Ezra Klein's Weak Defense Of Oba-Care

Writing in the Washington Post, Ezra Klein struggles for a rationale to defend Obama against Ed Morrisey pointing out that Obama fell into the trap of admitting he'd make sure that he and his family would go outside of ObaCare to get the best treatment money can buy. To pass it, it's liberals who have to ignore reality and pretend that nothing would change in the private sector if there's a public option. Catastrophic care would likely be one of the first things to disappear from the private sector should insurers be forced to compete with the government in a system that everyone honest, even Democrats, has admitted is simply a step on the road to single payer. Here's Obama on video answering the question.

Were it not a problem, Obama would have said so. He knew he was trapped. The health care system can not deny treatment today. Even to the extent private insurance remains an option, once government begins rationing care - and they must to control costs - there will be no rationale for private insures to not do the same to remain competitive. That is not the case today. In fact, insurers can be exposed to massive law suits today for denying claims. However, the treatment was provided. That won't be true under Obama's system.

No private system can compete with a publicly subsidized government system without controlling costs over and above any steps the government takes to do likewise. And a public option would have to control costs in many ways to be competitive with the health care that most all Americans enjoy today - even the currently uninsured.

I'm also not sure what to say about a post that argues that the problem with Obama's health-care plan is that it would force low-income Americans to "make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face." I could imagine a single-payer supporter making that argument. But someone who advocates that we "boost the private sector" in health care? The same private sector, I imagine, in which having more money buys you more things?

Honestly, it's like these people live on a different planet.

So says the reality-based community in embracing a non-reality to pass an eventually forced system that is ultimately bad for Americans in need of care.

Comments

[lala]

The only out is that when Oba-care turns out to be so awful, like the NHS in the UK, those who can afford it switch to private insurance. However, Medicare recipients will be trapped as there is no alternative insurance.

[MarkJ]

Replacing financial means with political clout as the primary means of obtaining decent health health.

How quaintly....Soviet.

I daresay if or when (Saints Preserve Us!) ObamaCare is implemented, once enough families are curtly told to "take Granny home because we can't give her that pacemaker," you'll hear, as the Stones sang in '68, "the sound of marching, charging feet, boy."

[lala]

Or bribes. (Soviet) Russian Jews in Moscow have their own ambulance service, and, I believe, their own hospital.

[Mark Turner]

I lived in Australia for 2 years, which has state-subsidized healthcare, and I was not particularly impressed with it beyond basic, routine services. I certainly would not advocate it as a better system than what the US has now -- and in some ways, isn't even as good. I currently live in Singapore, which also has a state-subsidized system, but the quality is better than what I saw in Australia for the most part. I still don't think I would trust it for life-threatening situations, however (many of the doctors are educated in the UK, Ireland, Australia, or Canada -- some in US).