Obama won’t give up his lost health crusade
Barack Obama as Indiana Jones? Allow me to explain.
At the end of the trilogy starring Harrison Ford (let’s pretend moviegoers were never subjected to “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”), the swashbuckling archaeologist discovers the holy grail of holy grails: the actual cup of Christ.
But things go badly wrong and Jones soon finds himself suspended over a bottomless chasm, with one arm reaching desperately for the grail. The other is being held tenuously by his father, who wisely counsels him: “Let it go.”
If only the elder Jones could pay a visit to the White House.
Today is the big “bipartisan” health care meeting at which President Obama has agreed to hear Republicans’ ideas if they will just sign on to his latest health proposal, which is all of three days old and has yet to be scrutinized by the usual independent agents.
That’s the upshot of the meeting, anyway. Ever since Obama smoked a disorganized House Republican caucus at their televised debate in Baltimore last month, the administration has longed for a chance to repeat that very public schooling and regain the political high ground on health care.
Oh, the president claims to have included some conservative ideas in his plan. And it’s true that some of the lesser, unobjectionable ones are in there. For instance, the White House cites the “use of technology for real-time data review” as one GOP idea it’s adopted.
The alternative, one supposes, is to review data in real time without using technology.
Just kidding. But do data reviews, or tougher penalties for Medicare/Medicaid fraudsters, or “mechanisms to improve quality,” really qualify as meeting the GOP halfway?
Are these really compromises from Democrats? Ones that merit the support of Republicans — not to mention the majority of Americans who oppose Democrats’ various health proposals — for such sea changes as letting Washington bureaucrats control the prices of private health insurance plans, as Obama now wants to do?
The annals of price controls are, after all, littered with tales of success. Just ask Richard Nixon. Or Mikhail Gorbachev.
Like Indiana Jones’ outstretched arm, President Obama’s summit is a last attempt to grasp the oh-so-close liberal dream of a middle-class health entitlement. The public option is not listed in the plan, but its creation will be a fait accompli once private insurance plans are transformed into utilities whose every move requires Washington’s approval.
Competition will decrease once the feds can dictate what insurers have to cover and force their premiums into the narrow band between a government cap and unprofitability.
Americans might not trust insurance executives any more than they do politicians and bureaucrats, but the execs’ standing will fall even further once they have to answer for the decisions that politicians and bureaucrats make.
Liberals still carping that Obama abandoned the public option either understand this and are just posturing, or they’re blinded by ideology.
Even if the latest health overhaul goes down in flames — and there are legitimate questions about whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi can muster a majority for Obama’s proposal — health reform is not going to disappear for 15 years as it did after Bill Clinton’s reform failure. Should Republicans regain power, they can’t ignore this issue. GOP leaders appear to understand this.
A truly bipartisan approach would be to start from scratch and begin with the handful of smaller items that most people agree on, before moving on to more contentious measures.
It’s the left’s denial of this reality that has turned its “Last Crusade” into a “Temple of Doom.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
149 comments Add your comment
Jefferson
February 25th, 2010
10:33 am
All it takes is 51 in the senate.
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
10:43 am
Sorry, CJ, but when the government tells private companies what they can and can’t charge, and what is “unreasonable” or “unfair,” inevitably injecting politics into a nonpolitical matter, that is a price control. You can try to split hairs here, but the result is the same. I won’t concede that that’s my “opinion” just because the president decided to dress it up a certain way.
RJ
February 25th, 2010
10:52 am
You, know if these idiots in DC were halfway intelligent, this whole helathcare bill would be written and passed in less than an hour:
1. Everyone that doesn’t have health care, make your monthly payments to the government.
2. Government buys a low premium health insurance option from some private insurer in bulk so they get it at a lower rate. (which insurer would depend on who gave the best rate, you know, free market and everything)
3. People without Health insurance no longer get treated.
Done and done. What’s so hard about this? Back in the day I thought the democrat economic strategy was to provide services in bulk so they were cheaper (tradeoff being the people not using it got slightly screwed). Apparantly this has been warped beyond belief.
