Thursday, August 20, 2009

Congressman Ross: Insuring the Uninsured Not Top Priority

So now a Democratic Congressman says insuring the uninsured is not the top priority in the health care "reform". On top of it, he claims it has never been the top priority.


When I saw the headline, I instantly recalled the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) being touted by the previous administration (including Congressional leaders like then-Senators Biden and Hillary Clinton) as the primary reason to go to war with Iraq. It was conveniently dropped after the U.S. was in Iraq, mostly because of the fact that they didn't exist.

But this time around, the pretext for pushing the "reform" is being dropped even before the "reform" becomes law.

Leading Blue Dog: Covering uninsured not top priority of health reform (8/20/09 The Hill's Blog Briefing Room)

"Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is "not what this healthcare reform debate is about."

"In making his comments, Ross, who is the centrist Blue Dogs' health reform point man, questioned one of the primary healthcare goals of the White House and Democratic leaders.

""That is a side benefit to healthcare reform and an important one," Ross told the Arkansas Educational Television Network. Instead, the fifth-term congressman said the bill should focus on "cost containment."

That must be news to both supporters and opponents. The health care "reform" has been sold as a way to insure 40 to 50 million Americans who do not have health insurance. (The number has crept up from initial 40 million or so to 50 million. Makes you wonder if it will be 60 million by the end of the recess, and 70 or 80 million by the time Congress start debating.)

The President himself have been harping on the point over and over, and presenting it as central to his "reform". You can read it here, here, and here.

For Congressman Ross, the deal breakers would be:

"Providing government subsides for abortions, coverage for illegal immigrants, rationing of care, and deficit increases comprised Ross' deal-breakers."

How he thinks cost containment is possible without rationing is a mystery to me. Maybe he simply means "without overt act of rationing". It will happen by default. And the rest, they are already happening or will happen also (particularly the last one). Congressman Ross is kidding himself if he thinks otherwise.

From ancient Rome onward, an effort to control/supress cost always results in disaster - runaway inflation, shortage, and black market. If I simply apply these outcome to the future health care, we will have costlier service we have less access of, and if we need treatment in a timely manner we will do what Canadians have been doing - we head south to Mexico (or further south like Costa Rica) for quality care that is provided promptly at less cost.


Post a Comment