TPaw makes Politico in an article highlighting his VP hopes and ambitions.
“Even through the McCain campaign’s darkest days in 2007, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty remained a steadfast ally to the Arizona senator in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination…
… Taylor lavished praise on Pawlenty. “By far, he’s the strongest candidate” to serve as McCain’s running mate, she said.
“He’s a conservative, rock-n-roll Republican and is counterintuitive to the party stereotype that we’re old and rich,” says Taylor, who recalled visiting St. Paul and finding the governor jamming in his office to recording artist Bruce Springsteen. “He’s young and blue-collar.”
And, Taylor said, in a potential race against the 46-year-old Barack Obama, Pawlenty would be “as good as our party has for that [matchup].”
Methinks that Sara Taylor is smoking something. Something good, but something none the less.
More interesting than Republicans cooing and Democrats highlighting the Paw’s faux-populist appeal are conservatives who are unhappy with the Governor.
Another Minnesotan who has also clashed with Pawlenty, but from his right rather than his left, agrees.
“He’s got to stay more fiscally conservative now than he otherwise would,” says this conservative, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about his governor. “It’s great so far in that it keeps the governor more conservative than he otherwise may be.”
So Phil Krinkie is mentioned later in the article by name — so he’s my odds on pick to be the aforementioned anonymous conservative. But I’m opening the comments for your guesses: name the anonymous Conservative!
Loading ...
TPaw’s dad was a blue-collar truckdriver, but TPaw himself surely isn’t. Before becoming governor, he was a high-buck lawyer married to another lawyer.
So suddenly we frown upon class mobility? Wow.
And since when did you Democrats have a problem with lawyers? (Clinton, Obama, Edwards….)
Dan, you’re confused. The issue isn’t whether Democrats have a problem with lawyers. The issue is whether Timmy the Tool is a “blue-collar” kinda guy. And Linda pointed that out quite succinctly: he’s not. Don’t kid yourself — Timmy and his wife have been big-time power brokers (tools)for some time now. So don’t pretend that Timmy is all of a sudden a “man of the people.”
However, it would be interesting to have the national press sniffing around Timmy’s campaign finance irregularities:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200210/11_khoom_pawlenty/
and more:
http://www.pawlentyunplugged.com/ http://www.pawlentyunplugged.com/index_files/Page659.htm
It seems that Publius is trying to have it both ways. If TPaw is selected VP that is BAD. But if McCain DOESN’T pick TPAW…well that is BAD also.
Which is it?
Again, is mobility a bad thing? If Tim was from a wealthy family, you sure would be pointing that out. But he is self made and you seem to not like that either.
And when does someone stop becoming blue collar? If it is when they begin to gain a hint of power, then Amy Klobuchar, Tim Walz, Mike Cirisi, New York’s own Al Franken, and the late Paul Wellstone were no longer blue collar. They had gained way too much power and were part of the noble class, right? At least according to your standards.
You just cannot stand seeing a Republican being referred to as a person of the people.
When he uttered “welfare healthcare” he said all that was needed to dispell any myth about being a man of the people.
He was calling it like it is. We can fix our healthcare system without resorting to socialized medicine.
Having your healthcare decisions dictated by actuaries in Washington DC is no better than having them dictated by actuaries at an insurance company.
We need a system driven by the individual, and socialized medicine doesn’t come close to achieving that.
Pawlenty is in Grover Nordquist’s pocket. That will get him the nod to be the VP candidate for the radical right. DantheMan can have free market medical care anytime he wants it. Just decline heath coverage from your employer and pay all the costs out of your own pocket. Single payer health insurance is not socialized medicine, get your facts straight. The problem with conservatives on most life after birth issues is that they celebrate evil consequences as proof that the system works.
“Again, is mobility a bad thing?”
No, it isn’t. One of the great ironies of Pawlentyism is that some of the principal engines of that mobility are being taken away as a sop to the fiscal conservatives. Would the blue-collar kid from South St. Paul have gotten where he did without inexpensive college and law school tuition at a high-quality public university? Put another way, are the same possibilities for mobility going to be there for the blue-collar kid and his family facing $10,000 in college tuition every year?
