Media predictably revive conservative rhetoric of "socialized medicine" with Sebelius pick
SUMMARY: Reporting on President Obama's selection of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary, The New York Times and the Politico propagated the baseless conservative charges that the health care reform efforts of Obama and Sebelius amount to "socialized medicine." In fact, as PolitiFact.com has noted, the health care reform plan Obama proposed in 2008 "keeps the free-market health care system intact," while a plan that Sebelius advocated as Kansas governor pointed to expanding access to private health insurance.
Reporting on President Obama's selection of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to serve as Health and Human Services secretary, both The New York Times and the Politico propagated the baseless conservative charges that the health care reform efforts of Obama and Sebelius amount to "socialized medicine." The Politico's Martin Kady wrote in a March 2 post to The Huddle blog that the Republican National Committee "rolled out its talking points" suggesting that Sebelius "will try to pull off a $1 trillion socialized medicine plan as secretary of Health and Human Services." Additionally, in a March 1 article, the Times uncritically repeated conservatives' charges that Sebelius is "an advocate of 'socialized medicine' -- or 'Hillarycare,' as Melvin Neufeld, who was [Kansas] House speaker at the time, put it." Neither article noted that, in fact, neither Obama nor Sebelius has proposed a plan for socialized medicine.
As Media Matters for America has documented, the health care reform plan Obama proposed during the 2008 presidential campaign is not tantamount to "socialized medicine" -- a false charge lobbed by former Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Indeed, as the Times noted in a May 3, 2008, article, McCain repeatedly "inaccurately described the Democrats' health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine." The article quoted McCain claiming that Obama favors a "government massive intervention and takeover of health care in America," writing that McCain's "suggestion is incorrect." Additionally, PolitiFact.com has noted that "Obama's plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a goverment-run [sic] program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries."
Similarly, the health care reform proposals Sebelius has advocated during her tenure as Kansas governor do not amount to "socialized medicine." For instance, in calling for health care reform in her 2008 State of the State address, Sebelius touted a plan promulgated by the Kansas Health Policy Authority, a group "[t]asked with a mission to develop and maintain a coordinated health policy agenda." That plan, updated January 30, 2008, pointed to expanding access to private health insurance, noting, for instance, that "[o]ne of the health insurance reform policy options would pay for private insurance coverage for adults without children who make less than $10,210 a year" [emphasis added].
From The New York Times' March 1 article, "Obama Pick Gets a 2nd
Chance on Health Care" by Kevin Sack:
In her 2007 State of the State address, Ms. Sebelius urged lawmakers to "commit ourselves to universal coverage." Though she said little about how to achieve that, Republicans tarred her as an advocate of "socialized medicine" -- or "Hillarycare," as Melvin Neufeld, who was House speaker at the time, put it.
From Kady's March 2 post to Politico's The Huddle blog, "Spinning Sebelius":
The Republican National Committee rolled out its talking points early Monday morning, portraying Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as a tax-and-spend, anti-business governor who will try to pull off a $1 trillion socialized medicine plan as secretary of Health and Human Services.
I wish it was socialized medicine. I was never that crazy about Obama's healthcare proposals when he was running but they were a lot better than nothing which was basically what McCain was proposing.
I agree. It's time to dump this charade and just go all in for national coverage. 'Course, we'll have to find someplace to put those darn insurance companies' employees once they go out of business. I suggest on a nice warm grate for a while.
We can put them to work building solar panels.
I hear ACORN is going to be hiring...gotta spend that $5 billion, you know. ;>)
Or maybe they could work on that high speed rail line from Disneyland to Vegas. :)
Or distribute condoms to salt marsh harvest mice... ;>)
For some reason, "Wee Willy Winky" just popped into my head.
well why not get them to do their work they are doing now but doing it for the governement. to me it would make sense to tap tha pool of people.
I know. I menitoned government provide health-care in a very non-partisan context to a guy from Ford Motor Co. the other day [I was just mentioning how the Japanese auto-makers have that advatage over US auto-makers] in a response to his complaining (legitimately) about how LOUSY his insurance coverage is! And he goes onto say how the gov't "taking it over" would be the worst mistake ever, big disaster. (huh?!) THIS FROM A GUY WHO'S COMPLAINING ABOUT HIS LOUSY HEALTH COVERAGE???!!! When are we going to WAKE UP, kick the conservatives to the curb and just drag them KICKING AND SCREAMING in to the 21st century?!
