The Unprincipled Fight for Government-Run Health Care

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Earlier this month in Chicago, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told a rally of government-run health care supporters: “I know many of you here today are single payer advocates and so am I … and those of us who are pushing for a public health insurance don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will.”

The fact that the left views a public plan option as part of an unprincipled strategy to eventually achieve government-run health care is not news. That Members of Congress are now so openly admitting it, is. So what is the left’s “strategy” for turning a seemingly innocuous public health insurance option into single payer nationalized medicine? It goes something like this:

Recent SCHIP expansion and additional Medicaid funding in the stimulus package made a substantial down payment on major expansion of government run health programs. Established research shows that a public health plan will ”crowd out” private insurance, forcing millions of Americans off their current plans, and away from their family doctors. A public health plan, coupled with Comparative Effectiveness Research, would engineer artificially lower prices for medical services through the imposition of Medicare-style price controls. Such Medicare-style payment levels would undercut the market share of existing private health plans, and, combined with a mandate on employers, stack the incentives against workers in private employer-based health insurance by encouraging their employers to dump them into a new government-run health plan. Watch the video of Rep. Schakowksy’s statements on The Foundry. She clearly admits that the purpose of the government run option is to kill private insurance so everyone eventually is forced into government-run health care.

Moving all Americans into a government-run health care system will not only bankrupt our country, but will lead to less innovation in the health care sector and lower quality care for all Americans.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/01/mornin...un-health-care/

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

please stand by - someone will be by shortly to dismiss your op.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There will always be an incentive for private health insurance to exist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Most countries with socialised healthcare have the option of private insurance - either for comprehensive coverage, or top-ups and subsidised payments for procedures that aren't available through the regular healthcare system.

Its called Two-tier healthcare.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Two-tier healthcare.

interesting passage from that link:

The proponents of two-tier system argue that it would introduce more flexibility into the system, reducing wait lists and that competition from the private sector would make the public one more efficient. However, in the case of Quebec this has shown not to be true. Furthermore opponents argue that a two-tier system would tend to draw many of the best doctors out of the public system, reducing the overall quality of care. Some, e.g. Richard Gwyn at the Toronto Star, also believe that a two tier approach with private care would be more expensive than single tier health care. The Canada Health Act is also committed not only to access to health care to all, but access to the best health care available for all. Many consider access to the best possible care an important right of all citizens. Competition from the private sector would also almost certainly drive up the wages of doctors and other medical professionals in the entire system. Those who support a wholly public system also say that there is some concern that if Canada would allow a parallel private system within the country, it would be opening itself up to trade sanctions under some of its trading agreements.

[Peikko 1,575]

Earlier this month in Chicago, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told a rally of government-run health care supporters: "I know many of you here today are single payer advocates and so am I … and those of us who are pushing for a public health insurance don't disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will."

The fact that the left views a public plan option as part of an unprincipled strategy to eventually achieve government-run health care is not news. That Members of Congress are now so openly admitting it, is. So what is the left's "strategy" for turning a seemingly innocuous public health insurance option into single payer nationalized medicine? It goes something like this:

Recent SCHIP expansion and additional Medicaid funding in the stimulus package made a substantial down payment on major expansion of government run health programs. Established research shows that a public health plan will "crowd out" private insurance, forcing millions of Americans off their current plans, and away from their family doctors. A public health plan, coupled with Comparative Effectiveness Research, would engineer artificially lower prices for medical services through the imposition of Medicare-style price controls. Such Medicare-style payment levels would undercut the market share of existing private health plans, and, combined with a mandate on employers, stack the incentives against workers in private employer-based health insurance by encouraging their employers to dump them into a new government-run health plan. Watch the video of Rep. Schakowksy's statements on The Foundry. She clearly admits that the purpose of the government run option is to kill private insurance so everyone eventually is forced into government-run health care.

Moving all Americans into a government-run health care system will not only bankrupt our country, but will lead to less innovation in the health care sector and lower quality care for all Americans.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/01/mornin...un-health-care/

What 'family' Dr's would those be? I had a 'family' Dr in the UK, someone who knew my medical history someone who knew me as a person. I have no such person in the US.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What 'family' Dr's would those be? I had a 'family' Dr in the UK, someone who knew my medical history someone who knew me as a person. I have no such person in the US.

You don't? I do. He's been my doctor for over a decade now, my wifes since she came to this country. He knows us well.

[Peikko 1,575]

How do you keep the same Dr when insurance is tied to where you work, not tied to anything to do with where you live?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How do you keep the same Dr when insurance is tied to where you work, not tied to anything to do with where you live?

He's been a member of every network I've been a member of. So far I've been with Aetna and BCBS.

[Peikko 1,575]

Fair enough - is your Dr's surgery small? Ours is huge. It's not necessarily all bad, just I don't have the same feeling of personal care that I used to have and the business of going to a surgery is so horse fairish.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Fair enough - is your Dr's surgery small? Ours is huge. It's not necessarily all bad, just I don't have the same feeling of personal care that I used to have and the business of going to a surgery is so horse fairish.

Very small. He's the only doctor.

What's "going to surgery"? I am assuming you don't mean what I think you mean.

[Peikko 1,575]

going to a Dr's surgery - not having a surgery performed

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But not all doctors offices are equipped for surgery so why do you call it a surgery.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's just the name I am used to using, nothing sinister. I have never referred to it as an office - which I believe might be the correct terminology here perhaps?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's just the name I am used to using, nothing sinister. I have never referred to it as an office - which I believe might be the correct terminology here perhaps?

Yes.