- ‹ previous
- 327 of 2798
- next ›
Kent Conrad on Healthcare
This quote from Kent Conrad made the rounds of the blogosphere yesterday:
Let me just conclude for my progressive friends who believe that the only answer to getting costs under control and having universal coverage is by a government-run program. I urge my colleagues to read the book by T.R. Reid, "The Healing of America."
I had the chance to read it this weekend. He looks at the health-care systems around the world. And what he found is in many countries they have universal coverage. They contain costs effectively. They have high-quality outcomes, in fact higher than ours. They're not government-run systems in Germany, in Japan, in Switzerland, in France, in Belgium — all of them contain costs, have universal coverage, have very high quality care and yet are not government-run systems.
This has been sort of rattling around in my head ever since I saw it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what I wanted to say about it. But then I figured it out: it's completely, 100% batshit crazy. I mean, is this actually breaking news to Conrad after (excuse me a moment while I google) 22 years in the Senate? WTF?
Believe me: Conrad's "progressive friends" would be punch drunk with ecstacy if the United States adopted the healthcare system of (take your pick) Japan, France or Germany. It would be beyond our wildest dreams. Does Conrad really not know this? Did he only find out this weekend that those other countries have terrific healthcare systems that contain costs, provide universal coverage, and boast very high-quality care? What's going on?
Conrad
You ask: "Does Conrad really not know this? Did he only find out this weekend that those other countries have terrific healthcare systems that contain costs, provide universal coverage, and provide very high-quality care?"
Answer: No. The "new" element (maybe for him, but certainly for 99.9 percent of Americans) is "They're not government-run systems ... are not government-run systems."
Dumb and dumber
A lot of congresspeople are a lot dumber and uninformed than you think. Imagine how dumb a person could be and still win an election, then double that amount of stupidity. You have time to sit around all day reading to understand the issues, they spend half their days fundraising and the other half grandstanding at committee meetings. Yes, they have staffs that are supposed to explain these things for them, but those who don't care about the details never read even the two page executive summaries.
Conrad
Hmmm, let's see, North Dakota, was it ? Where did this idiot get educated ? How can he be sitting on a committee to reform health care and not have had his staff brief him on what else there is in the world ? Every time I read shit like this, it just makes me wonder about the creatures who run for office.
Without friends like these...
One suspects that when Kent Conrad addresses his "progressive friends who believe that the only answer to getting costs under control and having universal coverage is by a government-run program", he speaks to an empty chamber.
Another edition of . . .
"Did he only find out this weekend that those other countries have terrific healthcare systems that contain costs, provide universal coverage, and boast very high-quality care?"
Yes.
The xenophobia of Americans is jaw dropping. Remember, most Americans think we have the best health-care system in the world.
DOH!
"What's going on?" Politics....and so it goes.....
The problem with health care reform...
This is the real problem with health-care reform: it's dependent on votes by idiots like Conrad.
What he doesn't seem to
What he doesn't seem to realize is that that book flys in the face of the fact that we're number one.
I think you can relax, he's
I think you can relax, he's probably just making a rhetorical point. Throwing Reid's article out there is just a way to make it sound current. You have to remember, he's playing to some people who don't follow this stuff obsessively, and probably wouldn't know whether or not Japan's system is government-run.
it's called bullshit
Agreed, Conrad is just bullshitting. It means nothing.
Let's cut to the chase.
France's system is rated no 1. Let's use that one.
"One of America's best senators"
Conrad is on CNN right now. Graphic underneath says that Time magazine called him "one of America's best senators."
Faint praise indeed!
Not mutually exclusive
You know, it is possible that Senator Conrad is:
a) bullshitting the informed "progressive friends"
b) politicking for the uninformed, and
c) dumb as a rock.
Senators are expert multi-taskers.
The US should just adopt the
The US should just adopt the French health care model and end the debate.
Yes, Conrad seems to be dumb
Yes, Conrad seems to be dumb as a rock. I don't think there is any other explanation for this. He wouldn't put his foot in his mouth like this for any conceivable expediency.
Yet, I see this also as further evidence of problems with progressive messaging. We keep using terms like "public option", and we know what it means in the current debate, but lots of people assume what Conrad assumed. Making things totally explicit once in a while would help.
I would like to see a brief, concise list of bullet points (a cheat sheet) describing the areas of disagreement as well as the positions of the two (or three?) sides. Then send this to all members of congress and the press. Let all Democrats use the same message for a change on this important matter -- at least in describing the issues and dispelling the myths.
Hasn't Conrad reconfigured
Hasn't Conrad reconfigured the field of debate by moving the goal posts to their honest positions? He's saying that the systems in Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and France occupy down-the-middle, compromise ground, and that these systems would give us better health outcomes, for less money, without putting government in charge of health delivery.
Right on target.
well, it's about medicare
Conrad doesn't quite qualify yet, but he's building up his premature senility cred to avoid being denied in the future. Anyway, we all know Conrad is a slow reader. He probably got through the blurb, collapsed in an exhausted heap, and went forth for a long pork dinner to recuperate.
Kevin writes: *****Did he
Kevin writes: *****Did he only find out this weekend that those other countries have terrific healthcare systems that contain costs, provide universal coverage, and boast very high-quality care? What's going on?*****
What's going on is that you have a fairly conservative, rather budget-hawkish senator making non-nonsensical arguments BECAUSE HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT because A) he's well aware most of his constituents are not policy wonks and B) the media in the US doesn't hold public officials responsible for misleading or false information.
So, Conrad was essentially dog-whistling "no to a public option" by spinning utter BS.
As a former North Dakota
As a former North Dakota resident and a close political observer, I believe the following conclusions should be drawn from Conrad's statement:
1. Conrad is well-educated and knowledgeable. He was ND's insurance commissioner once upon a time and he knows these issues.
