jasonblogz

Mr. Boortz has some things to say about health care reform (AKA, Obamacare, for those of you who go to Tea Parties and like to read Conservapedia), and they ain’t good.  I had no idea, for instance, that:

This has never been about health-care reform. This is not about improving the quality or delivery of health care. It is about one thing and one thing only: CONTROLLING your access to health care.

Is that so Mr. Boortz?  The whole reason why I want our nation’s health care system reformed is so that I can control other people’s access to health care?  Or perhaps I’m just misunderstanding you, maybe what you mean is that I myself am also brainwashed by the powerful politicians on Capitol Hill, or at least some of them, who have this weird desire to control my next check-up?  It can’t be because they are doing what a majority of the American people voted them in to do, which is to reform our current medical insurance system so that all people have access to quality, affordable medical care, or because they might have empathy (a word Republicans hate) for the millions currently who lack coverage and are unable to afford, in some cases, life saving treatments?  No.  It couldn’t be those things, they’re all just corrupt, power hungry politicians who go to bed at night dreaming of a socialist America.

The Democrat’s health-care “reform” has always been about making government more powerful and the people more dependent. Dependency begets weakness. Weakness begets tyrants.

Once again, Mr. Boortz believes the sole reason for using the government to do good is, in reality, because of an incredibly complex conspiracy being carried out by power hungry liberals intent on taking over the world!  When will this argument ever die?  Die argument!  Die!

Next Mr. Boortz pushes the tired, “politicians couldn’t survive in the free market so they became politicians” fallacy, which is a common argument made by libertarians and right wingers.

We are now going to witness politicians who would have no solid job prospects in the free market making decisions for physicians who went through seven or more years of post-graduate education. Now there’s some change you can believe in.

Don’t get me wrong, most of the time I’m not a fan of politicians anymore than the next guy, but I do respect the fact that to achieve the status of an elected member of Congress is no easy feat.  I’m also pretty sure that “United States Congressman” is probably considered, at least by most HR hiring managers, to be a plus on someone’s resume.  And to get there requires many of the same basic skills necessary to be successful in the private sector.  So even the politicians I think are morons, such as this person, this person, or even this person–there are still enough redeeming qualities about them to ensure some level of success in the free market.  My point here is that these members of congress aren’t just there because they can’t make it anywhere else, nor are they there in order to increase their potential to become future dictators of an American Socialist State.  But that’s what the anti-government conspiracy mongers like Boortz would love for you to believe.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that the sole motivation for health reform is so that Senators and members of Congress can sit around the table and “get off” on who gets treatment and who doesn’t, or whatever.  First of all, that sort of decision making would ultimately be handed down to panels of experts working for the government, not the members of Congress themselves (here I’m really referring to a public option, which it doesn’t look like we are going to get anyway, so point is sort of null and void).  Boortz calls these types of “panelists” “government bureaucrats”, but the same type of bureaucracy exists in the private sector, and guess what?  It’s more expensive!  Also, don’t forget that in the private sector at least $20 million generated by the hard work of those same bureaucrats must then be used to fully furnish a health insurance CEO’s Malibu mansion, rather than, say, going towards paying additional premiums so that more people can receive treatment.  Of course, the free marketeers will have you believe that this exorbitant pay is necessary to encourage smart risk takers to take risks, or to secure quality candidates.  In my opinion this is simply a blind notion left over from the 20th century, as if there isn’t anyone, AT ALL, out there capable and willing to hold the title of CEO for less money.  But regardless, that’s what they’ll have you believe, so believe it if you will.

Next Boortz attempts to scare us out of our compassion:

So, you’re convinced there is going to be no rationing under ObamaCare? Tell me something: Under ObamaCare, doctors are going to see cuts in Medicare payments. Some — perhaps many — will decide it’s time to retire.

While doctors run from ObamaCare, millions of new patients will be hunting down those who are left. These new patients, armed with their wonderful new health-care entitlement, will flood doctors’ offices at the first sign of a nasal drip or toenail fungus. There will be a finite amount of health care available, and the demand will expand exponentially.

Finally, we get to a point in his article that actually carries some weight.  With any big change, there will most likely be some obstacles along the way.  The key is how we react to those obstacles, not throwing up our hands in the air and giving up on progress all together.

Besides, the shortage of primary care physicians has been an ongoing problem, even before any health care reform bill has been inked by Obama.  Currently, most doctors are choosing higher paid “specialty” positions, because the system is setup to reimburse them more.  So maybe one of the solutions is providing incentives for Med School students to chose primary care rather than going the route of a “specialty care” physician.  The point being that Boortz’s doom and gloom scenario of an “exponential” increase in demand where there is a finite amount of supply is absurd.  Especially since we know how many people, roughly, are uninsured (it is not a mystery), and of those, not all of them are in need of medical attention RIGHT NOW, nor will they all suddenly have a desire to go and see the doctor simply because they have a nasal drip (he has no data to back this up, and even data existed, there is no reason that we should then give up on reforming the system).  I can’t tell you how much I avoid seeing the doctor at all costs, until it is absolutely necessary and I’m on the brink of death.  Most people I know are the same way.  One could argue the demographics of many of the uninsured are different, so thus, they may act differently as it relates to how and when they chose treatment.  But I’m not sure that it is established science as to how they will, in fact, act, nor should we let it stop us from doing the right thing.

