to themselves concerning their true motivations. Obamacare would instantly create a very large constituency who will build their entire careers around it. They will vote their pocketbooks in each and every election and turn the nation into a living hell hole. One of the most important things we must do is marginalize these vile government employee unions. They are literally threatened to destroy the United States of America. Look at what these semi-goons have already done to California. That state is royally screwed for at least the next five years—and that is the optimistic scenario.
Our country’s elected officials in both houses of Congress are tacitly, if not explicitly attracting lucrative financial bribes for their votes. The high likelihood is that many have been promised well paying lobbyist positions if they are not reelected in 2010. In other words, they will receive more money if they lose their respective elections!
So are the obamacare people going to threaten and harass Dr.Flier for not playing along? More evidence that fewer and fewer people worry about apposing obama or fear any real retribution from the obamafriendly press. This portends hard times for this one termer from Illinois.
This is clearly not the Harvard that Obama knew.
@7 BC: Ummm, that’s not what Dr. Flier said…. He was referring to the health-reform debate and not “Obamacare” (Or is that “Pelosicare”? You guys are getting sloppy with your talking points labels.)
Did you read past the first paragraph of the actual article. He definitely said what RLS said he did: “In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it.”
In addition, RLS stated, “Health ‘Debate’ Deserves a Failing Grade”.
Talk about sloppy!
Vinny B “What we should be doing is taking a good look at his motives. How much does Harvard’s endowment stand to lose if universal health care is established?”
Whose talking about universal health care? Ahhh — cat is out of the bag, isn’t it?
“…drug company stocks and other health-care related companies that would not be able to continue to rape all of us for their massive profits when Obama ensures good health care for everyone.”
1. How are the supposed rape generated profit in (a) related to the outcome (b) good health care?
2. How is Obama going to “ensure[s] good health care for everyone?”
Listening ears and sharp yes want to know.
Seriously.
How is Obama going to ensure good health care for everyone?
Oh. Got it. He’s God.
It’s a spoof and Vinny B works for The Onion.
Obama ensures good health care for everyone.
Too bad Dr. Flier misses the whole point. Evidently more than half of our elected
“representatives” have their own reasons for wanting this.
Patronage and privilege are powerful motivators…and despite the care with which our founders crafted our structure we seem to come to the place where reason and the voters’ preferences are secondary
Roger–
While I agree ZeroCare is certainly the worst entitlement ever to be passed by the House, I think you are forgetting another monstrosity. The Crap & Charade bill that passed earlier this year is clearly worse. Even opponents of ZeroCare can admit there is at least somewhat of a pending healthcare crisis in America. But a bill that raises taxes on citizens for the sin of breathing, buying things and doing as they please to allegedly “solve” global warming–a problem that no longer exists, if it ever did–has simply got to be the worst.
Flier’s not making an “argument from authority”, which would consist essentially of stating “I say ObamaCare is bad, and I’m Dean of the Harvard Med School, dammit, so my opinion is dispositive.” He’s saying, “I and a number of medical professionals think it’s bad, and here are some reasons why.” Big difference. (Did you read the WSJ piece, Occam?)
I wonder if this is the same BC who continues to delude himself that the Rathergate memo wasn’t faked?
California isn’t screwed…the good folks of other states will step in and pay for the ridiculous salaries and pensions of the government thug unions.
Jef, you are essentially arguing that Flier should have made an argument “from bad faith”, casting aspersions, as you did, on the motives of those who favor ObamaCare. That too is unacceptable to those who seek to debate issues “on the merits”. Flier didn’t miss the point — YOU did.
@7
“Obamacare” (Or is that “Pelosicare”? You guys are getting sloppy with your talking points labels.)
—————————
Pelosicare is a subset of Obamacare, specifically the House version of the bill. Right now, the two can be used almost synonymously, since the Senate has not yet passed anything (“Reidcare”? Doesn’t quite have the same ring).
Sounds like this guy is a right wing zealot. And he’s probably a racist too.
