• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Obamacare 2.0

Got an interesting Charles Krauthammer column on "Obamacare Version 1.0," which he says is dead. I'm not sure if I can find the room for it on the editorial page, so I'll share it here.

He says Democrats, if they are politically smart enough, can still salvage victory. Obamacare 2.0 would focus on "promising nothing but pleasure" for now. Insurance companies would be forced to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibited from dropping coverage when people get sick. Government would mandate the purchase of health insurance by all who can afford it and subsidize those who are too poor to pay for it, creating two new revenue streams. The end result would be the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage, but without overt nationalization.

Isn't there a catch? Of course there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.

But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we.

Until this year, such an outlook would have seemed too cynical even for me.

Comments

Kevin Knuth
Mon, 08/31/2009 - 7:35am

Right now somewhere between 30-50 Million Americans do not receive proper health care because they do not have insurance.....isn't that rationing?

tim zank
Mon, 08/31/2009 - 12:58pm

Kevin: First of all, that number is unverifiable, second, anyone and everyone has the ability to buy coverage, albeit on a sliding premium scale.

The difference in philosophy here is simple, I think everyone has the right to buy health insurance with their own money, just like car insurance, life insurance, or even cheese.

You think everyone has the RIGHT to FREE healthcare. Following your philosophy, that means everyone has a "right" to free car insurance, housing, groceries, jobs, etc.

It's an entirely different belief system than what this country was founded and built upon (independence, individualism, hard work etc).

I see the pendulum swinging back to my point of view eventually when the middle class get's "tapped out" paying for the other 50% of the people that don't even pay taxes in this country.... i.e. "get a job and pay your own frickin' way ya mooch".

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 7:41am

Tim, I have read the bill. Though some Americans will get free healthcare (like they do now), the goal is "affordable" health care for all.

Here is my favorite example- Single mom with three kids. She works 2 part time jobs because she cannot get one full time job. 40 hours per week at $10 an hour. She DOES NOT qualify for Medicaid. She makes too much. So, after rent, food and the like, she cannot afford insurance.

Does that sound like the "AMERICA" you want to live in?

She and her kids do not get preventative care, driving up the cost for everyone when the situation gets worse. If her kids get strep throat, she can take them to an ER. But since they do not have insurance and are not suffering from a life threatening issue, they get to wait- sick kid in a hospital waiting room, FOR HOURS.

Does that sound like the "AMERICA" you want to live in?

Do yourself a favor- read the bill. Do not listen to Fox, or Rush, or Hannity....just read the bill.

tim zank
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 3:43pm

Kevin in example #1 you say "She DOES NOT qualify for Medicaid. She makes too much."
Solution: Change the Medicaid limits, not the entire populations coverage to fix hers. Case solved.

Example #2 you say "She and her kids do not get preventative care." That is stupidity not poverty.

Solution: Cancel the cable tv and spend the $100 a month on a trip to the doctor. (or the free health clinic which are numerous in urban areas, no?)

Kevin Knuth
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 7:28pm

Tim,

1. Medicaid is controlled by the State. Are you advocating the Federal Government taking over?

2. Sorry, preventative care cost money- it is not stupidity, it is about money.

3. Who says she has cable? And most free health clinics are only free if you are below the poverty line- and who says she is in an urban area?

Open your eyes, the system is broken and needs fixed.

Quantcast