I can’t figure out why McCain would want Pawlenty in the first place. The guy didn’t get 50 percent in either of his elections, which were against crappy DFL candidates. And what has he done as governor? Watch the economy go in the toilet? Have a bridge collapse?
Pawlenty lost any blue collar credential he might have had when he forced a 45 day bus strike in 2003 and put his boot in the neck of the transit union (and metro transit riders, including students, downtown workers, the blind and the poor).
Okay Rhus, I’ll bite. How is single payer not socialized medicine?
Dan, do you really think in such simplistic terms or do you just use the rhetoric for effect? The bridge collapse was the fault of every politician that decided their preferred spending or tax cuts was more important than bridge maintenance over the last 40 years. That includes mass transit and sports stadiums. Was Pawlenty part of it, sure but there are just as many, probably more, guilty DFLers.
Randy, you are using the weakest crutch of socialist. You claim that anybody who has used a publicly funded program cannot argue against further socialism. The fact is that people are forced to pay taxes, it isn’t a choice. Just because a person is forced to pay for something they don’t want doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get the product they paid for.
KH, I don’t blame Pawlenty for the bridge (or just Pawlenty) and that is why I said “have a bridge collapse” rather than something that blamed him. My point is that Minnesota has not done particularly well under Pawlenty. No one is saying “look what Pawlenty has done in Minnesota” becuase he really hasn’t done shit.
KH — single payer is not socialized medicine, because the providers are not government employees. The UK has socialized medicine, and the doctors and nurses work for the government. Canada has single payer which means the insurance is from the government, but the health care providers are employed by the private sector.
As for your response to me — no, a person who uses a government program certainly can argue against Bolshevism all he or she wants (just like Clarence Thomas is free to rail agaisnt racial quotas until he busts). My point is that it is inconsistent (at best) for folks like Governnor Pawlenty to point to their upward mobility as some kind of success story when they deny the means to that success to others.
Medicare is single payer and it’s very efficient.
Even Republicans I know with aging parents sing its praises. I’m sure they have no idea it was enacted by a Democrat.
Randy,
Your employer is person or company that writes the checks. If government is writing the checks for health care than it is socialized medicine. The term “single payer” was made up so those supporting socialized medicine had a new term to use. The mechanism in which health care is socialized could be direct, as in England, or indirect as in Canada. The fact that it is illegal to purchase private health insurance in Canada eliminates any pretense that it is not socialized medicine. The idea that the doctors and nurses in Canada are not employed by the government is simply not true since government is the one and only source of their income.
It is not inconstant to not support the programs you were forced to support. By that argument anybody who has paid taxes used in the war is inconstant when they say it was a mistake or that we should get out of Iraq. The idea that a person, Pawlenty or otherwise, is where they are because of a couple of factors that you pick is ridiculous. Maybe had his parents had lower taxes and been able to send him to an even better private school that got him into a better college that despite huge loans was worth it because he would have made even more money. All things are possible when we don’t need to use facts and can make up stories that support our beliefs instead.
Fair enough. Doctors would be independent. They would operate independently, getting paid by the monopoly State health insurance plan. They would be told what they were to be paid, told what services to perform, and told how to conduct business. 100% of their career would be devoted to keep the government agency happy in order to make a living.
Yep. Single payer is socialized medicine.
winsome - Medicare operates efficiently, but is not solvent and does not reimburse our healthcare providers enough to cover their costs. It is easy to be efficient if you have every intent of leaving someone else holding the bag, which is what Medicare does.
But I will grant you that in terms of administrative costs, Medicare has some traits that are positive.
I’m not arguing against some sort of Government-facilitate risk pool. I think there is some potential in that in order to create Universal coverage, which I am for.
But in order to not be a monopoly, or socialized medicine, it has to:
- Be optional for its citizens
- Be optional for its providers
- Allow the private sector to compete for its business
- Engage the private sector in administering the program on a competitive bid basis
- Allow for the healthcare providers to still operate in a private setting and not have it be considered the black market
Did you know the President of the Candadien Medical Association is the CEO of a black market healthcare provider up there? Not even part of the state-run system.
“Your employer is person or company that writes the checks. If government is writing the checks for health care than it is socialized medicine.”
