Socialized medicine is coming.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

The salami tactic at work, slice by slice.

Socialized Medicine's Front Door

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, September 27, 2007; A25

The Alice in Wonderland quality of legislating in Congress was typified this week. The Democratic Congress quickly passed a national health insurance bill, drafted in secret and protected from amendment, that constitutes the most important legislation of this session. While designed for a presidential veto, it is national health insurance -- through the front, not the back, door. Democrats view it as a no-lose situation: Either landmark health care will be enacted over President George W. Bush's veto, or, if overridden, they'll have a lovely 2008 campaign issue.

This outcome was previewed a week ago by Democratic leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Whip Roy Blunt in a colloquy on the House floor. Blunt questioned the procedure under which a radical expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would be passed as a "bill that has not been debated." No matter, Hoyer replied. It would not really be a new bill because "there will be nothing, I think, in the bill that was not in the House or Senate bills" that were passed previously. Such is the sad state of congressional procedure today.

This business as usual on Capitol Hill is worth noting because an extension of SCHIP would cover many more than the poor children originally intended to be helped. The new bill would cover families with income up to $82,000 a year, threatening to crowd out the private health industry. Only Congress could conceive making families simultaneously eligible for SCHIP to help the poor and the alternative minimum tax to punish the rich.

SCHIP was conceived in 1997 by a Republican-controlled Congress, still uneasy about defeating Hillary Clinton's health-care plan four years earlier and intending to provide supplementary health insurance for poor children. When Democrats took control of Congress this year, they sought to transform a relatively modest program into a government takeover of health care. Separate bills were passed months ago in the House and Senate along party lines, but Republican senators blocked a Senate-House conference to iron out the differences.

After the summer break, key Democrats started meeting behind closed doors -- Republicans excluded -- the weekend of Sept. 14-15, seeking a way for the House to pass the Senate bill and send it to the president. The finished product was not put in Republican hands until 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 24, with the vote scheduled for 24 hours later. There was no chance to vote for a substitute, much less amend the bill. The legislation would extend SCHIP to families earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($82,000 a year) in New York, 350 percent in New Jersey and 300 percent elsewhere. States also could extend the aid to childless adults. Indeed, "children" would include anyone younger than 21.

"A growing body of professional literature shows that when government health insurance expands, up to 60 percent of existing private coverage is 'crowded out,' " a Heritage Foundation report said last week. The program's $35 billion expansion is supposed to be financed by a 61-cent increase in cigarette taxes, but financing is scheduled to abruptly fall 72 percent halfway through 2012. With private insurance probably no longer available, Congress would then have no choice but to provide additional funding.

Bush's inevitable veto will face a certain override in the Senate, where supposedly conservative Republican graybeards have defected. Orrin Hatch is in another partnership with his friend, Ted Kennedy. Chuck Grassley, the ranking GOP member on the Finance Committee, again has drifted leftward.

In the House, Republican Rep. Ray LaHood has worked closely with a fellow Illinoisan, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, to round up Republican votes for a veto override. But LaHood and his allies were silent during yesterday's House GOP conference. Rep. Paul Ryan, the top Budget Committee Republican, declared: "This is not a back door to get socialized medicine. They went straight to the front door." A head count showed no more than 57 Republicans prepared to override Bush -- probably 11 short of what is needed.

Democrats flinched at giving Republicans a hard choice: override the veto or end the existing SCHIP program. Instead, funding is being extended by a separate bill. Nevertheless, Democrats will eagerly pummel Republicans for "voting against kids" by refusing to sanction a long step toward Hillarycare.

frogger · 09-27-2007, 05:50 AM

What is the bill number?

1fastredsc · 09-27-2007, 06:34 AM

Your probably right Rick, Socialized medicine will be the end of capitalist america and the beginning of comi-america. Hell while we are at it we should commercialize the police, fire depts, and public schools too. This way if you don't pay, it's no education (more Rush Limbaugh listeners), no peace keepers, and no fire protection for you. The new america where if you don't pay, or your parents don't pay, then your dumb, unprotected, and your house burns down while no one cares. An america where your citizens refuses to contribute toward anything that can benefit there fellow man, as long as the money you saved gets you a few more old 911's in your garage. I can see it now "so ma-am you've been raped, your child molested, your husband is dead, and then the criminal stole your car........... now did you pay your police bill this month" she replies"no sir" he replies "well sounds like a tough one for you, but i'm sure you'll get over it have a nice day".

