Home › Blogs › Rob Bluey's blog ›

Don't Let Daschle's Transparency Talk Fool You

Submitted by Rob Bluey on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 13:37
in

Americans are going to be busy these next two weeks. Christmas and New Year’s are traditionally a time to spend with family, do last-minute shopping and take a break from the strains of work -- and apparently fix America’s health care system.

That’s right, Tom Daschle wants you to talk about health care over the holidays. President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services has given the country two weeks, including Christmas Day, to provide input on how to improve health care in America.

Daschle doesn’t care if you meet at home, the office or a coffee shop -- just as long as he’s able to boast that the Obama administration listened to Americans. He probably figures it’ll be an easier sell when he proposes his Orwellian “Federal Health Board” to ensure unprecedented government interference in the delivery of care.

Transparency is so key because if we're going to do this right, it's going to mean we have to involve the American people. We have to involve people who have personal stories to tell, who have ideas to share, who have real experiences they can relate to. That is the essence of good legislating.

Daschle's "grassroots" reform discussion is a con -- and we need to expose it as such. Only organized interest groups such as AARP and Families USA will be listened to or even have a chance to be heard when the legislation is drafted. Can you picture Daschle dropping by Starbucks over the next two weeks to hear from real people? It’s ridiculous.

As conservatives, we need to figure out how we’re going to respond to attempts by the Obama administration to use the guise of public feedback to implement liberal policies. That could mean flooding Change.gov with comments from conservative activists or holding our own discussion forums to promote free-market ideas. We could embrace tools like Rebuild the Party’s feedback forum or shape public opinion through popular petitions like Drill Here, Drill Now.

Conservatives don’t have time to waste. On issues like health care and the economy, the Obama administration and liberals in Congress will move quickly next year before their honeymoon ends.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

In the past ten years, health care costs have gone up over 70%

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 15:32.

Half of that increase has been administrative costs -- costs devoted to not providiing care, but denying care.

Our health care system is broken. Tell me how to fix it using a free market economy.

Tell me how we can divert some of our 10%+ of GDP from Health Care! It's not a growth industry, fer christ stakes!

Rising Tide, you tire me. Go to the DailyKOS where you belong.

Submitted by dpeterson on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 23:45.

 

Who is the single largest consumer of health care in the United States?  I will tell you because I am pretty sure you don't know or you will certainly give a really stupid answer.  It is the Federal Govt.  Health care costs continue to climb with the rise in govt spending on health care.  You will never get it, the GOVT IS THE PROBLEM.

Now go away, you are a bore.  You blow your BS on damn near every post on this blog site and say nothing of any value.  I bet they would love you at the DailyKOS!!  Your man won, you can relish in the victory over the next (4) years and wallow in the Obama BS and.....here is a bonus.... THEY will actually listen to your BS. 

Government is NOT the problem in this case

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 00:09.

Twice as much is spent on healthcare in the US per capita compared to the other countries in the OECD. And for that we get fewer doctor visits and a lower life expectancy than the OECD average.

The UK has the National Health Service, which provides full healthcare that is "free at the point of delivery". The NHS is enormous - I don't know if this is still the case, but at one point it was thought to be one of the 10 largest employers in the world. Healthcare spending is 8.1% of GDP in the UK, compared to 15.3% in the US.

I lived in the UK for several years. It is my observation that they are no more or less healthy than we are.

So, I totatlly disagree with your assertion that government is the problem in this case.

A random Ronald Reagan soundbite may not apply to every situtaiton. Sometimes it is necessary to look at the facts.

Relative to the UK

Submitted by dpeterson on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 00:24.

I have VERY GOOD friends that are British.  They hate their health care system, it is bankrupting their country, and they would switch to the current US system in a heartbeat (no pun intended).  The company I work for is a Multi national Corporation with a presence in England.  I have first hand knowledge and I have the facts.  So, I guess your little comment should be called a random NObama soundbite?

 

 

so what exactly would they like to cut out of their

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 08:04.

collective societal budget?

never asked that one, i'll bet.

8% of GDP is an AWFUL lot to cut. That's DOUBLE what even the most optimistic countries spend on SCIENCE for instance.