So a doctor who accepts Medicare or Medicaid patients is a government employee? If I use a state-funded student loan to get an MBA at the University of St. Thomas, does that make that school a government institution?
“Maybe had his parents had lower taxes and been able to send him to an even better private school that got him into a better college that despite huge loans was worth it because he would have made even more money.”
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Governor Timmy is a product of public schools and public higher education, and was able to become quite wealthy as a result, even though he started from working class roots. To curse a system that didn’t make him wealthy enough is not so much inconsistent as it is weird.
Did you know the President of the Candadien Medical Association is the CEO of a black market healthcare provider up there?
Black Market has a very specific definition.
“illicit trade in goods or commodities in violation of official regulations; also : a place where such trade is carried on” (m-w.com)
It is not illegal to have an independent health clinic in Canada. It is not against official regulations.
Don’t play stupid word games, but thanks for commenting! Sean
Point taken. I won’t argue the definition of black market, but it is commonly referred to as such in research journals and other reliable literature.
Pawlenty for V.P.?
Isn’t Dan Quayle available?
Sean,
Stupid word games like using “single payer: in place of “socialized medicine”? You might be able to have an independent health clinic but the people cannot purchase their own insurance. It is kinda like saying it isn’t against regulations to own a car, you just can’t buy tires.
Randy,
Please note that I said “only source of income” when referring to medical professionals. As for your other examples there is without a doubt a good deal of control that comes with accepting government funds. St. Thomas gets paid by it’s students but the source of those funds could be anything. If a law were passed saying all college education must be paid for with federal loans that would have the affect of “socializing” colleges and universities because government would have complete control of their funding.
Socialism can happen in degrees based on the amount of funding controlled by the state and how vital that funding is for a groups operation. Single payer even defines itself in it’s name as 100% socialized medicine.
My Pawlenty story was just an example at how pointless it make up a story about how much Pawlenty benefited from the current system when you really don’t know if it is true. For all the evidence you or I have about Pawlenty he might have done better under a different system.
The fact is that our health care system royally sucks and is getting worse. Each year more and more people lose their health insurance, and those who have it keep having their co-pays raised and their coverage reduced.
And I don’t know if single payer or socialized medicine is the answer, but the free market sure it hell isn’t working.
Dan,
There is no free market in health care. Government regulation started the screw up decades ago when they unwittingly created incentives to attach health insurance to employment and have been trying to regulate themselves out of the hole with things like HMOs and the like ever since.
While I advocate providing health care of some sort to all citizens saying that our current system has anything to do with the free market is simply wrong. Hospitals in our state are even required by law to be “non-profit”, whatever that means.
“You might be able to have an independent health clinic but the people cannot purchase their own insurance.”
See, there are stupid word games and then there is “Making stuff up.”
This falls under the ‘making stuff up’ category.
It is currently legal and has been (for two, three?) years to own private health insurance in Canada — the previous rule was that you could not own health insurance that covered services covered by the state health care insurance.
As well, the majority of Canadians have supplemental health insurance through their employers (60% I think — it’s been a while — there is a good NE J of M article on the Canadian HC system) this coverage usually goes to optometry and other things that aren’t covered by the national plan, but now it can and does include all health care coverage.
And finally, your argument about can’t buying health insurance, the legal judgment that I referenced up there was specific to shit… I can’t remember… Quebec? BC? It was specific to a province. Sean
Fare point on the change of rules in Canada. I was not purposefully deceptive as I was not aware of the change. The fact that private insurance had previously not been allowed makes it hardly “making stuff up”. The fact that 60% of Canadians found it necessary in the short span of a few years to buy supplemental insurance is an interesting point. Private insurance is quite popular in England as well as I recall.
I believe this is the case you almost referenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec
See Sean, I’m a reasonable person knows being civil is possible when having these discussions. You don’t necessarily have to start off by being a complete prick.
KH, its stil private health insurance, and whatever you want to call it, it sucks and its getting worse. At some point it will get so bad that simply yelling “socialized medicine” is not enough to stop arguments for increased govenment involvement. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
One difference between a Republican and a Democrat:
A Republican sees this problem and wants to reform the free market system. A Democrat sees this problem and wants Government to take it over.
