Clinton's healthcare blindness

Surprises can be both appreciated and unwelcome. Senator Hilary Clinton received a surprise Thursday morning that probably fell into the latter category. As she prepared to speak at the National Black Journalist Convention (NABJ) in Las Vegas this week, I’m sure she wasn’t anticipating anything more than a hug fest. It’s no secret that African-American’s give Democrats overwhelming support—especially if your last name is Clinton. So when I decided to actually ask her a hard question, and attempt to make her back her answer up, I’m sure she was quite annoyed.

I confronted Sen. Clinton regarding her push for socialized—oops I’m sorry—I mean nationalized health care. You can view the entire exchange at the link below.

Clinton confronts critic*

 
The gist of the question was simply that countries like Canada and Britain that have nationalized health care systems wish to move away from them. The cost to the countries is enormous, and thousands of people who need medical procedures like MRI’s, CatScans, and surgeries have to wait months for them. Why then would she insist on bringing this into the U.S.?

Her response in a nutshell was she does not want socialized medicine, I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that Canada, Britain, Japan, Europe, Australia, or any other advanced country (I guess we’re not advanced) have better health care systems than the U.S.

Oh really? 

Then I guess that explains the large numbers of people from these countries, who have the money, flocking to the U.S. every year to get the medical procedures performed.  A little fact that she either didn’t know, or ignored. That did not stop her from trying to put a smack down on me when she said, “I don’t know your name, but if you see my staff maybe you can get educated instead of speaking rhetoric.”

That, of course, got a huge round of applause from the crowd. After all, it is a friendly venue for her. But it completely missed the point. The facts are that we have the best system in the world, and we know this because people come here for medical procedures by the thousands.  Well, at least the people who can afford too. People in Canada or Britain who don't have the money to come to the U.S. have to wait while their physical health gets worse.

I could take hours to explain to Senator Clinton the holes in her statements and arguments, but I’ll just use bullet points to save you from the complete education that she needs.

 

• If the government pays for it its socialized medicine—and yes that includes Medicare.

 

• Medicare is barely holding its own and may go the direction of Social Security because of its rising costs.

 

• If our system was so much worse than these other countries, their most economically advantaged would not come here for many of the medical procedures they need. As Neil Diamond famously sang,“They’re coming to America."

• In a universal (read socialized) system the lower income brackets are hurt more. They have to wait, and can’t fly to another country. There are a lot of African-Americans that still fall into the lower income brackets, and therefore this system would be bad for African-Americans not better.

This is what I don’t get about Clinton in particular and the Democrats in general. We all know that everybody needs health care, but why do they always default to having the government pay for it? Last time that I checked there wasn’t a long list of social ills eradicated by a government program.

The real truth is that for whatever reason Senator Clinton is convinced, despite all proof to the contrary, that government should be the answer. Today it’s about health care, but we could be talking about education, the economy, or energy independence, she seems to default to “let’s gets the government to fix it and we’ll pay for it with higher taxes.” And when you challenge her on the facts, she gets testy. Don’t believe me? Look at the video again.

Comments

[Jim Caputo]

After reading your question to Ms. Clinton, I felt compelled to seek out your site and read your version of events. I'm not impressed. I thought you'd include more substance in your description, but after reading it, I have to conclude that you were just looking to take a shot rather than actually advocate a position.

I'll address your bullet points first:
1 - The word "socialized" can have different meanings and programs can be "socialized" to varying degrees. So while Medicare is deemed by you to be a socialized program, it does not exclude it's participants from using non-participatory physicians. That said, the impact of the program has been entirely positive since it's inception to both the national economic well-being as well as individual economic well-being.

2 - The implication you're making is that if something can't be be self-sustaining forever, then it should never be implemented. Any program whose age is measured in decades is going to go through changes. The fact that, at some point down the line, hard decisions will have to be made to maintain the viability of Medicare is not a sound argument against its creation or further existance.

3 - You claim that because citizens of other countries come here for medical treatment, that is evidence that our medical system is the best in the world. The group of people coming here for various operations are almost entirely made up of upper-class citizens. And it's U.S. citizens of the same economic class that have access to the "best" medical treatment. However, to the millions of Americans living in poverty without access to basic healthcare, and to the millions living just above the poverty level who cannot afford healthcare, the system is hardly the "best in the world."

4 - You say that lower income people would be hurt by a lack of immediate attention. The first problem with this premise is that you're eliminatinating the possibility that we could design a system that is better than those found in other countries. The second problem is that you don't compare your supposition to what is presently available. A person who has to wait a few weeks to see a doctor is certainly better off than the person who has no access to a doctor at all.

And the last point is why I think your question was more about serving your own interests than in actually having a beneficial debate on the issue: you state "we all know that everybody needs healthcare," then you criticize Ms. Clinton's plan while offering no alternatives. If this was an issue that truly was important to you, you'd have written some opinion on an alternative way to guarantee healthcare to all citizens.