2. Conrad believes that his identity as a blue-dog is more advantageous to him that his identity as a Democrat. Appearing to smack progressives by criticizing "government-run health care" plays to this, politically.
3. Conrad is depending upon the rhetorical cluelessness of the media and the policy ignorance of the American public. The health care systems he names are indeed NOT "government run" health care. But they ARE "government-run insurance systems" funding privately provided health care.
The success of point 2 depends upon the gullibility assumed in point 3.
*****senator making
*****senator making non-nonsensical arguments*****
Er, that's should have been "nonsensical" as in, Conrad's spewing nonsense. Damn spell checker.
Kpav writes: *****As a
Kpav writes: *****As a former North Dakota resident and a close political observer, I believe the following conclusions should be drawn from Conrad's statement: 1. Conrad is well-educated and knowledgeable. He was ND's insurance commissioner once upon a time and he knows these issues. 2. Conrad believes that his identity as a blue-dog is more advantageous to him that his identity as a Democrat....*****
What Kpav said. I'd also add, in Conrad's defense, that he really DOES seem concerned about excessive borrowing, ie., he really is a deficit hawk. The problem is, because of his Blue Dog status, he's far more comfortable sticking it to the poor and middle class to achieve budgetary nirvana than he is raising taxes on the rich.
OK, OK, whatever, but we
OK, OK, whatever, but we still at least need his vote for cloture. Conrad does support a "public option," just one that is local instead of Federal. As with all the Blue Dogs, he's not really against a Federal public option as a matter of principle -- the House 3200 version requires operation on premiums-only, so it is essentially budget-neutral -- but only because with his constituency he's especially vulnerable to Republican attacks that he "voted for a Government takeover." He knows as well as Ted Kennedy did that it's no such thing, but getting that across is really difficult in a state inclined to believe what Fox News and Rush say.
So let's split the difference: a non-profit regional public option organized by related states (with start-up loans from U.S. Government). Five regional plans would each cover areas with populations the size of France. Regional plans would know their markets better, would negotiate more effectively. For bargaining with national providers, they can bargain jointly. That seems like plenty of bargaining clout to me.
With this, the Blue Dogs have succeeded in holding out against a "government takeover," while progressives have low-cost, non-profit public options available in the exchanges with bargaining power roughly equal (or better) than that of the Federal govrnment.
Catching up on things
Yeah! And what's all this about Jimmy Hoffa has gone missing?!?!
I think Conrad was simply
I think Conrad was simply trying to point out that not all universal-coverage systems rely exclusively on government-provided health insurance, as Canada does. Even many progressives believe incorrectly that most of the developed world has government-run health insurance.
That being said, the countries he cites have their private insurers under vastly tighter control than anything being considered in the US. In Germany and Japan they are not permitted to turn a profit. In France they are limited to supplemental care.
Only Switzerland comes even remotely close to the Baucus bill Conrad is championing, and even it makes Baucus look like an insurance company stooge. Oh wait...
Ilol'd
Yes. Yes, I did.
I'm all for the French or
I'm all for the French or German system, but Congress as usual has diarrhea of the pocketbook and refuses to address cost.
The primary difference between French and American costs is that French doctors and nurses make only half as much as their American equivalents. Address this sacred cow.
I often eat with a German-American who spends a lot of time in Germany and is familiar with both systems. He finds our large malpractice awards ridiculous. Another sacred cow.
That's what's wrong with Obamacare. He wants to keep our overpriced system, but add to it. Just doesn't add up. Computerized records are going to save trillions? Eliminating waste in Medicare? Eliminate waste first to demonstrate some credibility.
Speaking of sacred cows (and red herrings)...
Cutting malpractice awards would have a laughably small effect on overall health care costs in this country.
Laughably, depressingly small.
And it may - although there are arguments against it - have an unwanted chilling effect on the overall quality of our corps of practicing physicians; although I am fully willing to take the opposite stance for specific specialties (OB/GYN and anesthesia, primarily.)
But arguments for and against its validity must begin with the fact that it will have a TINY (if any) effect on overall costs, and end with the fact that it is used by so many as a replacement for talk about real health care reform. If you "reform" malpractice, I won't stand in your way, unless you begin to argue that it's helped regular Americans afford health care.
Why are you beating up on
Why are you beating up on Conrad? He is not a member of any Senate committee with direct health oversight and would not have had any particular reason to be up to speed on global health issues.
A comprehensive country-to-country comparison of health care systems has been hard to find. I've been looking for years - and I'm a librarian! THe closest I found was a book by (bioethicist) Daniel Callahan and Angela Wasunna - Medicine and the Market: Equity vs. Choice. But I recently read T. R. Reid's book and have been raving about it ever since.
It is the first book-length comparison of global health care systems aimed at the general reader. It is a clear, thorough, and highly readable description of the various ways that other advanced industrial democracies have achieved universal coverage. As a supporter of a single-payer system, I was surprised to learn that universal coverage is NOT dependent on "public" insurance programs (though if private insurance is used, basic coverage is always NON-PROFIT).
While Conrad was ham-handed in his endorsement of the book, he is publicizing one of the most important points of THE HEALING OF AMERICA - that there are many ways of achieving universal coverage - which I would say is the top priority of this current phase of health care reform.
If more people would read this book (and it is on best-seller lists), the health care reform effort would receive an ENORMOUS boost.
So, Mr. Drum, you have no
So, Mr. Drum, you have no problem with passing a bill without the "public option"? Conrad is talking to the liberals in the House who are holding the whole thing up by insisting any bill include that. If you wish to be consistent, let's hear you blast them.
Oh, and by the way? "WTF" makes you sound like a fifteen-year-old or a hipster. You get taken less seriously. Speak normally.