Tag Archives: healthcare

Suicide Mission or Scorched Earth?

Robert Gibbs says the health care bill will pass by next Sunday, so maybe the Democrats are doing both?

Certainly passing the health care bill as it is now is going to lead to a Republican majority in at least one house, and possibly both, with many Democrats losing their jobs to folks campaigning to repeal the law.  It’s clearly unpopular, and while the election of Brown to replace Ted Kennedy wasn’t as earth shattering as some might think, it did foretell what will happen in many ‘safe’ Democratic districts.   So it certainly seems it’s a suicide mission.

I think the Democrats have realized, though, that even if it doesn’t pass, they are in big trouble in November.  As such, they are going to get their bills through, regardless of what the people actually want, knowing repealing the bill will be very difficult (probably impossible) until there is a new President in 2012.  So they are scorching the earth on their suicide mission.

And taking us all out in the process.


A Solution If You Can’t Afford Health Insurance

Daniel Putkowski at WFtC (one of my new favorite blogs) provides a remarkable solution for those without health insurance.  Simple, too.

No doubt, it’s going to take away some of that weekend fun. You won’t be headed out fishing with your buddies, or going to the game, or sitting around in your boxer shorts watching reruns of Lost. On the bright side, you may meet new people on the job in the form of customers and co-workers. Depending on which job is selected, you may learn new skills along the way. The point is, health insurance can be purchased by working, not by demanding that someone else GIVE it to you via the government.

Unreasonable?  Certainly there are folks out there who really need help.  So lets help them, and the rest of us can take responsibility for ourselves.


Solutions

Doesn’t this look better than 2000 pages of federal bureaucracy?  Maybe not perfect, but at least better?


Canadian Health Care Not Good Enough?

Well, it’s good enough for the commoners, but when a high level politician needs care, he’s off to… well, you can guess.

Link via Q and O


Another Glimpse into the Future with State Run Healthcare

A judge in Florida ordered a pregnant woman to stay in the hospital on a doctor’s orders.  The article suggests it was because she was a smoker, but I’d guess there’s more to it than that.  Regardless, this is what state run healthcare will look like in the United States.

She smoked cigarettes during the first six months of her pregnancy and was admitted on a false alarm of premature labor. Her doctor argued she was risking a miscarriage if she didn’t quit smoking immediately and stay on bed rest in the hospital, and a judge agreed.

Three days after the judge ordered her not to leave the hospital, Burton delivered a stillborn fetus by cesarian-section.

And six months after the pregnancy ended, the dispute over the legal move to keep her in the hospital continues, raising questions about where a mother’s right to decide her own medical treatment ends and where the priority of protecting a fetus begins.

“The entire experience was horrible and I am still very upset about it,” Burton said through her lawyer. “I hope nobody else has to go through what I went through.”

Burton, who declined to be interviewed, is appealing the judge’s order. She isn’t asking for money but hopes to keep her case from setting a precedent for legal control over women with problem pregnancies. She also worries it could prevent women from seeking prenatal care.

State Attorney Willie Meggs stands by his decision to seek the court order after being contacted by the hospital. “This is good people trying to do things in a right fashion to save lives,” he said, “whether some people want them saved or not.”

Burton is in her late 20s, has two young daughters and a common-law husband and holds down a blue-collar job, said her lawyer, David Abrams. She didn’t want an abortion, had obtained prenatal care and voluntarily went to the hospital after experiencing symptoms she’d been told to look out for, he said.

But she didn’t like the care she received at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. She said her doctor, Jana Bures-Foresthoefel, was brusk and overbearing. Her lawyer said bed rest for difficult pregnancies is a controversial issue because it can cause some complications like blood clots. Abrams said smoking by itself doesn’t cause miscarriages.

The mother said she wanted the option to seek care at another hospital or to go home so she could care for her two daughters.

“I was desperately hoping to receive the care I needed to save my baby,” Burton wrote in her statement. “However, after a few days there, I did not feel I was receiving the care I needed, and instead of being allowed to leave or go to another hospital, I found myself being ordered by a judge to stay at Tallahassee Memorial and submit to all medical care from its hospital staff, whether I agreed or not.”

The doctor and hospital officials declined to comment, referring calls to the state prosecutor.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Diana Kasdan said if the ruling stands it could lead to the state virtually taking over the lives of pregnant women, including telling them what they should or should not eat and drink and what medications they must take.

“It would be a horrible precedent,” Kasdan said.

The state disputes that scenario, arguing Burton’s case is rare – the only one out of 30,000 births in the Tallahassee area over the last 10 years.