Oh goody, instead of Socialized Medicine, which has been adopted by pretty much every other enlightened nation on Earth, we get to keep the free-market health care system we have now, which costs far more and provides crappy coverage, unless you are rich.
We can all breathe more easily now.
Going to the dentist is not what it used to be for me. I've been going to the same dentist for about 25 years now. It's a small operation run by a married couple who later brought on their daughter as a hygenist. What's been different over the past few years is how the dentist's wife spends her time during my visits while the daughter cleans my teeth. She's always in the office next door on the phone with insurance companies constantly working on behalf of their patients trying to sort out why benefits are being denied or what part of the paperwork was not completed to the last minute detail.
My health insurance doesn't cover dental cleanings- so it costs me $150 out of pocket whenever I go to the dentist.
My health insurance no longer covers Allegra for my allergies, so I have to pay $70 per bottle, again out of my own pocket, or $25 for Zyrtec, the closest over-the-counter equivalent. Meanwhile, I'm paying for more and more for health insurance through my employer for less and less coverage.
Our system is broken. There's nothing "radical" about Socialized Medicine, unless the Metric System is also "radical." It's been used all over the world. It WORKS. What are we waiting for?
I don't care what it's called...I just want something that's affordable and works to everyone's benefit so that no one in this great country of ours has to go without proper health care. I don't care if it's called Communist Medicine...
I agree jjamele2880. I have a chronic health condition and having no insurance is a terrible feeling.
Socialized Medicine and the Metric System are also integral parts of our military. I guess we have a "radical" military.
I had a root canal last year and it cost me $500 out of pocket. The dentist tried all she could to get the insurance company to pay the entire cost but they wouldn't budge. It's frickin ridiculous.
That's why more people are doing it the old-fashioned way-- just pulling the tooth.
Of course, this leads to surrounding loss of even more teeth, but hey-- we're America! You're on your own.
ask your dentist for a real flouride toothpaste. not something you buy in the store. use a small amount and don't eat or drink for a few minutes after. it all but eliminates cavities. [i'll send my bill]
since when are you a dentist
If Obama is going into healthcare reform with single payer off the table, he is not at all serious about the subject. I fear we are doomed never to have healthcare for all.
I get a kick out of the Righties throwing the 'socialized medicine' moniker around to scare everyone. Uh, Obama won the election, in large part, on his promise to bring 'affordable' healthcare to all. I think the American public is totally ready for 'socialized medicine'
This is the CONSERVATIVE BUZZWORD TO SCARE EVERYONE NOW. Anything they dont like that OBAMA is doing they all scream SOCIALISM. They are nothing but a bunch of jerks.
It's not like they were gonna win seats in the next election on issues, right? Heck, this weekend at CPAC Rush told his adoring fans that the republican party should ignore gingrich and not look for better issues! The fuhrer has spoken, fall in line!
And, now, even Michael Steele has been forced to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for his impertenence. I am, at the moment, still laughing out loud at that one... ;>)
SNOOPY, I like that term ,THE FUHRER, It kind of suits him.
More like Hermann Goering...in girth. ;>)
IRONY, No problem with that. Anyway LIMBAUGH is a pathetic excuse for a human being. (if he even is human).
i'm not sure i support any more piecemeal tinkering with the system we have. there is just way too much going to the insurance companies. i don't think we can cover everything, there are just too many procedures now that are vastly expensive for little return. is chemo worth the cost for someone projected to live for a few months because of it? is a heart transplant for a seventy year old in poor health worth it? what is probably most practical is minimum coverage for the basics, more expensive procedures based on the condition and life expectancy of the patient, and private policies if you want more.
Are you pointing out the problem with our current for-profit sytem in an ironic/sarcastic way, or do you just have no soul and deserve to get a expensive disease next week, so you can die after a a long time of suffering in pain, with no sympthy from your insurance company or your fellow greedy conservative bastards who rather save a couple hundered a year on taxes than provide people with the care they NEED.
Your either a brilliant satirist or a complete and utter bastard.
i'm not quite sure what your complaint is? i think i just quite clearly said that too much money is going to the insurance companies bottom line. so i'm advocating that we go to a single payer system that will give minimum coverage for everyone, but we will have to make decisions that some money is not well spent. specifically, i mentioned something like chemo that can cost tens of thousands of dollars when there is no hope for living more than a few months at most. obviously, i'm saying we spend the money if the person has a chance at recovery and living a norman life.
