Healthcare reform article

[MichaelB]

Socialized means who owns the means of production, not who pays. In this case it would mean the government owning all the health care goods and services - hospitals, labs, clinics, etc., and no private providers of health products and services.

Within this public health care discussion, "socialized medicine" is a term used to sidetrack the discussion because it is conceptually not part of any proposal or intention.

Single payer means that all payment for health care comes from one single source. Another way to phrase it would be "one single giant insurance company".

 

[samclem]

Within this public health care discussion, "socialized medicine" is a term used to sidetrack the discussion because it is conceptually not part of any proposal or intention.

Agreed. While there are a few people here who want something like the British National Health Service, that's not in any of the present proposals.

Single payer means that all payment for health care comes from one single source. Another way to phrase it would be "one single giant insurance company".

Except that "company" implies it is a private entity, while most single-payer proposals put a government agency in that role.

 

[Martha]

I heard a bit of a talk on the radio while driving, the speaker said that the term "socialized medicine" as pejorative term started in the Truman era with the AMA. They claimed that Lenin said that the first thing to do to bring socialism to a country is give them health care. Turned out Lenin never said that but it did a good job of scaring people away from national health care at that time.

Can't vouch for what I heard, I don't even know who was talking, but if true it is an interesting tidbit.

 

[haha]

Can't vouch for what I heard, I don't even know who was talking, but if true it is an interesting tidbit.

Even if not true it is an interesting tidbit. Very much like the Harold and Louise crap of the Clinton attempt, and today's "Death Panels".

I am likely personally better off with the status quo, as are many of us. But the transparency of these attacks is amazing. I guess P.T. Barnum was right.

Ha

 

[HFWR]

But the transparency of these attacks is amazing. I guess P.T. Barnum was right.

Ha

And to that end...

Lexington: Still crazy after all these years | The Economist

Hofstadter, writing at the time of Barry Goldwater’s insurgency, argued that political paranoia—a mix of anger, heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy—was most evident on the extreme right. And there are plenty of examples of right-wingers peddling nutty tales. Isolationists in the 1940s accused Franklin Roosevelt of deliberately letting the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour to provide an excuse for war. Talk-radio crackpots in the 1990s accused the Clintons of having Vince Foster, a depressive friend of theirs who killed himself, murdered.

But the left is hardly immune to such fantasies. Some people, including Mr Obama’s own former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, believe that AIDS was cooked up by the government to kill blacks. A staggering 18% of Americans think that the government of George Bush probably knew in advance about the attacks of September 11th 2001 but allowed them to proceed anyway. Some even contend that Mr Bush orchestrated the attacks himself, to create an excuse for invading Iraq. To believe this, you have to believe that the Bushies were both wicked enough to murder thousands of Americans and brilliant enough to execute such a mind-bogglingly sophisticated plot without a single leak—in a culture where Richard Nixon could not even hush up a burglary.

 

[MichaelB]

I went to a town hall meeting yesterday – Rep Mark Kirk, a moderate republican in the northshore chicago area.

For me the conclusion was somewhat disappointing. Lots of folks, boisterous and vocal but not unruly, there to talk and listen. I drove away with the following thoughts:

Not many folks there were “unreasonable” even though there was little agreement on anything.

Most folks there had lots on their minds, and the health care debate seems to be giving them an opportunity to express themselves. There is lots of fear – mostly about our future standard of living.

Lots of folks on both sides are really unhappy with government. Future liabilities, debt, gov't spending were mentioned far more frequently than health care.

I did not see a likelihood of consensus on healthcare reform because the political leadership showed little interest in building one. Even the moderates seemed more interested in fanning the flames and exploiting the fears for partisan advantage.

My strongest feeling is that there is enough common ground to build a consensus, but not while politicians are involved.

 

[Martha]

My strongest feeling is that there si enough common ground to build a consensus, but not while politicians are involved.

Good summary.