Health Care Hubris Revisited

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) represents an upstate New York district, and he's intent on voting for a single payer (government health insurance) when it comes up for a vote, regardless of whether his constituents actually want it.

MASSA: I will vote for the single payer bill.

PARTICIPANT: Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?

MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.

You have to hand it to Massa for his honesty. He honestly doesn't care what his constituents want, only that he thinks he knows what is best for the nation, even as the Canadians are shifting away from the kind of system that President Obama and fellow Democrats are seeking.

That's better than Rep. Steve Rothman, (D-NJ), who has given conflicting answers when it comes to where he stands on Obamacare. He says that he doesn't want a Canadian or UK system, which is reassuring, but the bills being considered would push the nation precisely in that direction, and he's supporting the passage of health care reform, even as no one quite knows what the contents of said bill (H.R. 3200) might be.

Moreover, there is little evidence that single payer will actually result in higher quality of care even as it might increase the percentage of those covered by said care. There is little evidence that single payer will result in cost containment.

There is evidence that single payer results in rationing of care, which is not negotiable when the government is the one limiting thecare. There is evidence that single payer reduces quality of care. Those are the very things that Canada, the UK, and other nations with single payer are struggling with.

The Administration is doing its best to try and obfuscate the problems with single payer and what their ultimate intentions are. Other Democrats are realizing that meeting with constituents are troublesome for the questions being raised. In fact, many are going into hiding rather than attempting to communicate with their constituents about the nature of the very programs being considered by Congress.

That's because people realize the problems with government health care, starting with the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service, and how Medicare and Medicaid shortchanges hospitals and doctors in reimbursements to say nothing of the fraud that costs billions annually. Existing government health care programs are tens of billions in debt, and yet we want to rush headlong into change with limited debate as to the consequences of such massive changes that are barely read by members of Congress.

Democrats have to defend the health care proposals, and they're falling short, mainly because they can't sell anyone on the notion that they'll be able to keep their existing health care insurance beyond the expiration date on their existing policy (which occurs during the annual renewal period). The Democrats can't say how they'll be paying for this, or whether we'll be saving any money in the deal to increase the percentage of insured above 85%.

It's a legitimate question to query our political class as to how much this will cost the nation at a time when we can't afford major new entitlements, which always cost far more than their proponents envision.