Horrible Horrace
February 25th, 2010
10:56 am
Barry is wasting the taxpayers money with this beating of a dead horse.
Minister James
February 25th, 2010
11:00 am
Cheney’s getting taken care of by tax payer dollars and he’s never fought for his country. Go figure.
LA
February 25th, 2010
11:10 am
“No wonder the GOP doesn’t want to do anything about health care.”
Yet it’s the Democrats who have full control………….
LA
February 25th, 2010
11:12 am
“So what if more americans lose health care coverage?”
People are losing their health insurance BECAUSE THEY ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS!!!!!!!
Geez, democrats are really clueless.
There are over 300 million people in this country. 45 million are “uninsured.” 20 million of them are illegal aliens and should not be here in the first place. 10 million of those people are people who probably chose not to buy health insurance.
Democrats=the party of ignorance.
Jess
February 25th, 2010
11:14 am
I’m watching the summit and my first impression is that Obama should have left Harry and Nancy at home. They truely are whinners.
During this entire year, the thing I disliked the most in the discussions, is the term “health care reform”. I believe if the Dems. had simply said they want a plan to cover those who cannot afford to be covered, or who have a pre-existing conditions, and given a real estimate of the cost, and then followed this with a plan to reduce health cost, they may have gotten somewhere.
Instead, the entire debate was staged with a backdrop of “health care in America is broken” and reform of the entire industry is needed. At this point, the 60% to 70% of Americans who have good coverage, and who are happy with that coverage, turned their backs.
I think that conservatives and liberals understood from the day Obama was elected that something would happen in the health car system. I do not think they were prepared to hear that the entire system was to be torn apart, and reformed in a way they did not understand. Furthermore, I do not think the stealth way in which it was initally attempted was recieved well, and I know of no one at this time who puts any credibility in the cost figures we are hearing.
LA
February 25th, 2010
11:15 am
“Sorry, CJ, but when the government tells private companies what they can and can’t charge, and what is “unreasonable” or “unfair,” inevitably injecting politics into a nonpolitical matter, that is a price control”
BINGO!
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
11:17 am
Well said, Jess.
LA
February 25th, 2010
11:17 am
“I do not think they were prepared to hear that the entire system was to be torn apart, and reformed in a way they did not understand.”
Oh really? I mean, he said it several times before and after he became president.
Tuesday 20 January 2009
We will remake America, vows President Obama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/obama-inauguration-speech-ceremony
LA
February 25th, 2010
11:19 am
“I’m watching the summit and my first impression is that Obama should have left Harry and Nancy at home.”
Why? Harry and Nancy are exact replicas of what he believes.
DawgDad
February 25th, 2010
11:34 am
First, I would like to thank the American public for pressuring conservative Dems and Republicans into forestalling this rush to life-threatening tyranny paid for with MY blood, sweat, and tears. Continued diligence in applying pressure is demanded; the tyrants will not cease efforts to steal our individual liberties until they are convincingly defeated.
It amazes me so many memebers of the pro-abortion crowd SO adamant about government not interfering with their “right to choose” are avidly supporting or promoting government-controlled health care. I was certainly suspicious of their mental capacity all along, but this state of affairs confirms any doubt.
It’s long past time for conservatives and moderate Democrats of all stripes to re-focus government on protecting of our individual liberties across the board (for the moderate Dem’s, I would include the right [but not mandate] to organize and unionize). Most Americans would agree it is far better for humanity to err on the side of too much personal liberty than too little. There’s much more common ground to be staked out in this regard than the leftists would like you to believe.
cranky old man
February 25th, 2010
12:24 pm
Do you all realize that by being the only wealthy country on the planet to NOT have some form of price controls on drugs, we are effectively subsidizing pharmaceutical research for the entire planet? If I’m a drug manufacturer and I develop a new drug, I’m going to want to get my R&D money back during the 10-20 years my patent is protected from generic copying. Let’s say I calculate that I would need to charge $40 per pill to achieve that. Now let’s say Europe, Japan, Canada, India, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc. have price controls that only allow me to charge $20 per pill. That means my only remaining cash cow is the U.S., and I’ve got to charge Americans $80-$100 per pill to make up the difference.