Other countries that have full coverage don't have that concern. I asure you that can be worked out.The money saved from inefficent administration costs will offset quite alot. Just look at the difference in cost of administration between medicade and medicare compaired to private insurance companies.Another worry I hear is that the government will be dictating which doctors and procedures are allowed. Isn't that what your insurance company now does?I live in Canada and no one has ever told me who I could or could not go to. We have clinics all over the place that you just walk in and show your card to get service. Do I have to wait some times. Sure. So what.They are always there for me when I need them.I don't have to fight or argue or get pre cleared. Do not be afraid of socialized medicine.There is no problem with it that can't be fixed.I can sleep at night knowing that my government is there for me and my children like they should be. I preferr to call it Civilized Medicine.I could never afford the kind of money you pay in the US.
"Another worry I hear is that the government will be dictating which doctors and procedures are allowed. Isn't that what your insurance company now does?"
That's what I've been saying since that particular idea (which incidentaly isn't in the proposed legislation) was floated by the right a couple of weeks ago.
I lived in Canada, British Columbia. Had my second heart surgery there in fact. The other three heart surgeries were done in the U. S. All 4 of them were done professionally. The big difference is that I owed thousands and thousands of dollars to the surgeons, the heart specialists and the hospital for the surgerys done in Hawaii, Texas and Arizona. If you have not been to Canada to live, you cannot even understand how full medical insurance reduces medical costs. In fact, people can see their doctors much earlier when they have some medical problem, thus reducing the amount of acute problems that occur when necessary medical care is postponed and finally those people show up in the Emergency Rooms with very advanced problems and entering the medical care grid at the most expensive point.. I have experienced both types of care and all were very good but the care I got in US bankrupted me twice. I had finished paying for one surgery about 2 months before I had to have the next expensive heart surgery. Bring on universal medical care and it will reduce medical costs. That has been proven by Canada and several other countries.
Thank you, marizjj2970. You have described the perfect difference in health care in a "socialized" country and us. All those godless, communist Canadians are sure payin' for it, by golly. We have been falling for this "free market" BS for far too long.
Does the term "free market" mean "free to exploit"?
THAT'S the problem with free-market principals being applied to health care. People's "demand curves" (remember your microeconomics now) are essentially flat. They do not increase or decrease w ith price, because when the alternative is A LONG, PAINFUL DEATH, there's really no amount of money that will lead you to choose that alternative. So "Supply and Demand" goes catywompus because there's no reasonable altervative to keep the "demand curve" in check. And THAT means that hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, insurance co's, etc... could really charge whatever they want, without being subject the typical laws governing demand and price. The only thing that limits the price is the TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY in the system. But the actual consumer is completely removed from the process and THAT is why "free-market principles" (supply, demand & competition) don't work here the way they do with so many other commodities.
Irony101
The Steele apology is cracking me up, too. He says he's the leader of the party, then he weakens his own authority by caving to some entertainer on the radio. "I didn't say what I was thinking" or similar wording. Pathetic and dishonest. I don't know if Steele realizes this, but blind opposition doesn't fit in with the national mood right now, so Limbaugh's message is not helpful to the cause. And what I really want to know is what sort of leverage Rush has over anyone. I would think Steele would get a lot more respect and credibility by sticking to his guns, because you can't let some egomaniacal blowhard run the party from a radio booth.
Brab, I would like to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for my previous remarks...perhaps I was not sufficiently articulate and my words were easily taken out of context. Rush is undeniably a great leader and I take full blame for my offensive remarks. I just hope and pray that Rush accepts my apology... ;>)
Why not? They let one run the party from the Oval Office for eight years.
NiceGuyEddie
"Your either a brilliant satirist or a complete and utter bastard."
I don't think what he said was particularly unreasonable. If we're going to have nationalized health care, we have to have some judgment in the system. My wife's stepfather was recently diagnosed with cancer of the brain, liver and lymph nodes. Treatment is not going to fix it, and he's been given a few months to live. Should he get chemotherapy anyway on the taxpayer's dime? I don't think you can burden the public with that sort of expense either. The word "need" becomes key there. Who needs treatment and who doesn't? Nobody wants to talk about what a human life is worth, but when you get into the business of covering medical costs there has to be some conception of that.
