Why Obama’s pipe dream might lead to his loss at the primaries

It seems that Senator Obama has a pipe dream of getting universal health care to everyone in six years. I don’t know who he’s kidding.
Let’s put it into perspective. Back in high school, the national debate category was health care. I can tell you that there was no one single school that won with universal health care as their objective. Even the holistic medicine argument won out over universal health care due to too many negatives and not enough positives to bolster the argument.
Move ahead a decade or so. Every single presidential election, health care has been on the table. When has ANY politician came through with universal health care? The actual costs of health care is already very high for the middle class. If you bring in universal health care, then who’s going to pay for it? The government through taxes? Wait a second, who gets hit by the taxes? It’s definitely not the poor, and historically the rich don’t get dinged. Gee. Middle class again. Not to mention the health care industry would revolt from the government control and health services would get very poor since private practice would not be sustainable anymore. Take a look at Canadian health care versus American health care. Who has it better overall and who has the universal coverage?
Truly, when will anyone learn? If you’re going to push these high promises every four years, someone’s bound to catch on. It has never happened with the Democrats, nor the Republicans. Unless you want to control the health care industry altogether.
Of course, it’s not like Senator Clinton isn’t off this bandwagon either.

  • “Take a look at Canadian health care versus American health care. Who has it better overall and who has the universal coverage?”
    There are metrics beyond cost, lifespan, and infant mortality, but by those standards the clear answer to your question would be “Canada (and a lot of other countries).”
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/30/business/31view.L.jpg

  • “Take a look at Canadian health care versus American health care. Who has it better overall and who has the universal coverage?”
    There are metrics beyond cost, lifespan, and infant mortality, but by those standards the clear answer to your question would be “Canada (and a lot of other countries).”
    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/30/business/31view.L.jpg

  • Heh. The only thing your chart tells me is that our government spends too much on itself. Little surprise.
    Every single relative of mine that lives in Canada (and that’s a whole lot) tells me that the health care sucks worse than the US. Outside of statistics. Every single one is middle class or better off. So the question is, will universal health care do anything for those charts? Historically speaking? No. Be it any party in power, never has spending been cut and programs improved.
    This also has to do with the inefficiencies of our government. I know personally of people hired in because they’re someone’s cousin/brother/wife/etc. instead of based on qualifications.
    If Obama wants to really change the way things work, then he has to start at the bottom, not at the top. It’s a plain indication for votes instead of how things work. In the end: Universal health care with the current state of government won’t be a boon on the vast majority of the American people, it’ll just be another burden.

  • darkmoon

    Heh. The only thing your chart tells me is that our government spends too much on itself. Little surprise.
    Every single relative of mine that lives in Canada (and that’s a whole lot) tells me that the health care sucks worse than the US. Outside of statistics. Every single one is middle class or better off. So the question is, will universal health care do anything for those charts? Historically speaking? No. Be it any party in power, never has spending been cut and programs improved.
    This also has to do with the inefficiencies of our government. I know personally of people hired in because they’re someone’s cousin/brother/wife/etc. instead of based on qualifications.
    If Obama wants to really change the way things work, then he has to start at the bottom, not at the top. It’s a plain indication for votes instead of how things work. In the end: Universal health care with the current state of government won’t be a boon on the vast majority of the American people, it’ll just be another burden.

  • Your quick dismissal of hard data on some key end-products of healthcare (life expectancy, infant mortality), as well as the brush off of the cost data, makes it hard to continue the conversation.
    I also have anecdotal reports about the Canadian system, and the French one, and so on, that are more positive.

  • Your quick dismissal of hard data on some key end-products of healthcare (life expectancy, infant mortality), as well as the brush off of the cost data, makes it hard to continue the conversation.
    I also have anecdotal reports about the Canadian system, and the French one, and so on, that are more positive.

  • You’re comparing smaller population patterns and then using a linear comparison. You can’t do that with human error.
    Statistics based on human error is on a simple scale: two-fold. 1) more error with more population. 2) error doesn’t rise linearly. With each error percentage, comes another rating of likelihood of error. It grows like a curve. Thus, your numbers being compared on a linear basis has no relevance until you compare error rate on a massive scale.
    The assumption made by the graph you were showing is that human error is a linear pattern, which it isn’t.
    Universal health care also means that you pay a lot more in taxes Try selling it that way to any American and see how much push-back you get. There’s a lot more to it than the simplistic numbers that was given by the NYT graph.

  • darkmoon

    You’re comparing smaller population patterns and then using a linear comparison. You can’t do that with human error.
    Statistics based on human error is on a simple scale: two-fold. 1) more error with more population. 2) error doesn’t rise linearly. With each error percentage, comes another rating of likelihood of error. It grows like a curve. Thus, your numbers being compared on a linear basis has no relevance until you compare error rate on a massive scale.
    The assumption made by the graph you were showing is that human error is a linear pattern, which it isn’t.
    Universal health care also means that you pay a lot more in taxes Try selling it that way to any American and see how much push-back you get. There’s a lot more to it than the simplistic numbers that was given by the NYT graph.

  • “Universal health care also means that you pay a lot more in taxes”
    no, that’s the defensive position of lobby influenced politicians. not all solutions to problems are regulated to tax increases for the middle class.
    more than 40 million americans go without healthcare coverage today. there’s a solution to every problem; we just need to stop politicizing and generalizing efforts.

  • “Universal health care also means that you pay a lot more in taxes”
    no, that’s the defensive position of lobby influenced politicians. not all solutions to problems are regulated to tax increases for the middle class.
    more than 40 million americans go without healthcare coverage today. there’s a solution to every problem; we just need to stop politicizing and generalizing efforts.

