Democratic Vultures

I cannot adequately explain the quiet horror I experienced when reading UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AND THE BLOGOSPHERE over at Kevin Drum's blog at The Washington Monthly.

... if there's anything the Democratic Party ought to be united on, it's the principle of loudly and enthusiastically endorsing universal healthcare as a goal.

That's Mr. Drum, a man whom I once called a despicable fucking asshole, a label I won't be withdrawing in light of his health care demands.

A few selected bits from his comment section:

The beautiful thing about making the Dems the party of "universal healthcare" is that it functions just like the GOPO making themselves the party of "national security" -- it puts your opponent on the permanent defensive, because how can they possibly be against such an obviously worthy goal?

Hey, Nils: do you know how fantastically vile it is to desire a massive program of nationwide coercion in order to make the other Party look bad?

The only way to get universal care that isn't a big bureaucratic mess is to get rid of the insurance industry.

MonkeyBoy goes nuclear and blithely ignores the collateral economic damage his/its policy would inflict, going far beyond the admittedly widespread rot in the industry as it currently operates.

...we need to agree on the basics - a simple, single-payer system that covers everyone. No compromises.

*laugh* Does abi really think most lefties and the (diminishing but existent) rugged individualist righties will support - as it will eventually be framed - "taxing the middle class to pay for the rich's health care"? No, there will be exceptions and means-tests. Count on it.

Any reasonable health care debate has to start with the question - how much does it cost to provide health care for the average citizen? Truth about the real cost will guide us out of the current conundrum.

John Hansen commits another foul: compressing a nation of more than 290 million individuals with diverse medical needs into an average to be calculated. Assuming you can even get a somewhat-kinda-accurate figure (which I'd assert is flatly impossible with such a large population), it still doesn't mean it's a useful figure. What I want and what I need to live as a health care consumer are different at different stages of my life and at each of those stages I remain unique compared to others in the same stages. It's hopeless to try and figure the "reasonable" yearly health care expenditure for Mr. and Ms. American Citizen. Life is too unpredictable.

The Dems should EMBRACE rationing, and just admit that it will happen.

Here's how: Each American, at birth, get 1000 hours of physician time, 30 days in the ER and drugs up to a given limit. Once you run out, you buy a policy to cover more. If you play sports for instance, you will buy a temporary policy to cover more.

At the end of your life, if you have had good health, you have a lot in the bank, and can prolong your life. If you have run out, you pay out of pocket, or take an assisted suicide pill.

A little cold I know, but it addresses the issue: it does not avoid rationing, but does make you think carefully about medical care.

dataguy takes the logical next step: medical authoritarianism.

[gays in the military is] a profoundly irrational issue upon which to stake control of the Congress, but no one has ever plausibly accused the American electorate of rational conduct.

So why the fuck bother with democratic politics, marquer? If THE PEOPLE make irrational polling choices and make them often enough to elicit that comment, then why are you wasting your time on them?

The easiest way to get universal health care is to write a bill that provides universal health care for children under 16.

Who can argue that children, who have no choice about whether their parents have health care and cannot get a job themselves, should not have health care?

Then, once this is passed, children will grow up under universal health care and will wonder why the system that works for them is being taken away. Parents will wonder why what's good for the kids isn't good enough for them.

J's idea is just as awful as the argument Nils made above. Talk about cynical and manipulative.

"Then say you are suddenly diagnosed with diabetes. What happens to your insurance premium? Right. It goes up. A lot."

Wrong. The insurance companies would be pretty heavily regulated--and even in car insurance, accidents don't necessarily increase your insurance.

And you wouldn't be able to be uninsured.

I see Cal ain't afraid to flex his authoritarian muscles, either. Or rather, the authoritarian muscles and guns of cops.

This is the key point, while I’m no lover of the insurance industry, it wouldn’t be fair (I can’t believe I just used that word) to allow individuals to skate by without insurance waiting until they eventually needed it. To deal with this, I would REQUIRE EVERYONE to have insurance. If you own a car, you are required by law to have insurance. It’s the same thing. For those who can’t provide proof of health insurance at tax time, there would be a tax penalty that exceeds the normal cost of health insurance premiums.

[...]

I realize that by REQUIREING people to purchase insurance it’s basically that same thing as TAXING but there is (I believe) a huge symbolic difference to people if we require them to purchase insurance from the private sector versus government providing health insurance.

rmp just doesn't...no, fuck it. I can't read any more.

Posted by Drizzten at March 08, 2006 05:18 PM