There are probably 100 ways to have a free market healthcare system. We let the wrong one evolve. It needs to change, yes. But not to a State-run system.
Dan, the real difference is that the Republican sees the free market as an end in itself. The Democrat sees government as a means to an end that is not being achieved by the free market. Big government for the sake of big government is not the goal.
Honestly, here is my perception of today’s Democrat philosophy:
Democrats view the free market as an experiment, but are constantly hovering over it so they can crush it if they see anything disagreeable to them. It is almost like they will begrudginly “let” the free market operate if they wish, but they really don’t have to and the free market better not screw up. They reluctantly say “ok - let’s see if the market can do our job better than we can.” If the free market makes a mistake, they swoosh in and take over. As they leave they mumble “we never should have let the free market try it.”
That, of course, is simplistic, it represents my view of the extreme wing (which is where most prominent candidates come from), and I might be flat out wrong.
But in much the way many lefties view us Republicans as someday wanting no taxes to pay (not true either), I see many left-wing Dems as being deeply distrustful, almost resentful, of any free market.
Just being honest.
I agree that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing but the fact remains that we do not currently hav e a free market system of any sort. Saying seems to place the blame on the market and fails to understand how much our current position is due to poorly designed regulations and past government involvement.
The system has to be fundamentally changed, I just want to make it better rather than worse. To do that we have to be honest about where we have been and what we advocate.
Personally I would suggest the following as a starting point. Create a system that requires all health insurance providers to sell a minimum plan, what that is TBD, that is available to anybody no matter what at a fixed price. The trickiest part will be determining a price for this basic plan. Detach insurance from employment by making all health care costs up to the price of that minimum plan tax deductible if paid for by an individual and not an employer. Then provide vouchers to those who meet income requirements to purchase the basic plan room whomever they choose.
Most people would likely purchase more than a basic plan which helps drive competition between insurers. The fact that even those on a basic plan could pick between providers would encourage insurers to work to make sure those people are satisfied. The key here is that the price set for the basic plan covered the real costs of providing care. We could start paying for this with a tax on plans above that of the minimum.
Having consumers that could potentially be on there rolls their entire lives would be a great incentive for insurers to focus on regular preventative care. The fact that most insurance is provided by employers is the core of our current problem. The provider who knows any particular individual will likely be with a different job and have different insurance in ten years has no incentive to provide preventative care to prevent problems for which they likely will not be responsible.
Single payer is a potential disaster if for no other reason than if it is designed poorly from the beginning or if it ends up being used for political reasons we could really make things worse. It also means that there is little to no recourse for those who receive bad service. If you only have one choice for health care or insurance there is nothing you can do when things go poorly and elections are not often of affective enough to help.
“provider who knows any particular individual will likely be with a different job and have different insurance in ten years has no incentive to provide preventative care….”
Ahh… and don’t forget the biggest perverse incentive of them all: You hit 65, you’re automatically on Medicare. Keep ‘em out of the operating room til then, and you’re off the hook!
KH - I like your plan. Look at the competitive rates that an insurer offers to a company of 50,000 people. Now replace that with a community of 50,000 people who are shopping against other insurers. You would see competitive pricing!
Also, let’s not forget that 1/2 of today’s healthcare market is government-run. Medicare, Medicaid, VA account for that much.
Doesn’t that mean that they are causing 1/2 the problem?
I don’t know what to tell you guys. Canada and a lot of European countries have state run plans. Everyone has coverage and they do it much cheaper that we do. Medicare and the VA system are much more efficient than private insurance here. Sure, there are complaints, but the level of satisfaction with the health systems is much higher there, and statistically, those countries are much healthier than ours. I know it burns your asses that your money goes to the government in taxes rather than to health insurers, but under a single payer plan, you would end up with more money in your pocket.
“but under a single payer plan, you would end up with more money in your pocket.”
Wrong.
And you were making such a nice point up until that statement.
“Medicare and the VA system are much more efficient than private insurance here”
It doesn’t matter that they are efficient (on paper) if the reimbursement doesn’t even cover the cost of care!!!! Are you suggesting that we have an entire healthcare system that doesn’t cover the costs of hospitals, doctors, drugmakers, dentists, etc.?