So, it is correct that a “significant” number of people, in the millions, will need to be added into the system in a somewhat short period of time.  This will create stress on the system and there will no doubt be breakdowns, which are unavoidable in an imperfect world, and which Republicans will absolutely use as “proof” that universal health care was a failure.

The whole purpose of reform is to insure more people, but an “exponential” increase, in the sense that demand will grow “exponentially” without ever there being some proportional amount of increase in supply is, to put it nicely, mostly Boortz blowing hot air out of his ass in order to scare a point into you.  He certainly is not considering the possibility that there are alternative scenarios and solutions to this sort of a potential challenge.

Unless we are about to be blind sided by a massive influx of new and LEGAL immigrants (not going to happen) or American’s suddenly start having more children at an alarming rate, so that millions of unexpected people will be added to the system, we are for the most part somewhat sure of how many people there are who need coverage, and anything more is mostly speculation (especially how many of these people will suddenly decide to flood doctors offices).

The opportunity will lay in how we increase the finite supply to keep up with the additional demand (might I add, the demand is also finite, unless everyone decides to increase their medical needs infinitely).  This can be done, the question is how we choose to go about it. (such as increasing the number of people allowed into medical school each year, which is currently capped by the American Medical Association to stabilize doctor pay, and/or expanding the role of already capable medical professionals such as nurses and physicians assistants.)

We can also use the added pressure to find new, innovative ways to treat people that may not have been considered before.  This is were the free market can step in.  By developing new technologies to help our medical professionals do their jobs better and more efficiently.  The increased need for new doctors could also be a good reason to invest more money into science and biology in our public schools, especially the ones in areas where there is already a lack of supply, thus encouraging bright students from poor or rural communities to rise up and feel the need.  Since, I would speculate, students from those areas would be more likely to stay and take care of the community from which they grew up than students who come from other, more affluent parts of the country.

Boortz continues…

Go ahead, dream your no-rationing dream; then drop me a note to tell me how you feel the first time a bureaucrat tells you “sorry, we’re not going to cover that.” You do know that Medicare has a higher rate of rejected claims than those evil private sector health insurance companies, don’t you? Oh! You say you didn’t know that? Well, it’s a bit late in the game for you to be trying to get some education on this, don’t you think?

Mr. Boortz goes out of his way to make the point that there will be rationing in the new system, as if, first of all, those of us supporting reform aren’t already aware of that and, second of all, without acknowledging the insane amount of rationing that already exists in our free market health care system.

You see, Mr. Boortz, this isn’t about eliminating rationing altogether, rather, reform is geared towards improving how we ration and what gets rationed based on priority rather than ability to pay.  So, as in your examples, all those people suddenly deciding to show up to their local “Obamacare” doctor with toe nail fungus may have to wait a little longer, or maybe even a lot longer, to get treatment.  So there you go, rationing.  But what Mr. Boortz fails to point out is that the rationing is happening so that people with far more serious ailments, in some cases one’s that are life threatening, can be pushed to the front of the line.  The way our current system rations care is based on ones ability to pay.  Millions of people are rationed away from quality health care treatment everyday in the United States.  For example, an uninsured mother of 3 with breast cancer will get rationed care, while an otherwise healthy 26 year old with health insurance can get into a doctor as quickly as possible to overpay for his toenail fungus treatment.  Meanwhile, whatever overly expensive care that hypothetical mother of 3 does receive will most likely be paid for by our tax money, and thus, the average American tax payer gets ripped off in an attempt to do something good for that poor mother, all because we have the most expensive health care system in the world.

And finally

The private sector options were available. Insurance mandates could have been eliminated. Individuals could have been given the same tax breaks their employers received when buying a personal health insurance plan. People could have been allowed to band together in private associations to purchase health insurance in bulk. Limits on health savings accounts could have been expanded. No government agencies. No bureaucrats. Just the free market at work. Republicans offered amendments for all of these private-sector options. All were beaten down by Democrats.

OK.  So obviously what would you expect from a libertarian radio jockey but more of the same “tax cuts are good and government is bad” hype?  Yes.  Republicans did offer amendments, but only after Democrats forced their hand by pushing for the reform that the majority of Americans put them in office for in the first place.  Had Republicans gained a similar majority, does anyone actually believe we’d be talking about health care reform right now?  The answer is no, we wouldn’t, because that’s not what Republicans do.  Republicans are good at taking us into war, but they aren’t very good at thinking anywhere outside the box when it comes to solving actual domestic problems.

And last, Boortz ends with the predictable: “The party in power, and their leader, believe that America’s greatness comes from government.” I thought Boortz was supposed to be the intelligent version of Rush Limbaugh, but really, this article proves he is just another angry white guy with an unhealthy fetish for Ronald Reagan.