As both a US and Australian citizen I am laughing my backside off at the health care debate because I know that Australia supports both a private and government medical system on 8.5% of GDP. The US spends 16% of GDP. The health outcomes are roughly equivalent in most developed countries and the US not No 1 by any means. So there can be no meaningful debate unless there is some recognition that we have an very expensive health care system in the US and that for those who are making that extra 8% of US GDP, Congress is the best place in the world to go to make sure of hanging on to that money. Therefore, a health bill that increases medical costs is exactly what is to be expected from Congress. Look forward to 17%, 18%, 19% and rising health care costs in the US until the whole system breaks. As an English doctor friend said “You can spend 150% of GDP on medicine because there is always something more you can do You have to find a way to draw the line somehow.” Congress sure wont, but reality eventually will.
all these objections on cost and service levels should be making some impact on the legislators, but sadly none of it seems to be getting through. You would think China asking Obama how he intended to pay for national health care would be all over the news, but it is not.
You would also think the legislators would look at out 10.2% unemployment (or 17.5 U6 number) and figure their major function should be to move the economy, not strangle it.
But, if you expect any of this, you would be wrong. National health care has taken on a life of its own that has nothing to do with the rest of the world. National health care is all about grasshoppers and ants and Rome and fiddlers. We have a political class that is oblivious to the country and the world.
Rick
“National health care has taken on a life of its own that has nothing to do with the rest of the world.”
Follow the money. Jeffrey Immelt and General Electric are heavily invested in Obamacare. The large corporation has billions of dollars invested in national health care. It is amazing that few people have any idea what I’m talking about. This is the number one reason why our elected officials are ignoring the wishes of the voters.
David Thompson says: “One of the most important things we must do is marginalize these vile government employee unions. They are literally threatened to destroy the United States of America.”
I couldn’t agree more, I’ve come to view it as the most important political battle we face at this juncture. If anyone has suggestions of best strategies to use and forces to join up with, I am resolved to fight.
For starters, I’m sharing a copy of this list to every house on my 3 mile walk:
http://bit.ly/OlhbJ
Look who is number 2, and notice it all goes to Democrats. Now look at the rest of the top 20. Talk about Special Interest Groups, wow.
Other ideas?
Vinnie B.,
Please define “massive profits”. Your definition should not be in absolute dollar amounts, but profit as a percentage of sales/revenue. Then compare that number to other industries. What profit level do you consider acceptable?
“23. Roger L Simon:
Look at the debate over global warming. It’s filled with opinions from politicians who wouldn’t know the Second Law of Thermodynamics from their mother-in-law.”
Roger, you wouldn’t mean scientific illiterates like algore, would you, who just last night on national television said that the temperature at the center of the earth is millions of degrees? He is, to his credit, though, reasonably close, only off by “millions of degrees”, the correct answer being 5-9,000 degrees.
If the temperature of the center of the earth were millions of degrees, it would likely ignite fusion, turning the earth into another star. Now I see that we really do need to radically restructure our economy, turn absolute power over to radical environmetalists, eliminate 90% of the human race, and return to the Stone Age. I mean, algore thinks the temperature might rise a couple degrees over the next century, and we already know how scientifically knowledgeable he is.
This is not the Harvard I thought I knew.
Who cares what this guy says? What does Andy Stern think.
Lorenz Gude, while you’re congratulating yourself on Australia’s lower medical costs, perhaps you can look into where most of the pharmaceutical and med tech innovations come from. Originate a lot of those down there, do you, mate? Who do you think pays for that? The scandal is that we allow or drug and med tech companies to sell their products overseas much more cheaply than here, while those other countries get to act smugly that their costs are lower. Oh, well, after Obamacare, maybe you can get your cheap drugs and medical innovations from China. G’day!
