I just saw Kerry’s Communications Director being interviewed. She blames Bush for the fact there is a shortage of flu vaccine. When asked what Kerry would have done differently, she said he would have found more vaccine. When pressed, she said something should have been done sooner.
Wow. That sounds like solid policy.
She also said that Bush is not protecting the health of the American people.
When did that become a function of government?
The really infuriating part, is that you can lay the lack of vaccine right on the feet of Shrillary Rodham. She authored a bill insuring “all children have the right to be vaccinated”, which sounds good, until you read the fine print, allowing huge legal ramifications if a child got sick from said vaccine. That is why American companies refuse to make it!
Comment by DagneyT — October 18, 2004 @ 7:46 am
Something was done sooner. Thanks to Hillary Clinton we now have major problems.
“Why are we relying upon a company out of England–or Canada–to provide our vaccines? Look no further than Hillary Clinton’s Vaccines for Children program.
From a 2003 report:
“The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week identified as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55 percent of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been “declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines.”
“The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Clinton’s Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the Children’s Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:
“Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S. market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number of critical shots.
“Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.”
Comment by CJ — October 18, 2004 @ 11:29 am
I was kind of surprised to hear my own father, typically a Republican voter and very fiscally conservative, tell me recently that he thinks providing full health care (for all citizens who can’t afford their own or obtain it through their employers) should be one of the top priorities of the federal government. Basically, he agrees with you, Bunker, in that the federal govt scope should be drastically reduced — with national defense and international commerce remaining at the top of the list — but he adds national health to that list, and that’s pretty much it.
I wonder if there are a lot of others like him… Maybe it’s in how people read “promote the general welfare”?
Personally, I think we can afford it and should do it, especially after we dismantle the IRS, EPA, and hundreds of other unnecessary federal agencies. I’d also let authority for civil rights lay within the federal jurisdiction, just to make sure we have a national, immutable set of standards for the freedom we represent.
Comment by Bogey — October 18, 2004 @ 1:10 pm
Promote the general welfare, not provide it. Having lived with government health care in the military, and seeing the problems my parents have with Medicare, I cannot ever envision wanting the government involved. Afford it? That’s the wrong take. We can afford anything we want.
Government health care is loss of freedom. Whether it starts out that way or not, you will soon be required to go to the doctor they assign you to. You will show up when they say, or lose your place in line if you don’t.
Health care was much cheaper before insurance, and got worse with HMOs. HMOs, by the way, were the brainchild of Ted Kennedy and his advisors. Guess who now leads the pack in trying to disband them in favor of government health care.
I did a quick calculation after having a heart atack and stent implant. $40K. I checked the American Heart Association’s website, found out how many people had heart work done, and figured out the total annual cost–$1400 per year per person or $5600 per family of four. Now, add in every other malady known to man and tell me how much you are willing to pay. Then, get an Amendment.
The civil rights already are inclusive in the Constitution as a National Standard. Like many other things, they’ve sometimes been ignored by Congress.
Comment by Bunker — October 18, 2004 @ 4:48 pm
Well, “promote” has more than one meaning. Definitions 2a and 2b are both decent support for my argument. (Maybe the Constitution does need to be “interpreted” sometimes, huh?)
All semantic games aside, though, I don’t know if you gleaned from my first post that I wouldn’t want the government involved in my health care either — hell, not in a million years! That’s why I agree with my dad that we could probably find a way to work out a federal health care plan for citizens (and not illegals!) who can’t afford their own or obtain it through their employers. The rest of us would pay exactly zero into it.
For everyone who needs crappy service, long lines, less flexibility & choice, and government intrusion into their decisions, because they can’t get anything else at all, let ’em buy into the federal health care system at low-low premiums and get what they pay for. Basically, it’d just be another insurance company. The crappiest one, but a suitable last resort. (I don’t know enough about Medicaid to know if it sort of fills that role now, but I don’t think so, and Medicare is just for seniors, right?)
I know health care was cheaper before insurance came into play, but what do you suggest we do now that it’s here? Ban all health insurance?
True enough about civil rights being there at the federal level already, though… I was thinking more in terms of rewriting the entire Constitution, but you’re right in that simply following the one we already have would be a good start.
