So, today the AP ran an article 'fact-checking' Obama's remarks during the health care presser last night. A anti-government friend forwarded me and some others in our 'politics group' the article and got all huffy. Here's the key section:
THE FACTS:In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.
Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.
Sound scary so far? Follow me after the jump.
Here's what I wrote back to my friends:
So, Obama would have government 'involved' in health care by making insurance companies stop screwing people by dropping them after they get sick, making sure people don't get bankrupted by out of pocket expenses, and by covering preventive care. Guys, does that kind of government involvement help or hurt patients/citizens in those cases? Think about it.
Insurance company bureaucrats already make decisions all the time about what care is covered and what isn't. They make those decisions on the basis of covering as little as possible cost-wise, so they can maximize profits, not on the basis of caring for a patient's health. The government can try to control costs or the insurance company bureaucrats can do it. The government can hire doctors who form a commission to figure out, through actual research, what works and what doesn't and set coverage based on, you know, principles of medicine. The insurance companies hire doctors to help determine what to cover and pay them incentives that go up when they deny coverage. Hmmm, which system is going to work better for patients?
It's like I've said a thousand times. There is a finite amount of power in a society. On things that are above the level that an individual can control (like the structure of a country's health care delivery), the power to determine how that thing will operate falls either to those individuals/corporations with great wealth, or to the government, which in our country at least can set priorities based on what people want (not without problems, but still as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of gov't, except for all the others").
So, if you don't want government intervention, you're saying you want corporate intervention. Government 'intervention' will be based on what doctors think will work. Corporate intervention is based on profit motive. It's your choice as to what you think is better, but when you condemn government intervention you are, by definition, saying you prefer corporate intervention into your health care. I'd say anyone who believes that needs to have their head checked. And not by an insurance company bureaucrat.
Hope I made Kossacks proud and maybe convinced someone to support real health care reform.