Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

Some will argue that a government-run health system can work, and that the problems only prove that we need a full-scale socialized medicine program, like the UK’s National Health Service or Canada’s type of universal health care. In this country, it could be instituted by expanding Medicare to everyone over 55, thus in effect becoming a single-payer system. If that is done, we will be on our way to a two-tiered medical system. The wealthy will go to concierge doctors and the fine hospitals not in the system, and the rest of us will go to second-rate hospitals and be forced to see those doctors who have not opted out of serving Medicare patients.

Moreover, the country will go broke sooner rather than later, as coverage for all over 55 will quickly become the single most expensive entitlement program existing, without funds to pay for it. And can you imagine the people who run the failing U.S. Postal Service creating the bureaucracy that will administer Medicare for all?

While Republicans are polling lower than ever as a result of the government shutdown, it should be kept in mind that as ObamaCare evolves, the Obama administration and the Democrats will quickly lose the confidence of the American people. In the National Journal Ron Fournier writes, “Beyond Obamacare, the Democratic Party’s reputation for competency is as stake.  The cost of the [Obama Care website] site is already $394 million, a massive amount compared to private-sector CMS work, and sure to grow.”

So bring it on. And what conservatives should do is offer their own meaningful alternatives, such as those proposed by Tom Miller in the latest National Affairs. Miller writes that our debate has to be not just about Obama Care,  but “must be understood as part of a larger debate about the future of the country.” And that requires serious proposals for market-based systems that deal with the problems of the uninsured, and that address the issues of the “cost, quality, complexity, and accountability of the options [Americans] have in the current health-care system.”

Saying no to ObamaCare is not enough. It is time that our politicians go beyond that and offer serious alternatives to fix our healthcare system.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
If you have a headache and intend to cure it by drinking Clorox I can say "hey, that's a terrible idea" even if I don't know how to cure you. It's insane to think that doing something is always better than doing nothing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Disster? Meltdown? A temporary problem.

The ACA is STILL THERE. NOT, never?, to be REPEALED in its entirety. Played with for whatever photo- or other - opportunity for any member of government who needs attention. To be implemented wherever, whenever any of the members of the Royal Court of Washingon decide.

AND in the meantime the massive bureaucracy, with all tlhat entails grows exponentially. As pattern, template for the Obama Administration way of creating jobs?

That it is STILL on the Book of Law of the USA IS THE POINT. Why else were the enablers in such a rush to enact? "We have to pass it to know what' in it".

Lawyers all KNOW that once a law is on the books it is virtually impossible to get it off. As the members of Congress understand from their own virtual life-time tenure. Once in never out.

AND there is history to enable the enablers of the ACA to relax. They know, they've been doing it for the past half century at least, that patience and perseverance wins the day. Aided and abetted by insinuating their soldiers into policy echelons in influencing civic institutions and government.

Look back at the various tweaks - changes, while the People were doing their own thing, of the Constituiton and social ethos to see just how they've "fundamentally transform the nation". Such that the ACA is now the reference.

The "liberals" have worked this Bill for a very long time. During the Clinton Administration it was Hillary's baby. And there is plenty of evidence available to even the most uninterested people that neither Clinton measures high for principle, honesty and their "feel your pain compassion". But up there with the best of them on the scales ANYTHING Goes, whatever works, to get the power over "The Lives of Others" - even the power of life and death? - they so clearly crave.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is all probably going according to plan....that is, make the "reform" so bad and costly that the only option government is left with is a single payer system - what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all said they really wanted....
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (172)
All Comments   (172)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my buddy's half-sister makes $68/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $14888 just working on the computer for a few hours. visite site.....WWW.Rush64.Com
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
As for Ted Cruz, he didn't want this but the man supports a lot of Tech Vistas that will bring in more Asians that support this Obama care than the native population does particularly whites. Whites oppoed Obama Care more compared to Blacks, Asians and Hispanics. Cruz wants 320,000 H1b tech vistas which bring in a lot of new people that corporations don't have to provide the same health care coverage for.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, a lot of young people are covered thru mom and dad on Obama Care through age 26. They actually get a better deal than a middle age person.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
Personality, I agree with you Mr Radoish Republicans should do it at the state level. In fact if Vermont works it more toward single payer they can do that and southern states more market or buy across state lines. States can eliminated or changed the Federal exchange for the lower income not covered by medicaid and who don't get company insurance. The biggest reform is the emergency room which loses billionaires of dollars. I didn't like the old Republican idea of just getting rid of the tax breaks for companies and having people buy there own insurance plan because the costs would still run as high as 500 to 2,500 per hr for health insurance. The tax credit for individual would not bring it down. I've always use companies HMO or PPOs but the cost is why we got into the Obama Care messed in the first place since Medical cost keep rising. Get rid of the penalty for not doing it and get rid of forcing some business who have are religious from being forced to cover abortion-Catholics or Evangelicals.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
O-care is a horrible idea but when you're down two scores, the other team has the ball, and there are 30 seconds left, calling timeout is not going to help. The public had its chance last November to say no to this; it chose to do otherwise. This legislation is going to be a disaster but these repeated calls for fighting are whistling in the wind. The question has been called. We lost.

