Blowing smoke on health care reform

Went to the AARP.org website just to see what they're saying about health care reform. The Comrade noted at one town hall that AARP backed HR3200. Apparently AARP heard some loud booing from their membership, and one guy cut up his AARP membership card on the Fox early morning show less than 24 hours later. So then AARP issued a statement saying something like, "We certainly probably might or might not back the president's plan."

So yesterday, the Comrade stated once again that AARP backs his plan. WTF?

One commentator suggested that while a lot of people will hear the Comrade make this claim, not so many will hear the AARP's denial. And after reviewing the AARP web site, I do believe they are on board with the Comrade and all his marxist cronies.

AARP has launched a web site and apparently will be running TV ads supporting generic "Health Care Reform." Then their web site lists the "myths" of health care reform -- which are four of the major objections that seniors, among many thousands of others, have to HR3200 in particular.

Let me say it again: Everyone is in favor of health care reform. BUT NOBODY WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN WANTS HR3200. A lot of changes can be made to health insurance without out-and-out socializing the health care industry. The Democrats might try talking to the Republicans about this. Several Republicans have proposed careful, targeted and well-thought-out changes that can reduce costs without giving the federal government the power of life and death over all citizens.

So it seems AARP is invested very heavily in their own little media campaign, but, mindful that their membership is willing to abandon them because of it, they prefer to call HR3200 by another name.

The way AARP supposedly clears up all the myths, by the way, is the same way the Comrade clears up all the myths: by making vague generalities about their "good intentions."

• People are concerned about rationing. AARP and the Comrade say: "We have no intention of rationing."
• People are concerned about costs. The Comrade says, "I won't sign any legislation that isn't deficit-neutral."
• People are concerned that they will lose Medicare benefits. AARP says, "We have no intention of letting anyone in Washington reduce Medicare benefits."
• People believe HR3200 specifically is too expensive. AARP and the Comrade say, "Health insurance costs will double over the next seven years without reform. Businesses are going bankrupt providing health insurance." But neither of them address the fact of the CBO's scoring of HR3200, which claims the bill will result in a more than $1 TRILLION deficit over 10 years. And that's probably a conservative estimate, going by the projected cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and everything else vs. what costs have actually been when the plan is implemented.
• People ask questions at these town halls -- even the presidential ones -- and they get, "We don't want to see rationed health care. We don't want to increase the cost. We don't want to limit options." This may not be what they want, but that's more than likely what they will end up with if HR3200 is passed.

All AARP and the Comrade offer anyone is their good intentions with nothing to back them up. So, show us your other, good reform, because HR3200 certainly does not accomplish any of the proposed goals that the Comrade repeats over and over. (By the way, can you tell he attended school at a madrassa for a while? He seems to think if he repeats something over and over and over again ad nauseum, it will become true.)

In addition, asked twice on Saturday about the "government option," the Comrade described it as something like a co-op rather than the "government option" outlined in HR3200. Of course, HR3200 is pretty vague about this, too, probably leaving all the nuts'n'bolts of it up to some yet-to-be-appointed bureaucrat. And flying in the face of facts proven through all human experience, Comrae Osama keeps insisting that the "government option" will not crowd out private insurance.

I don't think he's read HR3200. All the stuff about exactly how the "government option" will crowd out private insurance is in the first 50 pages. As a matter of fact, the way the bill is worded, phasing out private insurance appears to be a deliberate aim of the bill.

By the way, hate to keep running down the British National Health System, but it's hard to quit. A few headlines from the British press:

Hospitals 'infested with vermin'

Pest control expert David Cross on how pests get into hospitals and spread infection.

The cleanliness of most NHS hospitals in England is threatened by frequent invasions of rats, fleas, bedbugs, flies and cockroaches, a report claims.

Figures released by the Conservatives show that 70% of NHS Trusts brought in pest controllers at least 50 times between January 2006 and March 2008.

Vermin were found in wards, clinics and even operating theatres. A patients' group said the situation was revolting.

And:

Press Release issued 10 June 2008
ST GEORGE'S TOP FOR REDUCING PATIENT WAITS

St George's Healthcare NHS Trust has been praised by the minister of state for public health for exceeding a government target to reduce patient waits - nine months ahead of deadline.

The Trust is one of just 35 in England and one of six in the London area to have already met a Department of Health (DH) target set for December 2008 to have 95 per cent of non-admitted (outpatients) and 90 per cent of admitted patients (inpatients and daycase patients) receive treatment within 18 weeks of referral.

This surpassed a milestone set for March but also exceeded the target set for December for referral-to-treatment times, making St George's one of the first hospitals nationally to achieve it.

And my favorite, dovetailing two aspects of political correctness:

Hospitals will take meat off menus in bid to cut carbon
Juliette Jowit The Guardian, Monday 26 January 2009

Meat-free menus are to be promoted in hospitals as part of a strategy to cut global warming emissions across the National Health Service.

The plan to offer patients menus that would have no meat option is part of a strategy to be published tomorrow that will cover proposals ranging from more phone-in GP surgeries to closing outpatient departments and instead asking surgeons to visit people at their local doctor's surgery.

Some suggestions are likely to be controversial with patients' groups, especially attempts to curb meat eating and car use. Plans to reuse more equipment could raise concern about infection with superbugs such as MRSA.

I seriously doubt the British intended to have a nightmare health care system. It just ended up that way -- because it costs more than anyone is willing to pay, drives professionals out, and subjects sick people to the whims and fancies of politicians. It's just better not to even start down that path.