Washington Post Calls For Scrapping Obamacare
MachiavelliCiting the exploding budget deficit numbers, the editorial page of the Washington Post calls for the end of Obamacare
The new deficit numbers make it even more urgent that any health-care reform not only be fully paid for and certifiably budget-neutral in the eyes of independent analysts such as the CBO but also promise meaningful reductions in the cost growth of health care. So far, none of the plans under discussion measure up. The time is fast approaching for the president and Congress to face that reality, too.
They also call on the Obama administration to stop complaining about what they fiscally inherited from the previous administration:
Still, the Bush administration's irresponsibility notwithstanding, it is time to stop crying "we inherited it." The Obama administration needs its own clear, credible plan for restoring fiscal sustainability once the worst of the recession has run its course. Unless it can at least limit the growth in debt to the growth of the economy, investors will gradually lose faith in Treasury obligations, increasing the government's borrowing costs -- and turning a deficit crunch into a deficit spiral
It's about time the MSM quit acting like cheerleaders for Obama. There's too much at stake for our country.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (12)
Correction...
ObamaCareKennedyCareAt some point, even the most faithful, must acknowledge the obvious.
MSM cheerleading costumes would be adorable
Yep, there's no way to do universal coverage in this environment. I still think we need to take some steps to rein in healthcare costs (and I'm going to toss an idea or two into an article in the next day or so), but no, we can't afford universal coverage at this point.
Question: If universal coverage is off the table, how do you guys suggest we approach the question of we insured paying for the uninsured through inflated prices, eternally-increasing premiums, and the like? The market isn't going to change that without some prodding...and we're stuck with the increasingly broken status quo.
"If universal coverage is off the table, how do you guys suggest we approach the question of we insured paying for the uninsured through inflated prices, eternally-increasing premiums, and the like? The market isn't going to change that without some prodding...and we're stuck with the increasingly broken status quo."
All the prodding the health insurance market needs can be achieved through normal market forces. For example, a privately funded non-profit could be started to compete in the insurance market.
TORT reform in itself would potentially put nearly a half trillion dollars back into the system annually. I also advocate a network of non-profit clinics run by the private sector, with tax deductions preserved for donors.
Tort reform: The costs of malpractice (premiums for doctors, judgments) represent roughly 2% of what we spend on healthcare as a nation. (Source: 2004 CBO report) It's true that tort reform has lowered premiums in some states, but there are others where premium growth has continued unabated. Tort reform is no guarantee that the insurance industry will drop premiums of its own accord. (Now, if you coupled that tort reform with a mandatory premium cap, you might have something)
Non-profit clinics: Those would be great for well care (physicals, immunizations) and minor conditions, but will do nothing for the big-dollar issues (e.g. those requiring extended care, hospitalization, outpatient treatment regimes like dialysis...).
Non-profit competition in insurance: We already have those. Unfortunately, most folks can only afford what their employer is willing to subsidize; if one's employer won't offer a non-profit plan (and mine currently does not), one is out of luck.
The health insurance market has had decades, and the results are broken. I used the wrong word in my original comment; this isn't something to be "prodded," but something to be fixed.
"Unfortunately, most folks can only afford what their employer is willing to subsidize; if one's employer won't offer a non-profit plan (and mine currently does not), one is out of luck."
Perhaps the employer subsidies in healthcare is what needs to be "fixed" in order to allow compeditive market forces to fully affect health insurance.
That may be true, Machiavelli, but I think that the "sticker shock" would hit most people pretty hard. I know that I couldn't afford my current insurance without my employer's contribution. Now, if my employer were to give me that money as salary...
Mr. Incoherent: “Medicare is a critically important, lifesaving and valuable program that needs to be preserved and protected from being trashed and terminated by people like me.”
Staggering that this person heads what was, until recently, a national political party.
Kill interstate restrictions on competition.
In any case, I feel we are better off with our current problems than those that would be created by Kennedy-care. Now of course if Kennedy-care means that we all get the kind of care that Kennedy got before his death, (highly skilled specialist at his beckon call), well, that's another matter altogether.
Ted Kennedy would never have signed up or tolerated the POS health care his name is so aptly tied around now like a milestone.