OBAMA-CARE ON TRIAL: Questions for the Partisan ‘Supremes’ On the Court & in the Congress by Ol’ Bill
March 26, 2012 by easearle
As the Supreme Court considers Obama-Care, as studies show opponents to Obama-care outspent supporters in attack ads by three to one, and as Mitt Romney tries to Etch-a-Sketch away his Mass-Care past, our political comentator Ol’ Bill weighs in…
OBAMA CARE ON TRIAL: Questions for the Partisan Supremes On the Court and In the Congress by Ol’ Bill
Why does the rest of the developed world manage to insure the health of all citizens at less than half the per capita costs of America? And why do the statistics also overwhelmingly reflect better health-care outcomes and longer life spans elsewhere?
Why haven’t these questions been analyzed in serious congressional hearings before allowing the reform debate to be stalemated by the usual ideologues and selfish interests? Wouldn’t a factual comparison with other nations be an appropriate bipartisan demand by hard-nosed spending critics even at this late date?
Shouldn’t taxpayers demand reasons why healthcare costs in recent years have topped 16% of Gross Domestic Product in US vs. only 8.4% in UK, 8.2% in Japan? Why do Canada, France, Japan and Sweden among other advanced countries achieve life expectancies exceeding 80 years vs only 77.8 in US? High cost private insurance in US covers less than half of the actual costs vs. 70 to 87% in the others. Why?
Why was the infant mortality rate recently a mere 3.8% in Germany, 5.4% next door in Canada but 6.9% in U.S.? How inefficient must American private insurance companies become before attracting critical public attention in the Congress or in the Media? How can one American private insurance company freely raise rates in excess of 35% in recent times?
Apparently in other advanced countries, government-run single payer insurance as well as heavily regulated private plans and non-profits deliver consistently better results.
They don’t “benefit” from the fragmented conflicting and excessive overhead costs and bloated profits that private fee for service insurance policies are permitted to erect between American patients and providers. Why hasn’t our superb medical technology been harnessed to better distribute superb services rather than simply to further enrich the already enriched?
Isn’t it past time for facts, not ideology, to dominate the debate in this, “the best Congress money can buy”? Is public opinion so easily manipulated by lobbyist-lubricated whoppers repeated endlessly by “conservative” propagandists? Are we voters really that gullible?
The health insurance public option proposal that was shot down in the congress seems the final slender hope to prevent ever more corporate plundering. Certainly, it’s an appropriate topic for a serious public inquiry, wouldn’t you think?
How about it, Supreme Court justices? Mr. President? Members of Congress? Candidates? Columnists and Editors? Voters? Where’s the outrage over this, the catastrophic spending hemorrhage of all time?
(images: GoogleImages, content.com, civiliannews.com)