That's definitely a dilemma, and such ethical questions will remain no matter what system we end up with. I heard one talking head say that most of our healthcare expense comes near the end of life, which makes sense.
It does obliterate the "market forces" concept, since these choices cannot be made on cost factors alone. When the doctor tells you that your wife and baby will die if she doesn't have a c-section, who is going to take time to shop around for the best price?
Socialized medicine is just another Republican buzzword designed to scare the uninformed. If you think about it, private sector Health Insurance is the same thing, just in a Corporate microcosm. In essence, the healthy majority pays for the care of the unhealthy minority, which is precisely the concept conservatives claim to find so repulsive.
You can still have some "market forces" at play. The goverment can creat e a national insurance policy - one plan that EVERYONE would belong to. It would instruct insurance companies to reimburse at a level that guarentees a certain FLOOR (say, three doctors withing 50 miles (100 in rural areas) that will proviode a given procedure at no additinal cost to the patient. Given that framework, the world's best [whatever]-surgeon can still charge a premium, the difference to then be paid by the patient. (And of course the insurance co's would do their best to keep the cost of that FLOOR as low as possible, just as they do now.)
See how that works? I can choose form 1 of 3 "typical" doctors (all of whom would be qualified for what I'm looking for) and not pay a dime OR I can pay a small premium if I want the very best guy around (or anyone else of my own choosing.) He can charge more if he's really good, but he really can't gouge because he'd be in competition with the three other guys who are just taling the government check and not charging extra. The consumer has choice and those who charge extra would have to provide extra value to justify the cost. And in reality, MOST doctors would just take the check and be done with it - so it's unlikely that you only have three "free" doc's to choose from. Most would be "free" or close to it, just to keep the income stream coming in.
Anyone care to tell me why THAT wouldn;t work?
and that's exactly what i said, "minimum coverage for the basics". and i also said go for a private policy if you want more.
I won't debate the merits of our respective proposals without a more detailed description of the structure and guiding philosphy of each. I'm sure there are differences between what we'd like to see, but they're probably not as divergent as I originally though when I first read your post. I think I conlfated what you posted with something I'd just read somewhere else. So, I apologize for my angry rant, at least in as much as it was amied at you personally and your post.
Your example depends on the assumption that WE KNOW how long someone is going to live, and that we can't really treat them anyway. Now I'm very sorry to hear about your wife's stepfather. But you can put the cost argument aside in that case anyway because, as you said, treatment is not going to help, and (regretably)he has months to live regardless.
Now if we assume that is KNOWN, then the cost is mute because the treatment would be ineffective. But that must be decided on a case by case basis, and rarely is someone's life expectency a true KNOWN. (Did you think at the time that Magic Johnson would be alive, well and HEALTHY almost 20 years after contacting HIV?) And if given a certain state of the art treatment, 9 people die in 1 month anyway while just 1 goes on to live a long, relatively healthy life then YES. It's not only worth the cost but it's the actually very PURPOSE of the health care system in the first place. We don't have a shortage of resources in this country. Cost's are not going crasy because of a shortage of resources. They'r egoing crasy because of bad managment of those resources, and the fact that 40M unisured people don't get treated until their on DEATH'S DOOR as opposed to going in early (which they can't afford) and getting problems taken care of whne it's both curable AND cost-effective. Our current system DRIVES UP the costs you are refering to. So NO, I won't accept that argument when it comes form a supporter of our current system. I want doctors and patients making those decisions NOT insurance companies.
I draw the line thus: If we can make you better (which does not sound like the case in your example) then we WILL, and cost should NEVER be a issue FOR ANYONE. If we can cure what you got, then you have an inalienable right to the cure. Done. End of story. Take two and call me in the morning.
and the example brab gave is exactly the example i used. i said why pay for chemo for someone who will have "months" to live, and die anyway.
I know. I'm not sure what I was thinking about when I replied, but looking back it's obvious that I had conflated something I read somehwere else with your post. Please accept my sincere apology for my angry, over-reaction. It was definitely out of line.
Is it really on the tax payers dime? I guess it is but you could also say that private insurance coverage is on the other policy holders dime. I don't hear many people complaining that others should be denied treatment to keep their premiums down.
BOOM! Nailed it. There's NO difference, bu the conservatives fear change too much to realize this!
