This [health care reform] bill is, at this point, hideously unpopular. I'm pretty sure you've got a bunch of senators who would really, really love not to vote for it. Ultimately, the moderates had a very good alternative to negotiated agreement, and the progressives didn't, and that was crystal clear from Day 1. That meant the progressives were never, ever going to get very much. This was not a failure of political will or political skill. It was the manifestation of a political reality that has long been obvious to everyone who wasn't living in a fantasy world. If progressives decide that the lesson from this is that they haven't been sufficiently demanding and intransigent, they are going to find themselves about as popular with the rest of America as the Bush Republicans, and probably lose their party the House next year.
She's right about the fate of health care reform, although she doesn't have the faintest reason why. She thinks the nation doesn't want health care reform when it does, but she must know deep down that drug companies, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors didn't want national health care and that is why it didn't have a chance. Like many people of limited intelligence, McArdle thinks in terms of her people winning versus her enemy winning. The larger issue of the health of the nation and its citizens is far, far over her head.
5 comments:
It was the manifestation of a political reality that has long been obvious to everyone who wasn't living in a fantasy world.
I'll bet she wrote that without a hint of irony.
And now she thinks it's amusing because it is snowing in Copenhagen in the middle of December, presumably believing that's ironic. She's like those people who argue that global warming isn't real because it's cold in Alaska.
she must know deep down that drug companies, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors didn't want national health care
Well, the doctors and hospitals want single payer. Even at current Medicare reimbursement rates, single-payer would raise hospital profitability dramatically. It would increase doctor incomes AND increase the amount of time doctors get to spend with each patient.
Because single payer would eliminate the armies of people who do nothing but deal with private insurance paperwork.
My GP works 6 days a week, but only sees patients 4 days a week. The other 2 days (a full 30% of his time) is devoted to insurance paperwork. He also has five non-medical people on staff, three of whom do nothing but insurance paperwork.
Believe me, the vast majority of the medical profession would LOVE to get a single-payer system. The real mystery here is why businesses both large and small haven't been screaming for single payer.
Anonymous, I'll look into it some more.
CP--delusional people tend to wonder why everyone else is delusional.
I note today that the AMA has endorsed the Senate bill.
Why not, it seems like everyone but the taxpayer will benefit.
Post a Comment