British attitudes toward the NHS

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 09:02.

Now now, don't get all huffy just I went logical and rational on you.

Harris/Financial Times (UK) poll, July 2008. Only 15% of Britains want to "completely rebuild the system"; 59% of Britains believe the NHS is "the envy of the world"'; 69% of Britains believe that "the NHS is crucial to British society and we must do everything to maintain it".

Obviously, that is NOT an inidcatition of a desire to switch to the US system.

Here's another poll, from  BBC Daily Politics:

"Taxes in Britain are too high, and tax rates should be cut even if that means the government having to cut back spending on public services like the NHS."

Agree: 30%; diasagree, 64%, don't know 5%.

There are two important issues here.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 20:39.

As I have discussed here before, health care costs will continue to rise as long as the present health-care provider monopoly exists. End the structural monopoly by creating public as well as private health-care providers. Restructure the health-care industry so that both private and public health-care providers compete against each other for the "Privilege" of  serving the public.
Now to the second issue of transparency. As long as the public official sticks to the simple claim of achieving more transparency than was achieved before, a successful challenge would be hard to mount. But if a public official is making the claim of delivering full "transparency", they immediately open themselves up for a political attack from the opposition. That opposition not only has the right to mount such a political attack, but the political duty to do so in the strongest possible terms. 
As we all know, the internet is a very powerful communicative tool. Like any powerful tool, it can either do a tremendous amount of good or cause unimaginable harm. Therefore, we must be every on the lookout for any misapplications of the internet to limit any harm that may result from any such misapplicaitons.

ex animo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

davidfarrar

 

I appreciate your position...

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 21:19.

...but I disagree (w/ paragraph #2).

You advise engaging in a meaningless and tiresome game of semantics.  I say, No!

It will be soon enough that the opposition will reveal a more advantageous opening ( as Smaug the Dragon, through impudence...).  Grasping at the airy straws of semantics is not warranted, nor desirable.  Better to spend the same time in sharpening the sword than in some half-hearted thrust where no real opening exists.

 

As for the health care thing, the truth often remains untold.

First, Americans are, by far, the most medicatedpopulation on the planet.  We consume 1.8 p[ills for every pill the Brits take, and around 2.3 pills for every pill the Aussies take.  We are more resistant to lifestyle changes than other populations-- even in instances where such loifestyle changes would reflect in tangible health benefits.

This has to priced into the system.

Secondly, from speaking with Canucks & Aussies about such things, not a single one of these universal health care programs started on the federal level, but ALWAYS, ALWAYS on the provincial or state level.

Also, an integral portion is that everyone must be on the same plan.  Offering choice of plans contributes to administrative costs, and reduces effectiveness of coverage.

 

While I'm at it, I will say that Social Security is, at its base, an INSURANCE program-- and insurance is not, even in a single instance, intended to be a wealth-building scheme.  Leave it alone!! 

doubt it.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 08:08.

Americans benefit from low-priced fatty foods that are horrible for us, and a society where nothing is within walking distance.

Europeans don't have those issues.

wow, david.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 12/18/2008 - 08:07.

yeah, you sound like you've got a winner there with your health care plan. I like competition, sure enough! Pity there's so much money floating around that it would never happen.

You disagree with my #2 paragraph?

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 12/17/2008 - 22:07.

Now to the second issue of transparency. As long as the public official sticks to the simple claim of achieving more transparency than was achieved before, a successful challenge would be hard to mount. But if a public official is making the claim of delivering full "transparency", they immediately open themselves up for a political attack from the opposition. That opposition not only has the right to mount such a political attack, but the political duty to do so in the strongest possible terms
 Which sentence don't you agree with?

#1.

 Now to the second issue of transparency. As long as the public official sticks to the simple claim of achieving more transparency than was achieved before, a successful challenge would be hard to mount.

Or #2?

 But if a public official is making the claim of delivering full "transparency", they immediately open themselves up for a political attack from the opposition. That opposition not only has the right to mount such a political attack, but the political duty to do so in the strongest possible terms. 

 ex animo


davidfarrar

  

 

#2

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Fri, 12/19/2008 - 17:24.

Semantics