"God forbid that the day should ever come when, in the American mind, the thought of man as a 'consumer' shall submerge the old American thought of man as a creature of God, endowed with "unalienable rights."
- Benjamin Harrison, (R) 23rd President of the United States.
This is another BLATANT LIE. Want to see some REAL damage to our GDP? Screw around with our healthcare system. Go to Cuba those of you that cannot take care of yourself and get some o' that good healthcare your friend Michael Moore touts.
Just like the dems say that you do not have to fork over your healthcare records to the government. In one part of the bill, it does actually state that. However, go to another part of the bill and this is is a fine example of how democrats will get what they want either way. Doctors will have the onus on them. Doctors will be punished for not providing the records to the government in the form of withholding Medicare payments and charging them fees that will increase with time. Also, don't be elderly under this plan. The government will dictate the life benefit of the procedure. In other words, if you are 85 and need surgery, if the impact of the procedure will only extend your life 3 years you will not qualify for that procedure. Do the research journalists, editors, etc. I see so many errors here that it is not funny. This is flat out fraud and misinformation.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it...
NiceGuyEddie
"Your example depends on the assumption that WE KNOW how long someone is going to live, and that we can't really treat them anyway."
I'm not sure what needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis then, because theoretically miracles are always possible. Nothing is a 100% certainty until the person actually dies, right? I don't think anyone's really too far away from anyone else here, because when I say "judgment in the system" that means deciding things on a case-by-case basis.
I agree that if a cure is available that it should be given. Note that mefirst specifically mentioned a heart transplant a 70 year-old in poor health (which I take to mean even outside of the heart problems), not a professional athlete with a managable disease.
I'm not sure you get the jist of my original cirtism, of the original post.
We you seem to be sayin is that given limited resources and two patients, one with dire need and/or a good/uncertain change of recovery and another with moderate need and/or little/no chance of recovery, that we wouldgive the most attention to the former patient. WELL OF COURSE WE WOULD. But that's baisc triage, and economics has nothign to do with it.
My "utter bastard" comment was aimed at the idea that if a person only stands to make another $100,000 or so in their lifetime, that it might not be worth sepding $200,000 to save their life. (And saying, well he's 70, so maybe he's not worth saving, is essentially saying the same thing.) And that's the logical conclusion (the way I see it) of the original post. But as far I'm concerned one's economic potential should NEVER be considered when deciding to treat. Only (1) The patient's need and (2) the patient's prognosis. And these should only be GUIDING factors, not absoulte dictates.
As for the idea that this isn't exactly what mefirst described - if it's not then, what he decribed isn't all that profound. Most 70 year olds don't get heart transplants as it is, mainly BECAUSE the survivability rate would not be high, and the complications not worth the tradeoff. This won't change if we had gov't financed health care either, because it is not a COST issue. The COST shoulld not be the limiting factor. The decision is between giveing one guy 1 year to live or giving someone else 40. (OTH... if there were no shortage of viable hearts for transplant, then (assuming he accepts the risks/tradeoffs) I say, give it to him. Mainly because I wouldn't want a bunch of guys like you and mefrist making that decision for me a few years down the pike.) I'll pay for him, no problem, because HIS right to the best possible care is MY RIGHT to the best possible care.
We should not start treating health care like it's just another consumable.
could you quote anywhere i said anything like "if a person only stands to make another 100,000 or so in their lifetime, that it might not be worth spending 200,000 to save their life"? let me see the words. and i did not even rule out a heart transplant for 70 year olds [they do them at that age], i specifically mentioned "in poor health". maybe you need to read what i said.
You didn't. I'm not sure what I was thinking about when I replied, but looking back it's obvious that I had conflated something I read somehwere else with your post. Please accept my sincere apology for my angry, over-reaction. It was definitely out of line.
Shaggles
"Is it really on the tax payers dime? I guess it is but you could also say that private insurance coverage is on the other policy holders dime. I don't hear many people complaining that others should be denied treatment to keep their premiums down."
But people are denied treatment to keep profits up, of course. That's the difference between private insurance and nationalized health care, that profit isn't a motivation for the latter. If nationalized care can treat anything and everything without a problem, then that's fine. I'm just concerned about giving conservatives and insurance a stronger case for going back to our current system, since there's so much resistance already. There are few people who want nationalized health care more than I do, I just think there has to be some judgment involved.