Comment by Bogey — October 18, 2004 @ 5:40 pm
I don’t know all there is to know about either Medicare or Medicaid. I just know that my dad had surgery today, and had to have a test done beforehand. The timing was crucial, or he had to go through the whole thing all over again to get scheduled.
I did the calculations for anyone who reads this, not just for you.
The “promote” has to be defined in the way it was when written. We can deconstruct everything, which is what many of our “representatives” tend to do, to make it fit our needs. That’s why I believe we need Constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court, not lawyers turned judges. Laws are interpreted through precedent. The Constitution should never be.
Comment by Bunker — October 18, 2004 @ 5:59 pm
What? In 1787 any given word could have only one meaning or connotation? Maybe we can’t go any further on this without a Constitutional scholar or etymologist, then. Miriam Webster’s etymology entry seems pretty straightforward, though: Middle English, from Latin promotus, past participle of promovEre, literally, to move forward, from pro- forward + movEre to move. Providing a viable, alternative health care option — for those who can’t get it any other way — still sounds like moving the general welfare forward to me. And the way I envision it (and this is personal, not related to any party’s or organization’s plans at all), it wouldn’t have to cost anyone else a thing, just the participants.
Huh? Why would I think they were done just for me in the first place? I’m not sure what I wrote that suggested that, but if there was anything, it was unintentional. If it was my question about what you propose we do now that insurance and HMOs have basically ruined health care, I meant that completely separate from your cost calculations… It was an honest “what the heck do YOU think we ought to do?” and nothing more than that. I’d actually like to hear it because I suspect it may sound even more sensible than (I’d like to consider) my own idea!
Now that you mention it, though I was confused by those calculations in your post because they seem to include all the folks who had heart work done, including the millions who’d had the work paid for by employer- or self-provided insurance, which doesn’t enter into the kind of gov’t assistance I’m talking about at all… but maybe you cited that to target specific Democratic party health plans more than the more general approach I’m trying to describe here.
All argument aside, on to what’s really important: CJ and I didn’t know grandpa R. was having surgery today! Is he alright? Sure hope so.
Comment by Bogey — October 18, 2004 @ 7:48 pm
I just didn’t want you to think I was arguing about cost when I mentioned the calculations.
That cost was considered as an average, as my case was probably about average for heart patients; Full-scale bypass being much more expensive, and in/out work being much cheaper. And it is based on all patients regardless of coverage.
The point I obviously didn’t make is that medical coverage provided by the government would cost far more than most people think.
Comment by Bunker — October 19, 2004 @ 5:31 am
I am just curious what level of heath care is required to say that “every American is covered.”
This is a disingenuous topic that is easily covered in sound bites and scare tactics (God, I hate saying that last phrase, as it’s been extremely played out). Does it mean everyone can get whatever care they think they are entitled to without worry?
It is always nice to be able to tell someone they will get the care they need. Pretty broad statement. New livers for chronic alcoholics? How many? One, two, three? Who decides?
How much time are doctors going to have to spend treating a higher influx of patients for minor cuts, bruises, and runny noses? It sounds like a flippant comment, but you should see the emergency rooms in military hospitals, the model of government-run health care. There are few people who actually need to be treated by a physician, but the doctors will see every one, and people who need care will spend more time there than in the lines they have now for flu shots.
So do we then go to a system where people are seen more often by nurse-practitioners? Sure, they can do a lot of things and most are very good at what they do. But they are not physicians, who have a lot more training and education. They could easily mis-diagnose a problem. Then what?
Is everyone entitled to any test, no matter the cost?
And two things will happen. Our taxes will have to be increased significantly to support all of the new people on any federal “special medical coverage plan,” and, since the government will cap the amount of money it will spend on certain medications, “big drug companies” will no longer come up with as many medical breakthroughs since their profit margins are reduced, thus keeping us from advancing in science the way we have in America for the last 50 years. Federally-funded research doesn’t produce that much.
I have military medical coverage, but I pay extra so my wife and son don’t have to. The system is broken. The provided health care is a nice benefit, but it is definitely not a model for efficiency.
Comment by Slice — October 19, 2004 @ 9:48 am