Jefferson
February 25th, 2010
12:31 pm
Why wait? Somebody do something. Get the thumb out of the butt.
Andy
February 25th, 2010
12:37 pm
I agree with Gerald West. That being said, I don’t think we will ever reduce the cost curve until this country actively pursues a mission of everyone getting more fit than what they are now.
Insurance is supposed to pay for the rare sickness, but if everyone is getting sick a lot, it will not matter what kind of reform takes place; costs will continue to rise.
Healthy and fit people get sick less often and with less severity than those who are not fit. All of our government policies should oriented towards Americans becoming fitter. That would include subsidies on corn production, which just gives food companies a cheap ingredient(high fructose corn syrup) to put in their products. Just eliminating this one subsidy would go along ways towards reducing obesity and cancer.
In case you aren’t aware of it, high sugar uptake in cells is now being used as a marker for detecting cancer cells.
Getting fit would cost far less than many of the current proposals.
LA
February 25th, 2010
12:43 pm
Mccain just PISSED off Obama. Cantor is going off on him as well.
SWEEEEEEEEEEEET!
Jefferson
February 25th, 2010
12:49 pm
Cantor is a dweeb, John is just old and tired.
No More Progressives!
February 25th, 2010
12:51 pm
Allen
February 24th, 2010
11:33 pm
Kyle, I simply don’t understand how the portrayal of Democrats as hanging from a cliff squares with legislative reality. At this time, the House can simply pass the Senate bill into law.
Then why don’t they?
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
12:51 pm
I’d definitely go along with stopping corn subsidies, Andy — for any number of reasons.
No More Progressives!
February 25th, 2010
12:54 pm
M Lassiter
February 25th, 2010
10:02 am
Scott Brown comes from a state with a system of public health that works
Look to Massachsettes and please stop with the petty and juvenile personal attacks on President Obama.
Ask someone from Mass. what they think of RomneyCare. It’s a disaster.
LA
February 25th, 2010
12:55 pm
“Cantor is a dweeb, John is just old and tired.”
And they both pissed Obamao off!
Banned By Cindy
February 25th, 2010
12:57 pm
Kyle be pwning Gerald and CJ.
Nothing worse than these government bed wetters. Let folks pay for their health maintenance like the good it is, and buy insurance against catastrophic illness as insurance coverage is intended for.
Any one see the U.N.’s global warming as imminent catastrophic crisis video with children crying “HELP ME” as a heat wave of death descended upon them. What a bunch of freaking bed wetters.
If it wasn’t for respect for private property, it’s enough to grab their spectacles and shove ‘em up their azzes.
LA
February 25th, 2010
12:57 pm
“Ask someone from Mass. what they think of RomneyCare. It’s a disaster.”
Yep, and it’s why Romney will NOT be the nominee in 2012.
No More Progressives!
February 25th, 2010
12:57 pm
And while were at it Kyle, let’s stop AMTRAK subsidies as well.
MPercy
February 25th, 2010
1:03 pm
MLassiter@10:02
The Massachusetts HC reform is facing large overruns and medical costs are rising there faster than they are in the rest of the country. I would hardly consider that a successful system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html
Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/09/16/health_insurers_plan_10_rise_in_rates/
The state’s major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers. Increases will range from 7 to 12 percent, capping a decade of consecutive double-digit premium increases, according to a Globe survey of the state’s top health insurers.
Seriously
February 25th, 2010
1:05 pm
Cloosed door deals, lobbyist, bribes, ignoring the public. Not the change he promised.
MPercy
February 25th, 2010
1:11 pm
CJ@10:33 am
Care to provide any proof of these “gouging” profit levels? Last I checked the big insurers were making about 4% profit and ranked well down the list of profit margin levels by industry.
According to Fortune magazine, “Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care” made about 2.2% profit in 2009, while “Health Care: Medical Facilities” gouged people for 2.4% profit margins. Pharma, OTOH clocked in at 19.3%.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/
Get Real
February 25th, 2010
1:12 pm
Obama is to America what Bernie Madoff was to investors! Raping them of their money and enjoying the high life!