People will judge it based on its effectiveness. If you cost-cut now, you will undercut it's effectiveness and ddom it to failure. Costs will be saved in the long-term. We should not so concerned with the costs this year or next. Success of such a program must be measured in COVERAGE, not COST.
"My "utter bastard" comment was aimed at the idea that if a person only stands to make another $100,000 or so in their lifetime, that it might not be worth sepding $200,000 to save their life. (And saying, well he's 70, so maybe he's not worth saving, is essentially saying the same thing.) And that's the logical conclusion (the way I see it) of the original post. But as far I'm concerned one's economic potential should NEVER be considered when deciding to treat. Only (1) The patient's need and (2) the patient's prognosis. And these should only be GUIDING factors, not absoulte dictates."
I didn't see that as regarding how much money that person would make in any way. I think that's an unfair assumption and not backed up by the post in question. A 70 year-old in poor health is in contrast to a 70 year-old in otherwise good health. I didn't see that as either one being employed any longer. I don't think anyone's saying anything should be absolute dictates either. It's all subjective, certainly, a matter of judgment.
You're probably right. Looking back, I think I can admit that I probably ascribed some sentiments to mefirst's post that weren't necessarily there. (I'm waffling a little, becuase I still believe that to be the logical conclusion of his post... but that IS just my own interpretation.) I'll stand by the rest of my posts, but maybe mefirst isn't an "utter bastard." ;)
uh no. it's not that they weren't "necessarily there". they weren't there, period, and there is no way any of the several things you said was a "logical conclusion" of what i said.
If I mistated or misrepresented your point then that's my mistake.
As for my logic... Well my argument is dependant on having the same interpretation as I did. If one were to see it as I did, then they'd see where I was going with it. If I've misinterpreted, then my argument is moot. Fair enough.
ok, then tell me what led you to the "logical conclusion" that i was saying something like if a person only is going to earn 100,000 then we needn't bother spending 200,000 on them. what words that i said could have led to that "interpretation"? or that i suggested that someone is not "worth saving" only because they're 70. had i made a statement that it's not worth treating a 70 year old and left it at that, you might have a case for your claim of misinterpretation, but i clearly did not say that. and as i pointed out, you agreed with the example brab gave about chemo, when that is exactly the scenario i described.
Yeah, I do owe you an apology. I've now read it several times and I'm not sure what was in your first post that got me so cheesed off, but I'm think ing that I read your while I had someone else's on my mind. But you're right. I concede. My reply was way out of line with what you said. I can admit it.
I apologize for my angry, overreaction.
i accept your apology.
glad you can see the difference brab, although everyone should be able to. i never suggested someone is not worth saving solely because they're 70.
NiceGuyEddie
"People will judge it based on its effectiveness. If you cost-cut now, you will undercut it's effectiveness and ddom it to failure. Costs will be saved in the long-term. We should not so concerned with the costs this year or next. Success of such a program must be measured in COVERAGE, not COST."
Cost is a factor of effectiveness. Coverage is the main concern, since too many people have little or no health care, but it's not as if the price tag has no relevance to the situation whatsoever.
We may be arguing sematics, but cost is a measure of EFFICIENCY.
To put it another way, have you ever heard about the triangle or GOOD, FAST and CHEAP? The trick is, you can ONLY HAVE TWO. Now we've got fast and cheap down pretty good, at least for those who can afford to play the game. But THAT'S where we sacrifice GOOD. WHen it comes to health care EFFECTIVENESS is meausre by GOOD and FAST. Efficiency by FAST and CHEAP. Besides, it is not inevitable that universal coverage will cost more. It's still more likely the opposite would be true.
NiceGuyEddie
"We may be arguing sematics, but cost is a measure of EFFICIENCY."
No, that's true. I understand where you're coming from on that.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has been vague about details of his healthcare reform efforts, but he provided a hint on Monday of one direction he could take -- community health centers.
As he announced the nominations of his two top health executives, Obama highlighted the allocation of $155 million to 126 community health centers as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package.
"These health centers will expand access to care by helping people in need -- many with no health insurance -- obtain access to comprehensive primary and preventive health care services," Obama told a news conference.
So if these Health Clinics are not a start to Socialized Mediciane, then what would you call it? If the government is paying the docs, government providing the care, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. This is the start of Socialized Medicine, the man is smart, start small clinics here and there, before you now it, there will be thousands.