Abrams said Burton’s condition didn’t merit such extreme action. Her symptoms were not that unusual, she wasn’t in active labor and the state failed to show why bed rest at Tallahassee Memorial would have been any better than at another hospital or home, he said.

The judge ruled the best interests of the fetus overrode Burton’s privacy rights, but Abrams disputes that. He notes the Florida Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, has an explicit and strong privacy right, which the state Supreme Court has said guarantees a competent person the right to “choose or refuse medical treatment.”

“If you apply the best interest of the child standard, the woman becomes nothing more than a fetal incubator owned by the state of Florida,” Abrams said.

Ready for that, ladies?  I’m not.  The state simply does not have the right to keep you in a hospital if you are competent to make your own decisions.  Yet the state used power to do just that.  You think they won’t when we give them more power?

I don’t see how anyone calling themselves “pro choice” can want to give the government that much control over their bodies.


A Good Question

Don Boudreaux asks it.

Questions for Ms. Pelosi.  If the citizens of Massachusetts are able, without any further legislation from Congress, to foist on themselves the kind of government-directed health-care that Ms. Pelosi alleges the rest of the country desires, what’s stopping people across America from doing in each of their states what the people of Massachusetts have already done in that state?  Why does Congress have to act at all?

I’m pretty sure it’s because we’re all stupid and helpless.


A future with no butter?

Preposterous?  Impossible?

The idea is at least taken seriously enough to make the news in the UK.  Certainly the government will have the power to tell you what you can and can not eat once healthcare is fully government controlled, in the name of cutting costs or saving the children.

Me, I’m stocking up on incandescent light bulbs and butter as we speak.

Link via The Agitator


ObamaCare becomes just a little less Constitutional

There’s no way this gets past a challenge based on the  14th amendment.  Right?

Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health-care plans until 2018.

The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won’t be as lucky — they’ll have to cough up almost $90 billion.

The 40 percent excise tax on what have come to be called “Cadillac” health-care plans would exempt collective-bargaining contracts covering government employees and other union members until Jan. 1, 2018.

I would like to meet someone who actually thinks this is how government should work; that government should adjust your taxes based on what you do for a living and if you are in a union.  I’m also amazed at the arrogance of the Administration and Congress that they think this is in any way legal.

I’m also curious about how this little trick adjusts the CBO estimates of ‘deficit neutrality’.  Remember, that was a campaign promise made by The One, that He would not sign a healthcare bill that increased the deficit.  Of course, He also promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k.. that one is already out the window.


Financial Planning for ObamaCare

Scott Gottlieb at AEI thinks only the very rich will be able to buy their way out of ObamaCare.

The very rich, of course, will be able to buy their way out of ObamaCare. Many of the best doctors will go cash only, opting entirely out of the Obama program, to cater to a wealthy clientele. But only the truly affluent will have the cash to escape.

The vast rest of us will be locked inside the new system–stuck with the same collection of government-decreed medical benefits.

The only reason I’m not going nuts:  I fully plan to be in the group who can afford to buy our way out.  My financial planning now includes putting money aside to pay for my own healthcare.  I do not want to ever have to rely on the government to take care of me.

I suggest you do the same.


Good stuff

The Economist has an interview with Radley Balko of Reason, Hit and Run, and The Agitator. The latter is the first blog I found lo those many years ago, and one of the few blogs I read every day. Radley has also been an engaging guest on the Ron Smith show on WBAL in Baltimore.

Anyway, his thoughts on the militarization of the police and on the Libertarian movement are interesting (and quite nicely mirror my own). This is a good read.

That said, I think there’s reason for some optimism for libertarians. The generations raised on the internet will be more educated, aware, and informed than any before them, and I think that has instilled in them some naturally libertarian instincts, particularly when it comes to issues like government transparency, accountability, censorship, and police power. Perhaps I’m a bit pollyanna-ish, but it’s at least possible that once the Obama administration proves just as inept, corrupt, and hopeless as the Bush administration, the younger people who flocked to Obama will start to understand that the problem isn’t who’s running government, it’s that government power itself corrupts–and that we’re better off keeping as much of our lives as possible off limits to the whims of politicians instead of this repeating cycle of putting all of our hope into the idea that someday, the right politicians will finally get elected.

The last sentence is so important, and really is the reason for optimism, that at some point all these smart people will stop thinking ‘their guy’ can take government power and make it all right (see the irony in healthcare). Trust me, you are not going to be happy when Sarah Palin is running your healthcare.

If you don’t already, I highly recommend reading both Hit and Run and The Agitator.


%d bloggers like this: