There has been a great deal of introspection among leading Democrats after the bruising defeat in the last election — much of its directed at the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare.” It has ranged from Schumer’s view that the law was political blunder to Harkin’s view that it was a poorly drafted mistake. This week, the highest ranked Democrat, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, said that the Obama Administration may have doomed Democrats in Congress with its poor management and blunders in the rollout of the program. Now the person ultimately responsible for that mismanagement and failure, former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has her own prognosis: bad brand name.
At the time of the failed rollout, I believed that the most obvious response was at a minimum to fire Sebelius, the subject of a past column. However, the Administration and Democrats circled the wagons and Sebelius kept her job.
Now Sebelius explained on Wednesday that “Obamacare, no question, has a very bad brand that has been driven intentionally by a lot of misinformation and a lot of paid advertising.” I would not say that, after hundreds of millions of wasted dollars and hundreds of “fixes” to a poorly drafted law, the problem is the name. However, it reminded me of a story that I heard while attending the University of Chicago. This may be apocryphal but it is too good a story to check as they say. The story goes that Coca Cola was struggling with loss of market share against 7UP due to the appeal of the “uncola” in the anti-establishment environment of the 60s. So the giant corporation hired a counterculture icon from the University of Chicago (Severn Dardan is often named). The story goes that the cultural guru disappeared with a huge upfront fee to “study” the issue until the company demanded that he appear at a board meeting to give his recommendations for the future Coca Cola. The man walked into the board room in overalls and simply said “change the name” and walked out.
Now, while the hippy story may not pan out, I have an easy substitute from Sebelius. Just change the name. Problem solved.
Source: Politico
Isaac and Joan: I admire your confidence and faith that the government can run everything better than private enterprise can. Please provide an example of a government run program that is efficient, effective, responsive to its customers, and devoid of abuse. More than one example would be helpful. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of programs to choose from.
I insist that anyone who thinks that firms in a market economy are “parasites” must read at least one standard economics textbook before commenting further.
If there are 300,000 to 400,000 unnecessary workers in this sacred private health care insurance industry …
So now we’re making up our own data? Cool.
I’d really like some guidance from Mike Appleton on what constitutes partisan sniping.
http://www.pnhp.org/
Joan you know about these folks?
read T. R. Reid’s: The Healing of America. Well worth reading. Then return to comment section with an intelligent discussion.
I think that a good many of the anti-ACA commenters on various threads here have demonstrated a familiarity w/ the systems described in this reporter’s book.
Do I get to assign readings required of single-payer enthusiasts in order to comment intelligently?
You could start by actually reading the comments some of us have made on this very blog.
beldar
It would be Ralph.
Joan and Inga
Well jeez, there is hope. It’s the old perspective thing. The lesser of the evils may be evil but it is less evil.
The statement made by those who are against the proven, (proven in almost all of our peer countries), system of government administration of health care insurance, (this does not mean that we can’t keep the existing medical health care system), is that Americans are too stupid to create a government institution that is equal to the government institutions of other countries. Well, isn’t that interesting. So who is unAmerican?
Joan: please explain who the single payer would be.
Thank you Dr. Joan!
I agree with the very first comment today by Justice Holmes. I note that he authored that landmark opinion in Buck v. Bell in `1927, wherein he stated that Three generations of imbeciles are enough. And he condoned the sterilization of imbeciles. Some would call Obama and Sebelius “idiots” but we call them insurance company mogols. We dont need medical care on Planet Remulak.
Isaac:
Right on the money….Thank you for that!
Jim 22
Yes car insurance is in the free market and it cost 20% to 25% more than in comparable countries where because it is the law, the government administers it. Jeez, you caught me. LOL. That was my point.
If something is made the law, you don’t allow the parasites to sell it. It is tantamount to hiring foxes to guard the chicken house. Health insurance paid for by everyone is the answer because everyone pays for health care one way or another. If there are 300,000 to 400,000 unnecessary workers in this sacred private health care insurance industry at $50,000 a year average salary, that’s $15,000,000,000 a year that the consumer is paying to subsidize the sacred cow. Add on the profits necessary to pay shareholders and hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate salaries and we are paying, us the consumers, perhaps $30,000,000,000 to keep this icon of ideological mumbo jumbo.
For example, if the government is so inept, we pay more for the fraud of the private sector that takes advantage of that ineptness. Point in fact. Rick Scott created a company to handle Medicare and Medicaid, a sacred free enterprise for profit company. That company stole over $250,000,000 from the American taxpayer. Then with all these stolen profits to make the company look good, Rick Scott sold out for over $350,000,000. He got away with it because he could higher better lawyers than the government. Idiot Floridians elected him Governor, twice, a bald face thief.
So, tell me some more about how health insurance should be left to the foxes.
If the commenters above would like to LEARN SOMETHING rather than spout off personal opinions (many seemingly without much real knowledge of health care or HC policy) read T. R. Reid’s: The Healing of America. Well worth reading. Then return to comment section with an intelligent discussion. BTW, I’m an MD and believe in single payer as do a vast number of other physicians. And I’m OK with ACA as a stepping stone to the real deal.
Eh, not worth the effort.
Mike Appleton: Yes, my “factoid” is meaningless. I’m glad you got the point.
I wish you could see the deeper point, that most of the criticisms of the US HC system are equally meaningless.
Please tell me what forms of disagreement with you wouldn’t constitute “partisan sniping” in your opinion. I do not wish to engage in such activity.
From my POV, all the partisan sniping about HC on this site comes from the left. What I see is the constant repetition of arguments already shown to be tendentious.
Mike, lawyers tend to be from the left. They don’t seem to be able to defend their positions very well, and shuffle off to more tribal and unchallenging places.
Legal topics may have some aspects that only interest lawyers, but we average schlubs have a keen interest in how the law runs our lives.
Obamacare is just such a law. How it was jimmied into existence, how SCOTUS jimmied it further, how the rules changed on Obama’s whim, how it forces people to do things they abhor, etc. etc.
Nonlawyers should have input.
Chip S.:
In other words, your “factoid” is meaningless, Although it is not particularly relevant to anything, I also note that the number of lawyers regularly commenting on this site has decreased, largely I suspect because every effort to introduce a legal topic quickly deteriorates into partisan political sniping. That is true of the health care debate as well.
From 2000 to 2009, the amount of money spent on pets in the US rose by nearly 70 percent.
Pets have a proven ability to provide emotional comfort to people. I think everyone should have access to pets.
Something must be done to control costs and expand pet ownership.
There’s a news report that the President is changing his name to Barry O’Lincoln.
So what’s your point?
Um, that it’s stupid to focus on the amount spent on health care as a measure of how bad it is? Instead, one might look at price and services delivered?
Or how about this? It’s easy turn the standard rhetoric used to bash HC against lawyers. The main diff. being that there are lots more lawyers commenting here than doctors, and that the lawyers seem to think they know tons more about HC than the doctors do.