Gerald West
February 25th, 2010
1:17 pm
Kyle, before you close out health care I’d like to respond to some of the remarks you made about my initial comments.
First, the idea that covering everyone will result in higher overall health care costs is wrong. All people in the US, insured or not, already get needed health care. Those without coverage get their medical care in the emergency rooms. Their health care costs, as well as the considerable costs of futile collection measures, are passed on to those of us that have coverage.
The point of universal coverage is to eliminate the financial burden that middlemen (insurance providers) impose on everyone. A large part of that burden is placed on the health care providers who have to get pre-approvals, submit and track claims forms, waste time dealing with provider networks and fee discounts, etc. Universal coverage makes a valuable resource less scarce.
A glance at the comments columns shows clearly that most people confuse health insurance with health care. Just look at all the rants against government-controlled health care. In the on-going debates, no one is proposing government health care! I have Medicare. My son has United Healthcare coverage through his employer. We use the same doctors, same hospitals, same clinics. My primary-care physician direct my medical care, not the government. My son has lots of hassles over claims and pre-approvals, and his coverage is subject to termination if he changes employment.
Medicare is not government health care, it’s government-enabled health care by private providers in a competitive market. For my son, United Heathcare is not health care coverage he chose in the free market: his employer chose it. Certainly, any person with common sense would choose Medicare over United HC if there was a choice; especially so if he had to pay out-of-pocket a fair cost-based premium for Medicare coverage instead of the larger premium for poorer, uncertain coverage from United HC.
What is all this hysteria over government medical programs? Medicare, VA Healthcare, and TriCare
are the most satisfactory and efficient health care systems in the country.
LA
February 25th, 2010
1:25 pm
Right now there are a LOT of people who owe Rush Limbaugh an apology for saying that he wants Obama and his policies to fail.
BPJ
February 25th, 2010
1:37 pm
I liked the way the president put it: we could have less expensive food or drugs if we did away with all regulations and inspections in that area. But no one is proposing that. So we, Democrats and Republicans, accept that some regulations and government intervention are worth the added cost. (I would add bank regulation as another example.)
If we accept the argument so far, then the proper debate is about PARTICULAR regulations, with their benefits and costs. Mr. Wingfield, can you Republicans agree to stop automatically assuming that a Democratic proposal is a bad idea simply because it is “government regulation” and may add to costs? Can you agree that the proper debate is a cost/benefit analysis? This Democrat will agree, for my part, that we should not endorse a regulatory proposal simply because it would bring some benefit. We must consider the costs, and alternative proposals.
That is the kind of discussion Pres. Obama is trying to have; he thinks that, as with food and drugs, once the debate shifts from generalized knee-jerk opposition to “Washington regulation”, and focuses on costs v. benefits, he can often, though not always, win that debate. The problem with some of the Republican proposals is that they would basically lower costs for healthy people (as long as they don’t get sick), and raise costs (often to unaffordable levels) for older, sicker people.
Nevertheless, I think this meeting so far today has established some common ground, and that the Democrats’ proposals do not amount to a “government takeover of healthcare”. It is not British-style national health service; it is not Canadian-style single payer; it relies on private insurers (along with Medicare and Medicaid), private hospitals and doctors in private practice. It does regulate insurance companies. But if that’s your definition of “socialism”, then you might want to think about the fact that every state regulates insurance companies. A leading GOP candidate for governor. John Oxendine, has been regulating them for years (although not very much, given his contributor base in that industry).
So let’s not say that ANY Washington regulation of insurance companies is “socialism”. The GOP proposals include some of that. We may disagree about specifics of which regulations are needed, but let’s keep the debate on that level, not the “regulation-is-always-bad” (or good) theme.
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
1:37 pm
I appreciate your reply, Gerald. Here’s how I respond:
– Yes, there are costs to be cut by moving people out of ER-only care (which is how I summarize the problem you described). But it’s also true that giving them access to more health care will probably lead to their consuming more health care. That’s surely a good thing for their health, but it’s far from clear it will lead to a net cost reduction. (If we don’t increase the number of doctors working in the U.S. today, a shortage of care is going to lead to higher costs for everyone.)
