Barak Obama continues to impress: "I am suspicious of hype. The fact that my 15 minutes of fame has extended a little longer than 15 minutes is somewhat surprising to me and completely baffling to my wife." Good jokes -- important campaign quality. This was at a speech in New Hampshire, and I'm still a bit unclear from the coverage what, exactly, Obama said. Bloomberg indicates he "outlined an agenda that includes universal health care, a new energy strategy that takes advantage of alternative sources of fuel, fiscal responsibility and a national security policy that is 'tough and smart,'" which sounds good to me. As The New York Times has it, "in two speeches and a news conference, Mr. Obama called for universal health care — the issue with which Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, was once closely identified — a battle on global warming and a timed redeployment of troops from Iraq."
« Distracted Much? | Main | More Pinochet »
Obama-rama
11 Dec 2006 09:24 am
Comments (19)
These are the three big issues, in my opinion. Universal health care is not all that popular (yet), otherwise we'd already have it.
"I hear he's also in favor of cold ice cream, warm, furry puppies and the smell of freshly cut grass."
C'mon now, standing up in favor of universal healthcare is a gutsy move given what has happened to every democrat to do so in the past 20 years. I agree that Obama needs to fill in his general ideas with specific proposals for accomplishing them, but he certainly is taking a firm stand for progressive principles.
Daniel, my wife works as a nurse practitioner, CWOCNP, specializing in the healing of difficult wounds. Diabetes, surgical wounds, injuries, gangrene, amputations and other difficult to heal cases are her specialty. Her practice averages 33 days from the start of treatment to judged healed and discharged. The national average for healing this class of wound is 168 days. Why doesn't she and other nurse practitioners see more patients? Because doctors refuse to refer them, preferring to keep them and attempt to heal them within their practice. Their expertise is not in this post procedure type of treatment but if they release or refer them elsewhere they can't bill for treatment. Thousands of people annually suffer with wounds for many weeks or months longer than needed because their doctors struggle to heal them rather than admit they're not up to the task and because they don't want to lose a revenue stream. These doctors do this knowing better treatments and more qualified practioners are out there. Multiply this scenario times dozens of other areas of medical treatment, areas where doctors and hospitals would rather consider revenue than healing. Is universal healthcare really going to fix this mindset, this way of doing business? Or will it be just a modified way of spreading risk and disbursing funds for treatments and procedures doing little or nothing to address the condition they're meant for? If the goverenment is going to meddle in the healthcare market more than they already do let them mandate physicians use the most effective methods for healing. Why is there even a choice to pursue a treatment plan taking months to heal or cure when an alternative is out there requiring 1/2 the time (and money) or less. Hmmmmmmm, I think I've just answered my own question.
You're arguing that universal healthcare is immaterial, unless it leads to a better system of wound care?
You're arguing that all the hundreds of thousands of families living on the precipice of poverty, if just one major medical problem hits them, won't be helped significantly by real universal health care because their post-surgery wound care will be sub-optimal?
That's maybe the single least coherent argument about anything I have ever read, and I occasionally read libertarian blogs.
The problem with universal health care is that it subjects everybody to the same crappy care. I understand the need for a safety net, but I'd prefer that we just help out the people who can't afford it on their own, rather than institute a system like the British have, where doctors are punished for treating patients too well.
I'm with Jim W. - these are, or at least should be, the three big issues for 2008. These are and will be our three biggest problems, assuming we haven't gotten our butts kicked out of Iraq by primary season.
Forget for a second how things are out here in the blogosphere, steve. How many Congresscritters have come out in favor of universal health care, a concerted attack on global warming, and a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
No matter what Obama says about universal health care, he'll still never be loved in certain quarters of the blogosphere.
Travis, it's important to remember that although "universal health care" is the catchphrase, we're talking about (partially) nationalizing the health INSURANCE industry, not the health care industry itself.
> The problem with universal health care is that it subjects everybody to the same crappy care
And under any sort of universal healthcare program you can go to any doctor or healthcare facility you like. So if your healthcare service provider is crappy go find a new one. Universal healthcare doesn't make doctors stupid, it just provides a playing field for everyone.
Any predictions as to the half-life of Obama-rama?
First off, I want to say that I'm not sure Obama claiming health care as "his" issue is great ju-jitsu against Hillary: does he just open himself up to a withering, "listen here, young pup, and I'll tell you why universal care won't work?" from Hillary?
Travis should probably do some research beyond listening to Rush/reading Samizdat. Every industrialized country that has universal health care (that would be, um, all of them but this one) has BETTTER outcomes for LESS money than the current US system. They are not all equally good, but they all do a better job for just about everyone than here. Urban legends about governments persecuting doctors who succeed (good lord, is Travis reading Rand?) have no place in thoughtful political discussion.
does he just open himself up to a withering, "listen here, young pup, and I'll tell you why universal care won't work?" from Hillary?
It would if Hillary and he were running for hte Republican nomination. Luckily for Obama, they're both Democrats, and Democratic primary voters love them some universal health care.
Positioning herself as the anti-health care candidate is just about as big a losing move as being the pro-Iraq War candidate. I'm growing more and more convinced that Hillary is already dead in the water, war chest or not.
Steve,
Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. I'm sure doctors would be just as intelligent and caring as they are now. What I mean is that in order to decrease operating costs, the administrators would impose longer wait times and cut amenities.
This would be the case whether the state ran the hospitals directly (The UK) or just had universal health insurance (Canada).
Of course, this is a libertarian-esque argument, so feel free to disregard it out of hand.
But back to Obama. Even though he wants a lot of things I disagree with, he has the very high distinction of not being a blatant shit-face. Thats more than I can say for any other contender I've heard of in either party. Chances are I'll be voting for him, at the very least in the primary.
I hate Ayn Rand as well as Rush Limbaugh. The cock rock band Rush too for that matter.
I am a libertarian, but not because I'm an asshole (I can be an asshole, but I don't think thats related to my political preference). I just happen to think having choices is better than not, and free markets provide more choice and better outcomes than government mandated programs, even for poor people.
I'm sure theres plenty of places where socialized medicine works pretty well. Sweden seems fine, my relatives in Austria don't complain, but I just don't think it would work well here.
"subjects everybody to the same crappy care"
In Britain, which has a reasonably effective (not perfect) national healthcare system, there are also private insurers & private hospitals you can go to. Most people don't, because the NHS is actually pretty good. And you have choices over your doctors & treatment in similar ways to how you would in the US system (although you aren't presented with dozens of largely-useless choices - which insurer, which medical group, HMO, PPO, Kaiser?)
Britain's healthcare system would be better off were it not for a decade or so of neglect under Thatcher, too. Conservative ideologues make exceptionally poor administrators of components of the welfare state.
Anyway, I'm glad to see Obama standing up straightforwardly for national healthcare. Hopefully it'll help set the tone for 2008. I think it should be a major campaign issue.
"What I mean is that in order to decrease operating costs, the administrators would impose longer wait times and cut amenities."
But isn't this more or less what a lot of insurance companies are doing to clients in the U.S. now? Plus occasionally dropping your coverage and making you liable for a stratospheric bill if you get too expensive?
yeah, but then the magical market ponies come from the insurance stables and take care o fyou.
The Gilead Access Program is designed to expand and sustain access to once-daily anti-HIV medications like Truvada by the poorest countries. WBR LeoP
Comments closed December 25, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I hear he's also in favor of cold ice cream, warm, furry puppies and the smell of freshly cut grass.
Posted by steve duncan | December 11, 2006 9:45 AM