Some blogger believes I “forgot” things; not mentioning things in a non-comprehensive list is not to have forgotten them. His title is also weird–I distinctly mention that there have been lawsuits, so his claim that they’ve not had them in 20 years is off. The article is here: http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/05/the-simpsons-20-years-of-lawsuitfree-funny.html
My touching tribute to Dom DeLuise (via my matchflick column) is here: http://www.matchflick.com/column/1946
Was watching last night’s Daily Show whilst doing yoga this morning. Newt Gingrich claimed that socialized medicine (aka universal healthcare) would be bad because bureaucrats would be making your healthcare decisions. He said the responsibility for your healthcare (and he seemed to imply fiscal as well) should be on you (and your consultations with your doctor).
My doctor and I do make decisions. But they all have to be approved by bureaucrats at the insurance company. Those bureaucrats were forced to take me, but if I were a freelance writer, I wouldn’t be able to get health insurance at all. Let’s not forget that other bureaucrats make my health care decisions at the law level–whether I can have medical marijuana, whether a doctor can use the word “abortion,” etc.
So there are three problems with Mr. Gingrich’s fear of bureaucrats.
1. He’s fine with a lot of laws about what my doctor can say or do. That’s government intervention in health care.
2. Bureaucrats completely run my health care. And the really bad thing is that they do so for profit, which means that they are not in any way motivated to make decisions based on what’s good for me or what’s medically better. They are motivated to deny coverage because that’s what happens in a profit-based system.
3. For all those without healthcare, they would love to have a bureaucrat deciding whether they can have their cancer treatment. Right now, there is no “decision” available to them. At least a bureaucrat might say yes.
Am sick of this “bureaucrat” scare tactic. WTF do they think we have now, if not bureaucrats? Who’s living in a place where all the decisions are made by you and your doctor?
Oh, wait, those people in countries with universal healthcare tend to have that freedom.
“2. Bureaucrats completely run my health care. And the really bad thing is that they do so for profit, which means that they are not in any way motivated to make decisions based on what’s good for me or what’s medically better. They are motivated to deny coverage because that’s what happens in a profit-based system.”
The math behind running an insurance company is staggering, and most people just don’t get that it is basically a bookie gambling on your bad fortune. If it was statistically likely that any individual would ever receive medical benefits in excess of his premiums then there would be no insurance industry. Decrying the actions of insurance company actuaries and adjusters because they are “profit motivated” is just senseless; your coverage is bought and paid for by healthy suckers, not some dildo in pinstripes.
Additionally, the efforts of a DiP following his company’s best interests is more likely to at least have a casual, even coincidental benefit for you than a DiP lobbyist or functionaire in Washington. Whose interests do you suppose politicans represent? Yours?
I think the people in Washington are in bed with the insurance industry and big pharma. And I believe universal healthcare will not solve that problem completely, but that it will save a lot of people’s lives.
I would rather use a tax system to take care of each other than a bookie bet that only takes care of a few.
I know you won’t agree, since you’re anti-tax.