frogger · 09-27-2007, 06:41 AM

Do you have a bill number? I haven't found any record of this legislation and I don't feel comfortable relying just on Novak's commentaries. Thanks.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

What the hell are you talking about? What does any of what you mentioned have to do with socialized medicine? And I'd much rather pay the police or fire dept. out of pocket when I use them than pi$s my money away paying Fairfax Co. my property taxes, especially since I have no kids and wouldn't send them to public school if I did. I'll make the wild guess that most Rush Limbaugh listeners know FAR more about what's going on in the world and our political system than anyone who relies on public schools for such knowledge. But, since I'm never in my car when his show is on, I very rarely get to hear him. I just know he irritates the hell out of liberals, which means he must be ok.

frogger · 09-27-2007, 06:43 AM

LOL! A druggie pedophile. Nice source of info.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

I believe it's S95 in the Senate and HR1111 in the House. Even the official bill names sound Orwellian - "Kids Come First Act".

frogger · 09-27-2007, 06:47 AM

Thanks. I'll give them a read.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogger

Do you have a bill number? I haven't found any record of this legislation and I don't feel comfortable relying just on Novak's commentaries. Thanks.

BTW, I'm not relying on Novak either. This story has been all over the news for weeks. I've read plenty about it in the Wash. Post, WSJ, Politico and The Hill. It's just that Novak seems to sum it up best and most concisely. The fact that Republicans are banding together to help override Bush's promised veto just shows that there's no stopping the socialist agenda anymore. It's a matter of when, not if. Just as the AMT was implemented to tax a hundred or so rich folks whose sole income was from tax-free bonds and has now grown to cover millions of quite un-rich Americans, this health insurance thing have started with the "laudable" goal of covering some poor kids and will grow to universal coverage, so parents will no longer be responsible for their own decisions. Yeah, I love paying for that.

frogger · 09-27-2007, 06:58 AM

OK. I know what this legislation is. I would question its wisdom, especially given our budget deficit and national debt. Novak is a bit heavy on hyperbole, but this is likely a phased approach towards socialized medicine. Expanding health insurance coverage to kids in poor and working poor families is noble, though a government program like this likely won't solve anything. I think the Dems should have stuck to a simple extension of the existing program instead of getting greedy and expanding it. BTW, this wasn't some super secret activity by the Dems as everyone knew the existing program was expiring. Dem's were predictably going to try to get more. They're weenies.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Of course, it was no secret. Why would Dems want to keep it secret? They stand only to gain from this, especially from their base. Republicans are the worst in the world at PR and Bush's veto promise, while probably solid, doesn't have a whole lot of credibility coming from the guy who led the charge for the Medicare pres. drug benefit. He's right on this one and he has a chance of winning the battle, but he will lose the war. Every Dem running for pres. wants socialized medicine and there's no chance of the GOP taking back the House or Senate in '08. So this is going to happen unless a true conservative becomes president in '08. Get your wallets out and be ready to see everyone standing in line for health care like at the worst Kaiser Perm. office.

berettafan · 09-27-2007, 07:49 AM

i think socialized medicine IS the answer in combination with tort reform.

what you have posted here, however, is NOT socialized medicine; at least not as i see it. what is being described here is yet another welfare program. the SYSTEM needs to be fixed before we start spending money.

onewhippedpuppy · 09-27-2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berettafan

i think socialized medicine IS the answer in combination with tort reform.

what you have posted here, however, is NOT socialized medicine; at least not as i see it. what is being described here is yet another welfare program. the SYSTEM needs to be fixed before we start spending money.

It's just the Dems appealing to their demographic. No real wonder that all their candidates are proposing government health care. I wonder what percentage of welfare recipients are Democrats, 98%?

I just can't wait to go to the emergency room, and get DMV quality service. Wonderful.......

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

It's just the Dems appealing to their demographic. No real wonder that all their candidates are proposing government health care. I wonder what percentage of welfare recipients are Democrats, 98%?

I just can't wait to go to the emergency room, and get DMV quality service. Wonderful.......

Not that I'm defending public-dollar healthcare (I'm not), but last time I was in an ER, it WAS DMV-quality service. How would that change exactly?

onewhippedpuppy · 09-27-2007, 08:15 AM

You must have either really good DMVs, or really bad ERs.

berettafan · 09-27-2007, 08:23 AM

Talk to someone who has been/is involved with the business end of a hospital. The customer is the insurance company and where you go, who you see and what you are given is driven by billing codes and what the insurance company will pay. ER visits included.

