McCain: Socialized Health Care is Eeeevilll!

[General Zod]

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Monday rejected a "big government" takeover of the health care system, saying he wants to empower families to make more medical decisions.

"I've made it very clear that what I want is for families to make decisions about their health care, not government, and that's the fundamental difference between myself and Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton," McCain told reporters in Miami, Florida, referring to the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

"They want the government to make the decisions, I want the families to make decisions," he said.

During a speech at the Miami Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida, McCain said he was ready to take on the "parochial interests" in health care and challenged doctors, hospitals, drug manufactures and insurance providers to do a better job of holding down costs.

"We must move away from a system that is fragmented and pays for expensive procedures, toward one where a family has a medical home, providers coordinate their efforts and take advantage of technology to do so cheaply, and where the focus is on affordable quality outcomes," McCain said during a speech at the Miami Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida. Video Watch McCain call for families to make decisions »

McCain said that health care in the U.S. was "too expensive" and called the more than $2 trillion the nation spends annually on health care "staggering."

"These costs are a threat to the ability of Americans to have health insurance, the gateway to better health care. These costs are a threat as well to the ability of American workers to build a better life," he said. "Rising costs of health care and health insurance have squeezed the wages that workers earn and consumed the budgets of their families."

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee rejected a single-payer system to lower health care costs, saying similar systems in other countries force "real people [to] pay a deeper cost through long waits for treatment or settling for care that does not take advantage of the latest medical science."

Instead, McCain promised to work to transform the health care system by putting "families in charge."

"We must reform the health care system to make it responsive to the needs of American families -- not the government, not the insurance companies, not tort lawyers, not even the doctors and hospitals," McCain said.

The solution, McCain said, "isn't a one-size-fits-all-big government takeover" but "with the American people themselves."

"We have always trusted in ourselves to meet any challenge that required only our ingenuity and industry to surmount," the Arizona Republican said. "Any solution that robs us of that essential sense of ourselves is a cure far worse than the affliction it is meant to treat."

After McCain delivered his speech, the Democratic National Committee criticized McCain for "promising four more years of the Bush health care agenda."

"John McCain would continue to deny our children health care and has no plan to address the skyrocketing costs that are devastating American families," DNC chairman Howard Dean said in a statement.
advertisement

"We've already had eight long years of huge deficits, failed leadership and misplaced priorities," Dean said. "We don't need four more. John McCain is the wrong choice for America's future."

McCain's speech comes a day before he is expected to unveil details of his health care proposal. His potential Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have already outlined detailed policy papers on health care.

It's cute the way McCain goes through the bog-standard Republican talking points about health care like nobody's heard them before. Clearly he thinks repeating the same thing over and over again will make it reality.

[General Zod]

Whoops, forgot the link.

[Darth Wong]

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee rejected a single-payer system to lower health care costs, saying similar systems in other countries force "real people [to] pay a deeper cost through long waits for treatment or settling for care that does not take advantage of the latest medical science."

I believe McCain made a slight error in his phrasing. What he really meant was:

similar systems in other countries force "RICH people [to] pay a deeper cost through long waits for treatment or settling for care that does not take advantage of the latest medical science."

Rich people right now don't have to deal with waiting for treatment, nor do they have to settle for anything but the very best top-of-the-line care. Everyone else, however, already has to deal with not only delayed treatment and not-quite-top-of-the-line treatment, but in many cases, outright denied treatment.

This is the crux of the problem: America's health-care system disregards the needs of the less fortunate, in favour of ensuring that if you're filthy rich, you can get gold-plated on-demand care. In fact, mistreatment or non-treatment of the lower classes only makes it easier for rich people to obtain such prompt gold-plated care.

[K. A. Pital]

We must reform the health care system to make it responsive to the needs of American families

Does he actually propose a system that responds to needs, or to demands, meaning the money they have? It seems the latter. And we know how well "ordinary consumers" get around the medical market.

Like a blind kitten in a Coliseum.

[That NOS Guy]

Well, what exactly does he propose then? "Putting families in charge"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

[Darth Wong]

How long will it take for Americans to get over this "big government = bad" thinking? Why don't they think that "big military = bad" too? Sometimes, in order to get big things done, you need a big organization.

Here in Canada, our "big government" health care system covers 100% of the population for less money than your "small government" solution costs to cover something like 80%. Here in Canada, our strictly regulated big-government financial markets are doing fine, while your deregulated "small government" system resulted in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.

[Keevan_Colton]

Well, what exactly does he propose then? "Putting families in charge"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

It means votes...

...not in the healthcare sector itself of course, but for him by people who like the sound of families being in charge. Just imagine how hellish it would be if we had folk like doctors in charge of health care...

[Kanastrous]

Well, what exactly does he propose then? "Putting families in charge"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

It means dumping full responsibility on you so we don't have to think about it.

[Darth Wong]

Well, what exactly does he propose then? "Putting families in charge"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

It means dumping full responsibility on you so we don't have to think about it.

Indeed. In much the same way that a herd of bison puts its sick and infirm in charge of their own fates, by leaving them behind to fend off predators on their own.

[Keevan_Colton]

Well, what exactly does he propose then? "Putting families in charge"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

It means dumping full responsibility on you so we don't have to think about it.

Indeed. In much the same way that a herd of bison puts its sick and infirm in charge of their own fates, by leaving them behind to fend off predators on their own.

Which is bloody brilliant if you're a healthy bison or a health insur...er...predator.

[Eris]

No you silly people, what he means by this moving the decision making power from the government to families is that he does not want the government making decisions about how to set up triage procedures and funding priorities for classes of treatments and prevention, but instead for families to make decisions about whether to buy medicine or pay the rent.

It's all quite clear when you realise that he's equivocating about what kind of decisions are being made in each case.