– The reason people talk about government-run health care is because they think government will control health care *decisions*. I don’t think anyone at this point thinks doctors and nurses will be going on the government payroll (although that is the case in Britain).
– You’re right about the lack of a free market in health insurance. That’s why I and lot of other conservatives favor legislation that would make plans more portable, in part by shifting tax credits to individuals, not to companies. That requires government fixing one of its own mistakes, not a market failure.
– If Medicare, etc. are the most efficient systems in the country, why is it widely estimated that 10% of its expenses are fraudulent? I guarantee you that private insurers, which make single-digit profit margins, would not ignore that kind of fraud. Why do the Democrats’ plans include cutting half a trillion dollars in waste, abuse and fraud from Medicare if that program is so efficient?
They may be satisfactory, because patients are insulated from the costs of their care. Guess what: That’s the same reason so many people with private insurance are satisfied, too.
Obamayourmomma
February 25th, 2010
1:37 pm
I say let the dems pass health care with 51 votes. I would love to watch the Republicans win back the White House and both houses over the next 2 years. Question, if someone told you that if you point a gun to your head and pull the trigger, you will die would you do it? People with common sense would say no. The democratic party is controlled by people with no common sense and tons of arrogance. Thank GOD! Pass it jerkies, I dare ya’!
Jess
February 25th, 2010
1:44 pm
Gerald West,
I disagree that health care cost would not go up if everyone were insured because they are going to emergency rooms now. People will use the system much more when they have coverage. This was the case when medicaid was first introduced, as well as when medicare was introduced. A more current example is Massachusettes where cost have doubled since the implementation of their universal program with very little change in population.
As far as the Medicare vs. private insurance debate, of course Medicare is easier and less hassle than private. But the debate is not about coverage or ease of use, it’s about cost. We cannot afford to offer everyone in the country a Medicare program. I also think it might be interesting to get your views after the dems. remove $500 billion from the program.
scrappy
February 25th, 2010
1:45 pm
Doesn’t the government already set price controls, defacto or otherwise? Price gouging is not allowed, monopolies are not allowed… why do we not want to not allow health insurance companies (&drug companies) to do the same?
I also agree with Gerald, much of the muddle are very confused, I would think many are on this post site, based on their responses. A person may be smart, but people together (mob) are often quite unintelligent and do not listen to reason.
Jess
February 25th, 2010
1:55 pm
Andy,
Getting fit is a good idea, as long as it’s not mandated. However, by far the biggest reason for increasing health care cost is technology. Sophisticated test which one had to schedule and drive for miles to recieve, are available on every corner now. Because of their availability, and doctors fears of malpractice suits, tests that not so long ago were used sparingly, are now used routinely.
The results have been an improvement in diagnostics, and earlier detection of deadly diseases. This is really one of the trade-offs Americans will have to make. Regardless of whether the government pays, or an insurance co. pays, if you want to continue to have new products which save lives and improve health, costs will continue to go up.
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
2:00 pm
scrappy: Laws barring monopolies (except by the government, of course…) are far different from a bureaucracy rejecting a specific price for a specific service by a specific company.
Intown
February 25th, 2010
2:04 pm
When the Republicans win … America suffers. Enjoy 30% higher premiums folks.
LA
February 25th, 2010
2:04 pm
“Medicare, VA Healthcare, and TriCare
are the most satisfactory and efficient health care systems in the country.”
For one, they’re going broke. Government funded programs get their money from taxpayers who make money in the private sector.
Like the saying goes: Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.
BPJ
February 25th, 2010
2:07 pm
LA, now I’m confused – Republicans have been casting themselves as defenders of Medicare.
lmno
February 25th, 2010
2:13 pm
I love the analogy since the cup that fell in the movie had just been used to heal the hero’s dying father. And that the newly healed father says to “let it go”. Hell, he was already saved and cured anyway.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Everyone should have healthcare accessible and cheap available anytime they need it regardless of income.
