Socialized medicine fails to impress

Prez Osama is fond of pointing out that the US Chamber of Commerce is on-board for socialized medicine. But it isn't.

Apparently the Chamber was invited to participate in the behind-closed-doors dealings by which legislation is created in the USA today. Apparently they agreed with legislators on some points and goals for "health care reform." However, in statements released yesterday -- as Osama was in Wisconsin touting their support -- the Chamber released several statements that show just the opposite.

Regarding a health care reform bill currently being considered in the Senate, the US Chamber of Commerce states in a news release:

Moses could change the Nile to run red, but we cannot wave a wand and create profits. The payments will come off the bottom line in some way such as lower wages and job loss and perhaps ultimately result in driving the employer out of business.

While there has been much focus on the so-called government public plan option, I believe, the issue of a new employer mandate, euphemistically called "play or pay," has largely been lost in the debate and in the press. This is highly ironic given that this is, let's be clear, a sweeping new burden on employers of unprecedented proportion in the benefits areas.

After meeting with stakeholders behind closed doors for nearly a year, the committee released a proposal that bears almost no resemblance to the points of consensus reached, which raises significant concerns to the employer community as a whole.

Rather than focusing on improving quality and lowering cost, the proposal centers on creating new burdens on America's job creators, significantly expanding public programs, and creating a new government-run insurance company.

I don't know. Does this sound like enthusiastic support or more like indignation and a sense of betrayal?

According to the US Chamber's full testimony (like the news release, this is available at http://www.uschamber.com/ look under the MEDIA tab), the bill in front of the Senate includes providing government-subsidized health insurance for families of four with incomes of up to $110,250 per year. Jeez, is this the new "poverty level"? Seems like most of America is doing awfully good.

Or maybe the Democrats are (still) trying to buy off the middle class. On the other hand, I would guess that any family of four making more than $110,250 per year would be expected to pay, and pay, and pay, and pay for this plan.

The Chamber's full statement notes:

Another concerning proposal is the creation of a new government-run health plan, euphemistically referred to as the “public option,” or brazenly referred to as “consumer driven.” Proponents say that this is necessary to “keep private insurers honest,” yet proposed market reforms should accomplish this goal without the creation of a new entitlement plan. Proponents claim that a government-run plan can compete on an equal playing field with private plans, but this would put the government in the position of being both a team owner and the referee; inevitably the government would move to give unfair advantages to the “public option,” just as they are considering doing now with the public financing of student loans.

Must admit that the AMA (American Medical Assn.) has disappointed me in the past in their position on socialized medicine. A few weeks ago I looked at their website for statements on where they stand and could find only rather vague yet lofty pronouncments about how everyone should have access to health care. They didn't say anything specific about how this should be provided.

Now Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D., AMA president, says:

Make no mistake: Health reform that covers the uninsured is AMA’s top priority this year. Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care coverage.

Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians.

So it seems the AMA is not too happy with the way their position has been bandied about and mischaracterized by the liberal left. Uh, I mean the New York Times.

I will only comment that Rule #1 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals suggests that even if your organization is small, you should figure out a way for them to make a lot of noise so that it seems you have lots and lots of support. I guess claiming that the AMA and the US Chamber of Commerce are solidly behind the federal government's socialized medicine scheme is just one example.

Was going to call this blog "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" but the search engines wouldn't have picked up on it being about socialized medicine. They just aren't as smart as American citizens are in picking up these kinds of things.