But you don't.

[Kiara Ashanti]

Jim, you are missing and matching issues. My primary question and issue with Clinton's plan is that there is already evidence that the way she wants to do it does not work. I'm in this field, and so I have a real understanding of Medicare, insurance, and the issues surrounding it. If I wanted to just take a shot at her, I would have roasted her about her habit of switching positions depending on who she is speaking too. Just see her record on Iraq and the war, and you'll get my point. I did not do that, however.

As to some of your points. Yes, I believe that if you cannot sustain a program there's no reason to use it. Why do I say that. Because I believe it's easier to do something right from the beginning, rather than trying to fix it along the way. As an example, the war in Iraq. Agree and disagree with the premise for going there, what is clear to everyone is that once there, we have made a number of mistakes in the execution of the war. And trying to fix it piece meal, is not working and costing more money and lives. As it pertains to health care, it would not take long for the negative effects of the program Senator Clinton wants to implement to show in our country. We have more people in this country than any of the examples she cites. Those numbers will compound the issues that countries like Canada have.

Socialized means many things to many people. Let's cut that now. If a program is paid for by the goverment partially or fully its socialized. There is no gray area. That does not mean you have to scrap it entirely, but it is socialized. Do not try and reframe what it is, in an attempt to not look like you advocate socialism, or large socialism programs. You may not be doing that yourself, Clinton certainly does.

Another thing you mention is the issue of whether or not we have the best system. I think you are making a classic mistake that many advocates of national health care and liberals make. And that's judging the system based on the large number of people who do not have health coverage. That's a faulty premise. It's like saying cars are bad because not everyone has one. There are 300 million people in this country, most have health insurance. The quality of the health care given is better than anywhere else. If any emergency procedure have to be given, you can get it done in a short amount of time. These are the reasons our system is better. This is why people from other countries--who can afford to--come here for medical care. Now you're (or rather Clinton and Obama) are telling me that we should scrape that in order to have the government take over the system completely, just so we can make sure 45 million people have health care over the 300 million? It sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me. As an aside, let me tell you from professional experience that half of the 45 million people without coverage, can in fact afford insurance, but have chosen not to get it. Why? That's a whole other blog entry.

Look I'm running long and I'm sorry. But I wanted to try and address some of your points. Let me finish with these two things. One, this blog, or my p.o.v. is from a logical one. It is illogical to use a system that has been shown not to be effective. Having everyone's health insurance covered by the government is pointless, if once implemented the access to care is slow, too long, and if quality of care goes down. This is what is happening in Canada and Britain. This is why both countries would like move away from the model, but find it difficult because it is so entrenched in their countries.

Second, I did not offer alternatives or solutions because that was not what that blog was about. Nor was it what my question was about. There are lots of other solutions, and I will be writing a blog that outlines some of them. I hope you tune in and read it. But do not dismiss legitimate criticism, because it does not offer another solution. A bad idea is a bad idea, whether there is an alternative or not.

[Jim Caputo]

You're using a very subjective version of what is "logical." I'll be brief in demonstrating my point. You say it's a mistake to judge our national system of healthcare by including in my assessment the fact that millions of people in this country are without access to regular healthcare.

Using your "logic," that would mean that if there were only one person in this country of 300 million who was receiving regular healthcare services, but that person was receiving the best healthcare services in the world, then it would be fair to claim that the U.S. had the best health care system.

Any honest assessment of any country's healthcare system has to take into account the percentage of people who are denied healthcare services for a variety of reasons. To disregard that population defies logic.

[Kiara ashanti]

15% of the population in the U.S. do not have healthcare. Do you wish to throw out our system, and adopt inferior models just to have 100% coverage?

My point is simple and clear. You want people to have health care fine. Then bring me a solution (directed at politicians) that works as good or better than our current system and is not fully paid for by the government. Currently the models in other countries don't fit that description. As defined by quality of care, number of people covered, cost, effects on economy and taxes, and timely access to ALL medically needed services.

Hilary's plan is a joke, because its based on models inferior to what we already have.

[Jim Caputo]

You throw out that 15% like it's a tiny group of people. It's 45 million. 45 MILLION PEOPLE! And your point is that you're okay with 45 MILLION PEOPLE not having healthcare because you're worried that the richest people in this country might not have it as good as they have it now.

The newest irony in your rambling is that part of the frame of your original question to Senator Clinton included the ridiculous premise that any kind of socialized/nationalized healthcare system would hurt blacks the most, blacks who make up a disproportionate percentage of those in poverty, yet now you make the case that it's better that they have no healthcare at all if providing them with healthcare might incovenience a few hundred millionaires.

The selfishness of your position is astounding. I wish I could say it's unexpected, but selfishness coming from the right never is.

[Kiara ashanti]

See new post Jim. You've got this all backwards. Focus on the key issues.