  • Name one single universal policy that the middle class doesn’t carry the weight for. In the world.
    There isn’t one. Since basically you assume that 60-70% of your middle constitutes as middle class.
    It’s plain mathematics. Not politics. Every single universal policy is driven by tax increases mainly because.. well, figure this out. government doesn’t have its own money.
    Sure there’s a solution, but there is no way to say that the middle class won’t get hit with effort. Unless you happen to start laying off people in government to compensate and start slashing program budgets and demanding more efficient use of money. And that doesn’t/will not ever happen. Government positions are pretty much as stable as you can get them these days compared to corporate America.

  • darkmoon

    Name one single universal policy that the middle class doesn’t carry the weight for. In the world.
    There isn’t one. Since basically you assume that 60-70% of your middle constitutes as middle class.
    It’s plain mathematics. Not politics. Every single universal policy is driven by tax increases mainly because.. well, figure this out. government doesn’t have its own money.
    Sure there’s a solution, but there is no way to say that the middle class won’t get hit with effort. Unless you happen to start laying off people in government to compensate and start slashing program budgets and demanding more efficient use of money. And that doesn’t/will not ever happen. Government positions are pretty much as stable as you can get them these days compared to corporate America.

  • I donno, but I believe the real reason we’ll never have universal health care is in-fact the Insurance Industry who besides having a giagantic lobby are also the biggest source from which the government borrows money.
    As for the quality of Universal Health care vs our current system– it’s been over ten years since any employeer offered me ANY health care during which time I’ve been hospitilized several times creating a cycle of debt from which I’ll never live long enough to escape. Every year as I grow older my medical expences get bigger, my drug bills increase and I run up more debt I will never live long enough to pay off. And during that time my actual wages keep going down.

  • I donno, but I believe the real reason we’ll never have universal health care is in-fact the Insurance Industry who besides having a giagantic lobby are also the biggest source from which the government borrows money.
    As for the quality of Universal Health care vs our current system– it’s been over ten years since any employeer offered me ANY health care during which time I’ve been hospitilized several times creating a cycle of debt from which I’ll never live long enough to escape. Every year as I grow older my medical expences get bigger, my drug bills increase and I run up more debt I will never live long enough to pay off. And during that time my actual wages keep going down.

  • Even if you got universal health care, your wages stay the same. Food or crappy coverage? I mean seriously. You figure that if BlueCross is selling individual coverage of BlueAdvantage for $120/month (I believe that’s what they advertised on the latest commercial) that’s $1440 a year. That’s not even BlueCross’ best coverage.
    So you figure by Sean’s numbers of 40 million not covered x $1440, would be equivalent to what you would need to cover everyone else. Who’s going to suck this coverage up? It’s not the rich for sure.

  • darkmoon

    Even if you got universal health care, your wages stay the same. Food or crappy coverage? I mean seriously. You figure that if BlueCross is selling individual coverage of BlueAdvantage for $120/month (I believe that’s what they advertised on the latest commercial) that’s $1440 a year. That’s not even BlueCross’ best coverage.
    So you figure by Sean’s numbers of 40 million not covered x $1440, would be equivalent to what you would need to cover everyone else. Who’s going to suck this coverage up? It’s not the rich for sure.

  • i didn’t say the middle class wouldn’t get “hit”, but by your own language, you’re telling me that the middle class will take the *brunt* of the hit.
    i don’t necessarily agree that has to be the case.
    so any politician who makes universal health care a serious priority for discovery — across the board, democrat or republican — won’t automatically lose my support.

  • i didn’t say the middle class wouldn’t get “hit”, but by your own language, you’re telling me that the middle class will take the *brunt* of the hit.
    i don’t necessarily agree that has to be the case.
    so any politician who makes universal health care a serious priority for discovery — across the board, democrat or republican — won’t automatically lose my support.

  • It’s a pipe dream. Anyone that plays that angle doesn’t live in reality.
    Historically proven fact. This issue shows up every 4 years, and has yet to ever be managed. Why? It’s a farce.
    If anything, Obama is going to get the: he’s too young “act” from most of the older and more hardcore politicos. Hillary is going to split votes for those that think women have a shot at the White House in this decade (which regardless of what I think of equality, she won’t get in there unless it’s a contest between perhaps two women). Truthfully, I think that Edwards has the best shot (of the people I know running).
    Rudy probably is the best shot on the other side of things, although it would be amusing if Powell ever went for the seat. I personally think Arnold would also have a shot, but alas, he’s not born here.
    Either case, making a big deal about universal health care has been a Democrat thing for a long time, and I’ve never seen it happen. Mainly because you propose tax raises and universal health care. People will scream bloody murder.

  • darkmoon

    It’s a pipe dream. Anyone that plays that angle doesn’t live in reality.
    Historically proven fact. This issue shows up every 4 years, and has yet to ever be managed. Why? It’s a farce.
    If anything, Obama is going to get the: he’s too young “act” from most of the older and more hardcore politicos. Hillary is going to split votes for those that think women have a shot at the White House in this decade (which regardless of what I think of equality, she won’t get in there unless it’s a contest between perhaps two women). Truthfully, I think that Edwards has the best shot (of the people I know running).
    Rudy probably is the best shot on the other side of things, although it would be amusing if Powell ever went for the seat. I personally think Arnold would also have a shot, but alas, he’s not born here.
    Either case, making a big deal about universal health care has been a Democrat thing for a long time, and I’ve never seen it happen. Mainly because you propose tax raises and universal health care. People will scream bloody murder.