• JAMA Forum: A Tale of 2 Plans

    I’ve been somewhat amazed at the hypocrisy that politicians can muster when it comes to health care reform. I get explicit about that in my latest piece at the JAMA forum.

    Go read!


    • And I’m always amazed how good analysts can be sucked into the “both sides do it” narrative.

      Yes, the ACA and Ryan plan are broadly similar. But ACA was a compromise to improve existing care that was required because of those who generally support the Ryan plan (with no support from them). The other want to take a successful program and make closer to care prior to the ACA. I’m not seeing the hypocrisy on one side.

    • I have visions of you staring into the camera, pounding the desk, and shouting “I’m mad as hell….”

    • But what about all of those below age 65 — oops, soon to be 67 — that Romney has eliminated from inclusion? Can’t you give ACA points for attempting to cover many (no, not all) previously uninsured? Seems to me that is a huge difference between the two plans.

    • You wrote; “But it’s worth examining the silliness of the rhetoric. The ACA is regarded by some who don’t like it as “tyranny” and “fascism.” If that’s really the case, then it’s bizarre to support anything with more government involvement (such as a public option!) as a less objectionable end product. Similarly, you can object to the change of Medicare from one program to another, but I’ve had friends talk about Medicare as a program of premium support as the worst thing that could ever happen.”

      Your point may be valid in a small segment of the opposition…but not overall. An all or nothing approach won’t serve the masses well. The better socialistic medical plans in other countries usually offer private options. To suggest a purist plan would be political suicide. A stereotypical liberal does use government aid and our tax dollars to help themselves get elected under a type of, “Hope” and “Change” empty mantra….empty because we can’t afford it. It makes people feel good to see their tax dollars at work…and usually absolved of charitable giving monetarily and physically….and they usually like to think bureaucracy rocks the capitalist’s empire (not realizing how it really works). An Ayn Rand purist capitalist offers more good ideas on the other realm. The ability to use ambition to help yourself while helping others…..but the partakers of private business (particularly in life or death matters) worry about private companies placing money above well being. Both sides need regulated…a bit….which removes the purist ideal from the debacle….but stomps on any libertarian dreams that aren’t on the table…..they are not feasible. Hence, why your portrayal of extremes was not relatable to most readers. The bottom-line is….no matter how cheap that foreclosed mansion is…most of us can’t afford it or the upkeep. States are relieved to catch a break from the Supremes…,the teaser type of rate offered them will sink them just as it does most charge card users who grab the keys to the model car without thinking through the upkeep and insurance. It just needs parked….it’s unaffordable…and unsustainable. That said…the libertarians are right about smaller government…..that behemoth needs treatment to tame it down to size:)