What EconRob and David Thomson said — they are the only ones who really got this right. Obamacare is not about health care or health insurance at all, so it’s no surprise that the bills will not improve care or lower cost. It’s a political strategy devised by Democrats to disempower people and make them dependent on government handouts, which guarantees Democrats a captive cadre of special interest voters. The Dems will gladly take a beating in next fall’s elections, even to the point of losing the House, in order to enact Obamacare. Their political strategy is to get people hooked on government handouts. So, Dean of Harvard Med School, why are you surprised? You should study political theory a little more, and you would not be surprised at the monumental hypocrisy we are being subjected to by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. They know exactly what game they are playing, and are very happy most of the people in American just don’t get it. At least, not yet. There is still hope that this madness can be stopped.
callejohan: “So, Dean of Harvard Med School, why are you surprised?”
Maybe I missed it, but I doubt sincerely that Dr. Flier is “surprised.” Few of us are and many have written (myself included) how this is a political boondoggle. The good thing about Flier is that he has the medical background to make these creeps nervous. I doubt they were very pleased to see his article in the WSJ today.
If you’re interested in some of my earlier views on the subject you can find them here:
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Roger_L_Simon%3A_Talking_Through_My_Hat/Obama%27s_Plot_Against_The_Doctors/2299/
Occam’s Beard, I also want to come to my own conclusions about political issues, but I think it is beneficial to hear the opinion of someone like this about an issue as complicated as heathcare reform. I think the opinion of someone who is at the head of the medical field is extremely valuable to my position on the issue.
Also, Vinny B., the fact that you automatically assume that his motivation is purely based on money is a direct attack on not only his integrity, but on the integrity of Harvard. Before you go spouting off about your conspiracy theories, try to bring some real evidence to the table and I may actually pay attention instead of just laughing.
I think you mean Dr. Obama, you rightwing capitalist running dog.
America: ushered into the Dark Ages. Courtesy of our new Progressive Overlords.
The bill doesn’t adequately address issues of cost and quality because the Republicans opposed all of the proposals that would have addressed these problems. Pay-per-incident rather than for service is but one example of this, national medical policy review boards another. In both cases, Republicans shouted these down with “blah blah blah DEATH PANELS blah blah blah RATIONING blah blah blag SOCIALISM.”
There’s a reason why a majority of actual physicians support something that wasn’t even on the table in this discussion: a single-payer system. That is that the United States pays more than any other country for medical care yet gets middling results. Actual doctors see this every day. Anybody who argues that the current system isn’t badly broken is either disingenuous or very ill-informed.
Roj, the reason there is no real bill and multi-1000 page fiction scripts being voted on under ObiWon(PBOH)/Reid/Pelosi is we are transferring total discretionary power to the Ruling Party(PBOH), thus details and costs are irrelevant. The good dean is right that the proposals do nada/zip for medical care of people(except 100% taxparer funded abortion), but patient care is not the objective, discretionary control is. This is the UK NICE boards, and yes they are “death panels” run amuck.
The point buried in this article is the following: “[t]he majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.” Once the madate is in place, the game is over. Fight the mandate, not the “public option.”
In response to Victor, I do think that your response is a tad on the ignorant side for a variety of reasons. First of all, even though I am not an American, I believe that you should not go down the road of govt run health insurance because you get what you paid for…..
However, that does not excuse your ignorance about the Australian system. What Australia has is like a two-pronged system, or is that a three-pronged system? First there is the cost of attending the G.P. This has now risen to over $60 per visit. We get back 85% of the scheduled fee, which is around $38 per visit which leaves an out of pocket expense of more than $25. The legislation is set-up so that only the govt can refund on the doctor’s visit. For this privilege we pay 1.5% levy on our income. The cost of a specialist visit often means that a person can be hundreds of dollars out of pocket. The second prong is the other services such as podiatry, chiropractor, physiotherapy, optical, dental etc. These are services that are covered as extras by the health funds. Needless to say with the limits we get a lot of out of pocket expenses if we need those services. The health funds are allowed to cover private hospital expenses, however the government still regulates the fees. If the fees are inevitably higher then of course the patient has to find the extra, and believe me, the Govt fund will attempt to not pay as often as possible for things like x-rays and even pathology tests. (I have been down that path). The third prong is the pharmaceutical. We have the PBS which is the “free” list but of course it is not free. The co-payment is in excess of $32 per script as a co-payment. On top of that not every prescription drug is on the PBS list which means if you need a drug or item not on the list then you pay for it. One of my scripts costs more than $100 and that is why I ration my use of that particular drug. It creates a very large hole in the budget.