Maybe some of the docs on the board will contribute to this with what they actually see but IMO socialized medicine, a good version of it anyways, gets rid of the insurance companies and controls/limits the profits available to drug co's. It also ENDS 20 million dollar lawsuits for a ****ed up titty job and things of that nature. The parts of our medical system that screw up the program for everyone. Docs should still get paid big bucks but it ends there.

Do you guys understand that drug reps (some of the dumbest mother****ers on the planet) are earning 6 figures to sell hospitals meds?! WTF is that? How can drug co's afford to pay this? WHY should it be necessary? The answer is it should NOT.

Rick don't worry, if socialized medicine actually does happen here you'll still be able to write a check to a doc of your choosing. In fact you'll have a bigger selection of docs to do so with! It's not a secret that some docs DO NOT DEAL WITH INSURANCE. They are off the grid so to speak. They are so good the don't have to suck of the teat of this monster we call our health care system. You bring them cash and they see you right away. You get experimental treatments if you want and so forth.

Those of us who have more modest means will still be seeing the SAME docs who, we hope, will do the SAME quality of work (maybe better if the system is simplified which it should be since profit centers would be eliminated). The docs won't leave if you offer the same salaries right?

Do you guys have any idea what it takes to run a hospital these days? Any idea how much folks who do so are paid? BIG $$ folks, even in country bumpkin hospitals. And guess which part of their expertise is valued the most..........BILLING MAXIMIZATION!!! That is to say getting docs trained to put the right codes on patient billing to get the most $$'s from insurance co's.

berettafan · 08:40 AM

Just saw POP's post. It is evidence of what i stated in my post.

1fastredsc · 09-27-2007, 08:28 AM

Don't get me wrong, i think this problem can be solved two different ways. Either you make the market for health care/insurance fair again, or introduce socialized medicine with a choice and force the market to be fair. As long as your republican party members have there noses up lobbyist a$$ they'll never admit that health system is playing unfairly with the rules, and the dems are in the same boat but they are trying to find away to make both there financial accounts happy and the voters by introducing a government competition in the health care market.

BTW rick your complete lack of compassion toward your fellow man, and ability to disregard and provide no help for there problems, just like all the other hard right wingers reminds me of something, fascism. People who think like you are the exact reason why our country is split and getting very unpatriotic. If one day you come down with cancer and can't afford the 1/2 million dollar therapy to treat it, i don't mind the idea that i'm contributing to help you out, why does it bother you when the tables are turned?

I'd like the health care system to get fixed no matter which ways it happens, and unlike our semi-fascist friends on this board i'm not afraid of social medicine if that is the route. I guess the idea of helping someone who can't help themselves doesn't keep me up at night.

BTW to your remark about public schools, i guess they must really be terrible. I mean i went to public school from start to finish and i only have 3.2 GPA in my ME dept, i guess i'm really second rate stupid huh rick?

Superman · 09-27-2007, 08:37 AM

Mr. Lee and Mr. Novak appear to agree on one thing. If anybody wrests control of our health care industry away from the insurance companies and the drug companies, the sky will fall. The Earth will be hurled into the Sun where we will all die a fiery death. And according to information distributed by the medical insurance industry and its conservative lackeys, private health insurance will cease to exist. Even though service to consumers will deteriorate obscenely. Hmmmmm......

Yeah, the best idea is to just let the current players (medical insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies) shape this industry to suit their purposes. After all, their interests are of course aligned with that of consumers.

Superman · 09-27-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1fastredsc

.....the idea of helping someone who can't help themselves .....

I thought about this again, this morning. I suppose the conservative thinkers here imagine that I don't but I do. I think about their positions and assertions and arguments. Here, they seem to believe that by providing any sense of security or safety net to citizens, we are promoting laziness. Their preference would be to widen the chasm. There should be very secure, very wealthy people......and there should be poor souls whose situations and conditions are such that they are refuse. Losers. Castaways. They should have no reason for hope. No expectation of help. Only in this way will we spur citizens into action. This........will teach them to be responsible. Either people will actively work, from a young age, to primarily protect themselves financially.....and be ovedient workers or.............

They will not. And we will have angry, suffering people in our midst watching us go by in our Porsche. People who we could afford to save/treat.... but won't.

I don't personally believe we will eliminate these people. I don't think we will teach everyone to be responsible. I don't even think responsibility ensures against need.

Jesus seemed to agree. He said we will always have the poor with us. But of course, he suggested we let them die in pain to teach others an important lesson. Commerce also appreciates the fear motive.