New Leadership on HealthCare Nevada Presidential Candidates

The Democratic presidential candidates, the SEIU, a service oriented workers union for mostly hospital staff, the Center For American Progress, a partisan liberal group that was, incidentally, introduced by Time reporter Karen Tumulty as 'nonpartisan', and the University of Las Vegas, held a debate on health care here in Las Vegas. As a blogger located here in Las Vegas, I felt compelled by our readers to attend this event, if only to make sure the reporting emerging was 'fair and balanced'. :)

One of the first things we saw before entering was a number of protestors/demonstrators, from a wide variety of liberal groups, mostly supporting the different candidates. An exception:

Nonetheless, it was actually a pretty well put together and enjoyable event, if one considers listening to folks discuss different ways to expand the Federal government, increase spending and/or raise taxes, and limit the actions of free individuals enjoyable. Candidates all were in favor of 'universal health coverage', although they differed on how to go about achieving it. None mentioned that for all intents and purposes a form of universal coverage already presently exists.

Senator John Edward described how he would mandate health insurance for everyone and mandate 'preventative medicine', as if we don't have enough mandates driving up the price of insurance already. He said it is impossible to deliver universal health insurance and not raise taxes and candidates should be honest about it. He said he would repeal the Bush taxes cuts for the 'rich'.

Arizona Gov Bill Richardson, sporting cowboy boots, proposed lowering the Medicare benefits age from 65 to 55, increasing the wealth transfer from the poorest Americans (the young) to the richest Americans (the old). He also said a large number of the uninsured in Arizona are native Americans, whom "the Federal government is supposed to cover, but has not met its obligations". I wonder if it will meet its obligation when it is 'supposed' to cover all of us. Richardson also promoted his statewide smoking ban, saying he would attempt a similar law nationally and favored mental health mandates.

Senator Barrak Obama didn't have specifics as his "campaign was only 8 weeks old", but really laid it on thick in praise for the SEIU. Curiously, he did this while concomitantly discussing the unaffordability and rising costs of healthcare, as the unionization of hospitals and resultant inflated salaries and operational inefficiencies are directly and indirectly responsible for some of the problems he discussed. We can rest assured the SEIU works to keep nurses and healthcare workers from other countries out of the United States and engages in licensing wars to bar nonnurses from doing nursing work etc.. In my opinion, the SEIU and other unions are part of the problem, not the solution for health care in this country. Obama also discussed programs aimed at obesity and nutrition, "vegetables for kids instead of Popeyes", were his words. He "has not foreclosed raising additional revenue" for his plan and he and Clinton talked of "putting money in the front end" of their proposals.

Speaking of which, Senator Hillary Clinton came on next and surprised me as the most partisan, vitriolic, and robotic of the candidates. She started off with the premise that reforming healthcare means, "taking money away from people who are making out very well right now." Reminded me a bit of when she said, "we're going to take things away from you for the common good." When the moderator asked whom she meant to take this money away she seemed to make clear that insurance companies were her main target. Most disturbingly she said she would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny people with 'preexisting conditions', which, if one thinks about it, is the whole point of insurance. Why buy car insurance now if I can just buy it after I get in a wreck? Why not just wait till you have a disease and then shop around and find the insurance company that pays the most for it. It is, frankly, a ridiculous notion, a demonstration of incredible economic ignorance stemming from a candidate ostensibly seeking to be president of the United States. She also brought up some stories of people who had insurance but then couldn't get coverage. If insurance companies are not covering what their policy states then they are committing fraud, pure and simply. If they are just not covering what you wish they would cover then it is your fault for buying the insurance. I cannot complain to my car insurance company about not being covered for uninsured motorist collision if I didn't pay for it! Her statements mirror my earlier commentary and posted links describing how the term 'health insurance' is a misnomer; instead it has become a venue for politicians to forcibly provide socialized collective benefits to us, the masses, through private industry and the increased price of regulated insurance plans rather than the more direct central government role and increased taxes.

Overall, there were a few factual inaccuracies of consequence, most have been mentioned here on neoperspectives.com before, notably the myth of child mortality and the number of uninsured. Another interesting comment came from the moderator who noted, accurately in my opinion, that our present "employer based healthcare system was more or less based on an accident" (federal regulations and tax laws that more or less mandate employers to cover the healthcare of their workers stem from laws in the 50s and 60s). Whoops!

Nonetheless, I came away from this experience with many positive feelings. How, you might ask, can I feel positively about what was said? Because I was at a Democratic presidential primary, at a union rally, and the democratic candidates, running far left of center were, with rare exception, afraid to mention raising taxes. Democrat voters want to keep their money just like the rest of us. Governor Richardson even bragged about lowering taxes in Arizona. No candidate (well besides Kucinich who came on after I left) offered as a solution a single payer healthcare system. Sure, they all were in favor of expanding the federal system to "give ordinary people the same access to healthcare that congress has", private public partnerships, increasing various mandates, and expanding various programs, but they all respected the existence of the private market and they all respected the right of people to choose different insurance plans. Democratic voters fear centralized bureaucratic healthcare just like the rest of us. Most, if not all the candidates also wanted to give veterans the chance to choose their hospital and doctor of choice, a tacit admission or at least lip service in the direction of the recent failure of centralized federal healthcare for veterans.

So, there is much hope, a healthcare system like Britain or Canada is not in our near future. Yet. :)

Upon signing up for this event, we were allowed to submit questions. Needless to say, mine wasn't asked, but here it is:

We've heard stories on some of the pitfalls of socialized medicine in
Canada and Great Britain: pets getting MRIs before humans,
restrictions of treatments and drugs, ethical dilemmas on who should
get certain treatments (like hip replacements denied to elderly and
the overweight in Britain), fleeing doctors, denial of the ability to
purchase private insurance (Canada), weeks and months on waiting
lists, and even a story from Canada about a man who admitted
committing a crime in order to get bumped up in line for a heart
transplant, as prisoners received preferential placement on the
waitlists. I understand you all have the best of intentions, but how
can you be sure your ideas and plans will not manifest similarly to
the unintended results seen in Britain and Canada? How will you avoid
those pitfalls here in the United States?