I am sorry some people are not going to like the consequences but they are getting what they, or the majority of those who went to the polls, voted for. Our health care system is gummed up because of too much govt intrusion as it is. "Repeal and replace" does not alter that; it simply rearranges the deck chairs.

The GOP had six years of the Bush era to enact market-based reforms; it chose not to, preferring instead to grow the surveillance state that people are mad about now because a Dem is running it. Along with shaking your ahead at Obama and the Dems, cast a critical eye at the establishment Repubs who had the floor and did nothing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Richard Nixon proposed a Helath Care & Insurance system overhaul but Teddy The Swimmer raised a raucous and stopped the GOP from doing it. If they let this pig live the Republicans will own it for years to come. You better kill this dog now while you still can: defund, repeal, forbid its return.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree. Let them voters get what they voted for, good and hard. Hopefully they will learn and they'll start using their heads before pulling the lever at election time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The reason people are mad about the surveillance state is because Obama expanded it signficantly, and has been using it for purposes that don't have much to do with real security.

Further, there is no way Bush could have pushed through market based reforms for healthcare.

And further, we have not yet lost against Obamacare. At this point Obamacare apppears set to implode. Worst case would have been Obamacare working in the manner of medicare and social security, and cementing itself in place before causing the disaster.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The idea is good, it is only the implementation that is bad. Hmmm... where did I heard this before? Very hard to recall, but I'll try. Here are a few:
"king is kind but his counts are bad"
"czar is good, but his ministers are bad"
"Lenin was good Stalin was bad"
"socialism and/or communism is good, soviet implementation was bad".
How many more times idiots will fall for this nonsense?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What will cause the meltdown? The American people twice in recent times came out and voted in droves to destroy lock stock and barrel coercive Medical plans. And once political blow back was as effective an force.

The first when Hilary was First Lady and unveiled a forced plan that fined you up to $10,000 dollars and jail for up to 2 years if while a member of an HMO you go outside of the HMO to get a procedure done the HMO refused to allow.

This was the aspect of the plan that was in the news. In the midterms Clinton lost the House and Senate.

Here is another one that involved political blow back. When said Hilary was in the Senate people were really complaining that their HMO's were denying requests their doctors ordered for them.

And fresh in Hilary's mind was the above loss of the House and Senate so she led a successful effort to change the Federal HMO enabling legislation to allow people to sue their HMO. She failed to mention in this initiative that it was her party that wrote the HMO enabling legislation that didn't permit lawsuits in said cases.

The second electoral consequence was in November of 2010 when the previous March Obamacare was passed. In the news were not the law's fiascoes but the coercive parts of the laws - death panels, and the government deciding who gets what protocol.

And while this election was more focused, we picked up 65 seats in the House and Senate, 6 or 7 governorships, more than a dozen State legislatures and many specific offices like State Attorney Generals, Judges etc.

Yet so far we have not repealed or altered Obamacare. So the meltdown will occur - if it does - when the government offers stuffy five page memorandum why you didn't get what the doctored ordered.

And because Obamacare is more concentrated on rationing, and because Obamacare will restrained medical services and medical developments more, the blow back will be bigger.

SO just as the 2012 election was Romney's to lose, this will be the pundits to lose. We need the Tea Party of 2010 - as opposed to the Tea Party if today it is different from what it was then.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In the meantime, for those left without health insurance, get plenty of medical coverage on your car or other accident insurance, hope you don't become seiously ill outside the Obamacare open enrollment period, and have any medical care you can speed up before the end of 2013.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So Ron are you soft-pedaling Obama care because you are part of the DC Elite or because you never really left behind your Marxist roots or both?

Nothing but outright replacement of the ACA will be acceptable to constitutionalists. Freedom is not negotiable.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
replacement with what? A govt-driven plan that comes from the right is no more Constitutional than one that comes from the left.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Exactly.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The central premise of Obamacare has always been that in a country as rich as the U.S., there is no reason that everyone shouldn't be able to have high quality medical care at an affordable price.

But really, what is the factual basis for that statement? Does anybody really know what it would cost to provide everyone high quality medical care? What is high quality medical care anyway? What is affordable? Who knows?

You can slice and dice and cost shift until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, somebody has to pay the bill. Either that, or its musical chairs and somebody doesn't get a seat.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All