I am not poor and have health insurance. That does not make my health emergency more important that a poor person’s. I want reform. I want for no one to die because they didn’t have enough money.
LA
February 25th, 2010
2:17 pm
“Republicans have been casting themselves as defenders of Medicare.”
Yeah, what’s your point?
Blue
February 25th, 2010
2:18 pm
MPercy: I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t supply facts that disprove CJ’s rants. I would hate to see his/her head explode.
Steve
February 25th, 2010
2:21 pm
Why havnt the repubs. not given an alternative to the healthcare debate? They just keep on whining about how obamas plan is bad. Also, there is no “health care reform” without a public option.
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
2:30 pm
As has been covered on this blog innumerable times before, Steve, Republicans have offered many alternatives on health care. Here is one list of 70 health-care bills that Republicans have filed in the last 13 months: http://tr.im/PNdI
(I have not read through the entire list and won’t vouch for any of the bills, but this should put to rest that all the GOP has done on health care is say “no.” As I wrote earlier today, that is the biggest lie of all this debate.)
Steve
February 25th, 2010
2:37 pm
Judging from what i quickly read through those healthcare plans look good. They look very good actually. Why are they not being considered?
LA
February 25th, 2010
2:37 pm
“Why havnt the repubs. not given an alternative to the healthcare debate? ”
They have and democrats ignore their plan.
“They just keep on whining about how obamas plan is bad.”
Most of America hates the democrat plan.
“Also, there is no “health care reform” without a public option.”
That’s not reform. It’s government mandated control. 45 million are supposedly uninsured, unemployment is high and yet….Obama keeps talking about how people are losing their health insurance.
Bottom line: Tort reform, letting people get insurance across state lines, getting government out of the way……
Kyle Wingfield
February 25th, 2010
2:39 pm
Heckuva question, Steve.
Linda
February 25th, 2010
2:49 pm
When the health care debate stated a yr. ago, 85% of Americans had health insurance & 95% of them were happy with their plans. The only answer was a complete overhaul of the best health care system in the world. The Dems created a crisis, an urgency, victims & bad guys. I never saw the people who were reported to be dying in the streets. Insurance companies, whose profits are around 3% & rated #30 or so in industry earnings, were demonized.
Tort reform was off the table since trial lawyers are the #1 contributor to Dems. Selling insurance across state lines to make it more competitive isn’t acceptable. The bills have always been more about control & power than reform.
AARP received govt. $ & sold out the elderly to support the bills. Unions & states were given preferential treatment. Dem obstructionists were bribed.
Doors were closed & locked. Senators were held hostage in anticipation of a blizzard on Xmas Eve Eve.
According to the CBO, the “reform” will raise the fed. deficit. It will cost the states billions of dollars they don’t have. Many Americans believe premiums will increase & that the cost of the bill could be over $2 trillion.
The 2 bills cover about 4500 pages & create dozens of new govt. agencies & bureaus.
Dem/Ind/Rep Americans are angry & have expressed themselves at Tea Parties, Town Hall meetings & marches & in emails, calls & letters. The Dems & their acolyte alphabet media made fun of, insulted & otherwise ignored them.
The pres.’s approval rating is in the 40’s & Congress’s is 10%. Only 23% of Americans favor the bill & the huge majority want it scrapped. Liberals blame the American people for a lack of understanding. For the last yr., liberals have demonstrated that they believe their constituents are too ignorant to know what they want & need. Only the DC Dems know what’s best & decide who is deserving & how our tax dollars (&China’s $) are to be spent. We’re the problem & they & bigger govt. are the solution. We’re to see their competence & sense of compassion, decency & purpose.
Cramming this bill down our throats that only 23% of Americans favor by a mere 51% majority that insures a complete govt. take-over of our private health care, another 1/6 of our economy, as a preamble to total socialized medicine, which is their goal, is soft tyranny.
The reason the Dems/Liberals/Progressives want total govt. socialized medicine is the same reason the Americans/taxpayers/voters do not.