The Hairy Eyeball: Will these Democrats please grow a set?

At a town-hall meeting in Grand Junction this week, President Obama backed down from his proposal for a government-run health insurance company after CU-Boulder student Zach Lahn asked him how private insurance companies would realistically be able to compete.

In his reply, Obama pretty much pussied out: “All I’m saying is…that the public option, whether we have it or don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform.”

Fair enough, it isn’t, but it’s pretty central to it. And with weak rhetoric like that, it’s pretty clear that the “public option” is not going to be on the table much longer.

The Bush years were terrifying, but if there’s one thing you can say for that administration, it’s that they got things done. Two wars, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, legitimization of torture—I mean, those guys were on a roll.

And now, after people realized—eight years later—that those policies were actually ruining everything and dealt a resounding bitch-slap to them by electing a liberal black man to the presidency and a 60-percent Democratic majority to both houses, the Republican minority is still controlling the debate with shrill fear-mongering.

Unbelievable.

At least Lahn had the balls to say what this debate is really about: insurance companies and their profit margins. The rest of the rabid pack would lead us to believe it’s about scary bureaucrats rationing medical care. “In all honesty,” said Utah Republican Orrin Hatch (incidentally, responding to crazy Sarah Palin’s ‘death camp’ comments), “I don’t want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting healthcare for my aged citizens in Utah.”
Aside from calling them “my aged citizens,” which is a little creepy, Hatch’s comments make no sense. Would he rather have a bunch of nameless, faceless insurance adjusters setting healthcare for them?

OK, yeah, the plan would likely involve some form of “health care rationing,” where, yes, bureaucrats would make decisions on treatment. But we already have that; it’s just that, instead of being based on an objective cost-benefit analysis of treatment, those decisions are currently based on who’s rich enough to buy it.

And just FYI, it turns out Zach Lahn failed to mention he’s actually a staffer for Greg Brophy, Republican assistant minority leader for the Colorado State Senate.

Surprise, surprise.

3 comments

Seriously, People.

Thu Aug 27 2009 19:49

I'm sorry, is there really a difference between insurance bureaucrats and government bureaucrats? No. The only difference is, if we can cover those who cannot afford to be covered with another plan, we should endorse it. Seriously, try making an argument that doesn't sound like a talking point.

Also, I'd love to hear an argument that isn't rooted in scare-tactic rhetoric..."No more retarded children..." Grow up. Even a “retarded child” knows that the entire system won't collapse if we provide health care for those who--because of our ridiculous and outdated-by-every-other-developed-nation system--cannot afford the most priced-down coverage available. We wouldn’t be the first country to try the single-payer system; in fact, we’d pretty much be the last out of the nations who can pay for it.

Next, let's have a discussion on why evolution shouldn't be taught, so the rest of the world can continue to laugh at us.

Montgomery

Tue Aug 25 2009 09:20

Let's think about what that means, if health care is decided by cost-benefit analysis instead of by who can afford it.

First, it begs the question of who performs the cost-benefit analysis of treatment, and to what standard? Who sets that standard? No more retarded children, right? We can get rid of them at birth, because they'll never be productive members of society. Shut down those neonatal intensive care units, because those preemies are just nothin' but trouble. While we're at it care for the elderly goes away too, since they don't have enough life left to make it worth our money to pay for it.

It's pretty easy to tell someone that their life isn't worth living...but they tend to disagree.

Second, say bye-bye to virtually all forms of medical research in AIDS, cancer, and other 'dread diseases.' Why bother trying to find a cure when an objective cost-benefit analysis says they only have a year left to live? Those cancer patients will be sent home with a bunch of painkillers anyway, so why should any research institution even bother?

Third, let's think about who's "wealthy enough to afford it" in our society. It's primarily older citizens, who've worked for the better part of a lifetime actually contributing something to society. Who has more weath - you or your parents? If your parents can afford the health care, why shouldn't they be allowed to receive it?

Lastly, your line about Zach Lahn's Republican party ties is pretty weak. Being a staffer to an assistant minority leader in a state senate is about as low on the totem pole as you can get. If the guy was a staffer to the assistant Majority leader in the state senate, you'd simply refer to him as a local activist.

Camella

Tue Aug 25 2009 09:00

I'd take a bunch of nameless, faceless insurance adjusters over a bunch of nameless,faceless bureaucrats anyday. Why ? Because if I don't like them, I am free to find another set, or pay for my healthcare another way. Once we are all on the government plan, there will be no such freedom.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out