[Patrick Degan]

Well, what exactly does he propose then? "Putting families in charge"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

That means they get to decide whether to let the cancer patient in the family die or lose the house when the bills get too high and the insurance runs out.

[Tolya]

When I've read Lee Iacoca autobiography, when he was trying to get up Chrysler back to its feet, he said something about Democrats caring for the people, while Republicans caring for the principles (it was in the chapter that described his struggle for a government loan).

I can see that a 70's comment is still valid...is it?

[Beowulf]

Democrats pretend to care for the people, Republicans pretend to care about principles. Neither party actually does either.

[Darth Wong]

Asking about what individual politicians "care" about is an exercise in subjectivity. However, one can evaluate the effect of their policies, and Republican policies are remarkably callous.

[Justforfun000]

Republicans like McCain disgust me to no end. These are the people espousing good "Christian values"? Sure, we'll take care of the poor. Throw them to the wolves and they'll meet Jesus all the sooner.

How anyone can listen to his bullshit rhetoric is beyond me. It isn't even very misleading. He's basically saying outright, let the people take care of their own medical problems in whatever way they can choose. The very fact he doesn't address the issue of poor people, says it all. Let them suffer. What an asshole.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I'm beginning to realize that even when the American upper class rulers have not entered senility, they are living in a world so divorced from necessity, that they cannot even conceive of people having to choose between food, shelter,and medical care. Even given cases and statistics, they are unable to accept the reality in an emotionally meaningful manner, so they cling to their "principles" of the moral centrality of unfettered free market capitalism and for profit medicine because there is no force in their personal life that can wrench them from their entrenched position, whether they are consciously callous and self serving or not. This is why I've drifted towards seeing drastic income redistribution as a social necessity, not just desirable or useful.

[Darth Wong]

I'm beginning to realize that even when the American upper class rulers have not entered senility, they are living in a world so divorced from necessity, that they cannot even conceive of people having to choose between food, shelter,and medical care. Even given cases and statistics, they are unable to accept the reality in an emotionally meaningful manner, so they cling to their "principles" of the moral centrality of unfettered free market capitalism and for profit medicine because there is no force in their personal life that can wrench them from their entrenched position, whether they are consciously callous and self serving or not. This is why I've drifted towards seeing drastic income redistribution as a social necessity, not just desirable or useful.

I tend to agree. One of the reasons that Hollywood "liberal media elites" often vote liberal is the fact that many of them realize they're lucky to be rich, and they know what it's like to be poor. It's different than old family money, of the sort that George W. Bush has taken for granted all his life.

It's one of the ironies of life in a capitalist economy that the people who inherited their money are most likely to believe that they don't owe anyone anything for it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love this "family" humping. He keeps repeating "family" like the totem will ward off evil spirits and just make good things happen.

Furthermore, how come the free market didn't just solve this problem? They treat it like God - don't interfere, it has a great plan and it includes everybody! Except when it doesn't and then we'll say it'll change and ask!

[Darth Wong]

I love this "family" humping. He keeps repeating "family" like the totem will ward off evil spirits and just make good things happen.

Furthermore, how come the free market didn't just solve this problem? They treat it like God - don't interfere, it has a great plan and it includes everybody! Except when it doesn't and then we'll say it'll change and ask!

Maybe he uses the word "family" because if he used the word "clan", his primitive mindset would be just too obvious.

[Surlethe]

furthermore, how come the free market didn't just solve this problem? They treat it like God - don't interfere, it has a great plan and it includes everybody! Except when it doesn't and then we'll say it'll change and ask!

What problem? Oh, you mean the 40 million uninsured Americans? There's no problem there; they all fall into two categories: either they can afford health insurance and don't want it, or they're too lazy to get a job with proper benefits. Either way, if the government gave people health insurance, it would make them irresponsible and lazy because then they wouldn't have to provide for themselves. So, yeah, no problem there; if somebody hasn't got health insurance, it's simply because he doesn't deserve it because he's not working hard enough.

[PeZook]

Why yes, of course. I see the brilliance now!

You know, I live in a country which has shitty healthcare. Not enough doctors, long hours, poorly maintained hospitals, little essential equipment.

My grandmother had a heart attack today. She was brought into the ER, and they cleared the jammed artery with an endoscope in the first 10 minutes.

She will spend three days in the hospital, two in internsive care, but she wil l be fine.

Now...how much would it cost my family in America? Because even with our shitty mismanaged system, it will cost us zilch.

[Justforfun000]

Surlethe Wrote:

What problem? Oh, you mean the 40 million uninsured Americans? There's no problem there; they all fall into two categories: either they can afford health insurance and don't want it, or they're too lazy to get a job with proper benefits. Either way, if the government gave people health insurance, it would make them irresponsible and lazy because then they wouldn't have to provide for themselves. So, yeah, no problem there; if somebody hasn't got health insurance, it's simply because he doesn't deserve it because he's not working hard enough.

Republican Health platform 101. That's it in a nutshell.

I just can't understand how they can get away with this kind of attitude. Surely the majority of people in the States are not "rich"? How the hell can they keep getting enough votes to win elections? I just don't understand??

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Obviously, Mike, the only REAL people are RICH people.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Why yes, of course. I see the brilliance now!

You know, I live in a country which has shitty healthcare. Not enough doctors, long hours, poorly maintained hospitals, little essential equipment.

My grandmother had a heart attack today. She was brought into the ER, and they cleared the jammed artery with an endoscope in the first 10 minutes.

She will spend three days in the hospital, two in internsive care, but she wil l be fine.

Now...how much would it cost my family in America? Because even with our shitty mismanaged system, it will cost us zilch.

Tens of thousands for the ER/IC/Hospital alone and god knows how much on the longterm follow-up medication and such.