My point is that the USA does not subsidize our pharmaceuticals. Companies such as TYCO ship in the ingredients for making the headache preparations, but the preparations themselves are made here. Ditto with other medications. On the other hand, our researchers are helping to make the break-through with medications in various fields. It is a co-operative effort. I am not sure about some of the other companies such as Eli-Lily etc. as to whether they also manufacture their drugs here or import them. It does not matter, because we certainly bear the brunt of the cost of the drugs. However, if the drug is on the free list then the govt subsidizes anything above the co-payment which is at least $32. Sometimes the amount of the subsidy is extremely low (only a few cents in a few cases), and other times….
Either way, what we pay does not impact the pharmaceutical market in the USA since these drugs are sourced from all over the world.
Yes, I did read the rest of it, but I was mostly annoyed with the mischaracterization of the article as giving Obama’s plan a failing grade both here and at the WSJ, when the “failing grade” was clearly for the “debate” surrounding health care reform. As for the bulk of the article, it was only an opinion piece with no hard cites, and it appearing in the WSJ, rather than a medical or science journal, yellow flags it. Flier is an endocrinologist and supposedly “an authority on the molecular causes of obesity and diabetes” but there is nothing in his background to indicate he’s any sort of expert in health care systems. He was also more than a little bit disingenuous with his comment In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system.
I don’t which economists he was talking to, but there are a few others who disagree.
For disgraceful, hard to compete with abandoning the Republic of Vietnam in 1975.
But at least then, Congress was up front about what they were doing.
Tough call.
Wow, the level of debate here is just stunningly low, but I think Marty takes the prize for the most impressive non sequitur. Sorry I wasted my time and yours by raising serious issues. Back to your usual programming, kids!
Oh, Occam. So above the fray. So Philosophy 103: Logic.
Get your drift, but since you’re so very dedicated to first-person accounts of the evidence of a matter before you judge it, I suppose it’s fair to say that you’ve read the health care bills – including the references contain therein – and come to a conclusion as to the relative merits + demerits. Yes? I mean, my goodness, to rely even to a small extent on the reportage of a third party is so… so… pedestrian, so bourgeois, so common.
Vinny B. asserted:
I am quite sure that Harvard’s endowment makes a lot of money for drug company stocks and other health-care related companies that would not be able to continue to rape all of us for their massive profits when Obama ensures good health care for everyone.
No private company has the legal power to use physical force to compel you to do anything. So the notion that “health-care related companies” are “raping” you for “massive profits” is utterly preposterous — it’s vicious nonsense.
What’s more, to call the voluntary transactions that occur in the healthcare market “rape” is to egregiously insult all of the individual physicians, researchers, technicians, administrators and investors that work at “health related companies”– for you are equating the work they do with the violent crime of attacking the body of another person.
Even worse, your use of the term “rape” in this context is a slap in the face to every actual rape victim on the planet — for it asserts that what happened to them is no worse than what happens to you when you pay a doctor‘s bill you consider too high. One could forgive any actual rape victim if they expressed a desire to have you experience first hand what a real rape is like.
You should retract your accusation that healthcare companies are “raping” anyone and apologize for your offensive remark to both groups of individuals.
In 1900, the average life span in America was 47 years. By the year 2000, that had been extended to 77 years. It takes an especially sick and twisted individual to experience hatred and hostility toward an industry that has added three decades to the average American’s life. How discouraging it is to know that so many of these haters are among us here in America.
I’m on Social Security. It works and I’m grateful.
I’m on Medicare. It works and I’m grateful.
The same kind of attacks I read here were made against these very successful programs in the 30′s and the ’60′s. There is such a thing as effective Government. We the People have to insist on this..
NannyCare is very much like the skimulus program…rammed through a House of illiterates who couldn’t read it, didn’t read it, wouldn’t read it…and passed it on the back of taxPAYERS…for the benefit of tax avoiders.