Adjust the reimbursement rates up to the point where they actually pay a fair, breakeven price for the actual cost of care. Then lets see if it actually saves the system money.
Let’s see how the nurses Unions feel about cutting the nursing salaries. I’m guessing they want the type of government healthcare that magically preserves those salaries.
Pure free market capitalism is economic Darwinism. This leads to monopolies and cartels that maximizes profits for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. While this may be a good way to mine coal or drill for oil, explain how it could make health care better. If you can’t afford insurance now, how is making it a little cheaper (if you can) through competition going too make it better.
And then how in the f@%# can I tell if Dr. A’s service and prices are better than Dr. B’s, through watching ads on TV? That’s worked so well on drug prices and access.
How is State-run healthcare not also a monopoly or a cartel?
The difference is that a business monopoly leader is vilified, while a government monopoly leader is glorified.
DanTheMan:
1) If the reimbursement rates are too low that the doctors and nurses won’t work, then raise them. Again, Canada and most of Europe manages to make this work.
2) As far as out-of-pocket costs in public vs. private systems:
“In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html
(Its Krugman, who probably isn’t your favorite, but I am just using
the numbers, not his analysis.)
We spend more than twice as much, have worse health, and still can’t come close to covering everyone? Not good.
3) As far as vilifying business leaders, how many hundreds of millions of dollars did Wiliam McGuire get paid, even after he had to give money back. That was money earned by jacking up my co-pays and denying treatments. How do you defend something like that?
McGuire made about 85% of his wealth from stock options, not salary. In other words, he was taking his money from Wall Street investors, not so much from you as an insured person.
But I think he made more money that he deserved to.
The US invests the most in medical technology, R&D, and “non-medical” care such as dentistry. Are you willing to scale back on all that? If so, then maybe we can get our costs in line with those countries you mention. True, we don’t need as much care as we seek out, and that is a big reason our costs are high. But who is going to make the decision to ration? Washington?
“1) If the reimbursement rates are too low that the doctors and nurses won’t work, then raise them. Again, Canada and most of Europe manages to make this work.”
i.e. “if you aren’t taxing Americans enough for this new healthcare system, then just tax them more”
It sounds SO simple when you say it that way!!
I agree that a pure free market is very similar to economic Darwinism which I guess makes socialism akin to economic creationism. I think I know which side of that argument I want to be on. Besides, nobody is advocating a pure market system. Even I with my libertarian leaning beliefs don’t think that method would provide the best result when it comes to health-care. McGuire is as much the result of regulations that have eliminated the consumers roll in health care as any free market pressures.
The system we have now is the worst of both socialism and capitalism. We have health care where the market has been so perverted by regulation that the basic incentive structure to provide a quality and efficient product is gone. At the same time the protections that are most important for the government to provide regarding health care, that of providing to those who truly can’t afford care, do not exist. I think we need to reverse the equation.
DanTheMan is correct when he talks about how much of the worldwide medical development happens in the U.S because it is one of the few remaining places companies can make a profit. We are not only paying for the providers cost of producing what we consume but also a good deal of the R&D costs. Countries in Europe and Canada have used price controls to eliminate that necessary profit for many companies. The McGuire payment is ugly but even that amount is insignificant in the total cost of health care.
Our system is terribly inefficient and we can do better. I do think that it is important to realize though that our current set of problems in not due to a free market in health care and that the picture in other countries is not as pretty as it seems. I really do not like the idea if increasing the current percentage of people being employed by some level of government from the current 25% to what would likely be well over 30%.
“What about medical research?
Much current medical research is publicly-financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. A great deal of drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in when it comes to marketing successful new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. All the expensive clinical trials were conducted with government money. When it was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company. (This is a controversial practice because it means pharmaceutical companies enjoy significant profits on the back of taxpayer-financed research.)
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries that have national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The new treatment to cure juvenile diabetics by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
It is also important to note that studies show that the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas with high HMO penetration.” http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#medical_research
Dantheman says — It doesn’t matter that they are efficient (on paper) if the reimbursement doesn’t even cover the cost of care!!!! Are you suggesting that we have an entire healthcare system that doesn’t cover the costs of hospitals, doctors, drugmakers, dentists, etc.?