The skimulus doesn’t do what the nation was told it would do, it doesn’t address what the nation was told it would address, it doesn’t have the impact the nation was told would be the impact and it never will have the impact that the nation was told would be the impact.
Similarly, the NannyCare Program doesn’t do what the entrenched media propaganda machine is outlining as its mission, it doesn’t address the issues that need addressing, it will not have the impact that the distortionists are painting and it is not INTENDED to do any of those things.
Legislation in this land of ours at the moment…is a sword and a shield for leftist ideologues. Nothing more, nothing less.
NannyCare, NannyPork, NannyMedia, NannyDefense, …are all culled from the same playbook. And keeping the masses dazed, confused and uninformed is just the way they like it.
This “Health Care Reform” is not about health, it is not about care and it is not about reform. It is about redistribution of wealth, increasing state control and putting leftism in such a commanding political position as to never be challenged again. Period. End of report.
And, BC, I stand by my reading that the author clearly gave a “failing grade” to BOTH the debate and the plan itself. I see no other logical way to characterize the piece. If you concede that Dr. Flier has his health-care and economist associates and acquaintances who belive the proposed legislation will be detrimental and you haev those you cite, then explain again why it is so critical to immediately push through such massive and likely irreversible changes to a large segment of the country’s economy, a sector that polls indicate roughtly 80% of consumers are basically satisfied with.
If people were dying in the streets, 80% were dissatisfied with their healthcare, etc. I might tend to agree that drastic action was needed immediately, but that is not the situation. In any event, I would still be leary of the proposed legislation, in that its (unintended?) consequence is the creation and yet another government leviathan to suck the public teet in perpetuity.
The dems believe that they lost an election because they couldn’t pass Hillarycare. I believe they lost the election for trying to pass it.
Times have changed and the number of our social program recipients has increased to a point that can keep them in power. Power being the key word in any of these new bills.
TrueBlueAussie, first of all, my intent is not to insult Australians in any way. Only to contradict someone like Lorenz, who unjustifiably gloats over the supposedly lower med costs there.
Second, I don’t claim to know anything about the Aussie system. But I do know that the U.S. creates something like 80% of the pharmaceutical innovations worldwide and the majority of med tech innovations, too. If Aussies or anyone else pay less for drugs discovered in the U.S., whether in component form, generic imitations or whatever, the discoveries were still a product of the enormous investments in research in the U.S. In that sense, if these discoveries are available for cheaper anywhere else, then the U.S. is “subsidizing” that cheaper availability. That’s bad enough in my opinion, but when beneficiaries of U.S. innovation gloat about how they are able to exploit it at lower cost than we can, it seems childish to me. When Australia or any other country starts coming up with medical innovations at anything like our pace and manages to do it significantly cheaper, I will bow in respect. Until then, get real.
Sorry for the snark in the prior post, but I get pretty sick of people in other countries who benefit in various ways from America’s medical, technological and scientific discoveries, or live in some measure under our defense umbrella, copping an attitude about how much superior thay are. I detect that a whole lot less in Aussies than Europeans and Canadians. But there you are.
BC, the economists’ letter to Obama from the NYT which you cited doesn’t say what you claim it says.
The eonomists do not rate the current plan(s) on the table but simply name four items they believe are part of healthcare plan. Some of those items in fact are not part of the current plans.
BC:
Quoted from the WSJ article:
“However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.”
You’re either in denial or not being honest with Dr. Flier’s clear and distinct statement.
#65 moderato,
I’ve paid tens of thousands into Social Security, over several decades.
I’ve never want the government providing my pension and it’ll be broke long before I see a dime of it anyway.
I’ve paid thousands into Medicare.
I don’t want government running my medical care and it’ll be broke soon too.
So glad this “works” for you. Those you should be “grateful” to include *me* — your “successful programs” have been on my dime.
Given their imminently bankrupt future you can perhaps appreciate why I might “attack” these “successes”. I’m part of “We the People” too — and this is what *I* insist on!