No, Dan, it isn’t the COSTS that are the problem, it’s the PROFITS in health care. Like the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in stock options, salaries and bonues to health care executives like William McGuire and Mrs. Matt Entenza.
Dan — Adjust the reimbursement rates up to the point where they actually pay a fair, breakeven price for the actual cost of care. Then lets see if it actually saves the system money.
“Fair, breakeven price?” Is that why health care execs are rolling in compensation and drug companies are making record profits under your free-market system?
Dan — Let’s see how the nurses Unions feel about cutting the nursing salaries. I’m guessing they want the type of government healthcare that magically preserves those salaries.
Once again, Dan, you’ve created a phony straw man. It’s not the nurses’ salaries that are the problem, it’s the William McGuires’ and Mrs. Matt Entenzas’ and the drug company profits.
Does Entenza’s wife have to pay any of her money back, or was that just McGuire? Either way, that’s just dirty money.
I know you resent anyone making so much money. McGuire made alot of money. Maybe too much. But I don’t care. It didn’t come from patients, as simpletons seem to argue. It came from Wall Street.
One of my fundemental problems with liberal democrats is that they like Government to be able to decide when someone is “too rich”. How dangerous is that philosophy??? Scary.
So let’s take McGuire and his insurance company (which happens to be a provider of thousands of well-paying jobs in our region) and others like it away. Pretend it isn’t there. You know what? Huge problem. Because those insurance company patients are the only place where hospitals, doctors, etc. can cover their costs.
If Medicare and Medicaid were on the hook for actually paying for the cost of care their patients use, we would need huge tax increases just for doctors, nurses, lab techs, hospitals, etc. to breakeven. Huge!
First, the majority of the cost difference between our health care and that of other countries is NOT the bonuses and pay for top executives. While that may make up a certain percentage it is by no means the fundamental problem. Claiming it is the primary issue is dishonest or ignorant. If Democrats are truly concerned with this they may want to start by refunding the $600,000 plus that the Entenzas donated to the DFL caucus and the many thousands more they have doled out to candidates.
As for research goes the link Dan posted may be true but it avoids a very important point. While “much” of the funding for research comes through government “much” is not all or even a majority. The potential of creating a system that eliminates the profit incentive that drives a majority of research funds will be a disaster in the long term. The examples of individual accomplishments of research in other countries doesn’t mean much unless we can find a source that can put things into context. We would have to know the total value of medical developments by country and dollars spent. It would also be important to know if countries with socialized health care systems include all research dollars in their medical costs. The HMO fact is also not an argument for government care as HMOs are a system created by government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973
I don’t have a problem with people making money. I have a problem with the way McGuire and Entenza’s wife made money. While the money did come from stock options (generated by fraudulent financial reporting) the underlying business that that drives the stock price makes money comes from screwing patients. Every cancer treatment denied is more profit. No thanks.
Ask you doctor what he or she thinks about HMOs next time you go in. The doctors are getting screwed too, and they certainly don’t like to see their patients getting screwed.
If I were running for office, I wouldn’t take the Entenzas money.
Dan,
You are correct about HMOs and correct to a point about how health insurers make money. I think it brings up a concern with how a single payer system might work. Imagine what would happen as politicians worried about getting elected created health care policy that determined how much care is provided. They start to figure out ways in which they can avoid raising taxes and increasing the salaries of doctor and nurse union constituents. They would be highly tempted to manipulate definitions of “critical need” and reduce funding for research thereby selling out the long term to avoid short term pain. They could decide to close hospitals and clinics or increase the “acceptable” waiting periods for treatment. Politicians have done this with every other government program in history and there is no reason to think it would be any different now. Elected officials are even more removed from the pressure of those in need of health care than a highly paid executive. Politicians can do as they have always done and point fingers at the other party for a lack of progress and manipulate the data. At least if we maintain multiple providers there is some hope of holding them accountable.
“Ask you doctor what he or she thinks about HMOs next time you go in.”
While you’re at it, ask them what they think about Medicare, Medicaid, and VA coverage. The answer will not be rosy.