David R. Henderson  

Medical Care Tidbits from a Left-Wing Conference Call

Bernanke Breaks His Arm at Ski... Infant Car Seats and Child Saf...

Usually, my blog posts have a policy point to them, implicit or explicit. This one doesn't. It's straight reporting on something that I found interesting.

Yesterday, I was on a media conference call in which the speakers were Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future, Jacob Hacker, the Yale political science who came up with the "public option," i.e., government option, Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). No, I didn't get to ask a question. But Dana Goldstein of the American Prospect (Hickey mis-identified her as being from The Progressive) did. By the time she asked it, Grijalva had parted, but Ellison and Hacker were there and they purported to answer it. They didn't.

The background is that Grijalva and Ellison, as well as 58 other Democratic members of the House of Representatives, have stated that they will not vote for a bill that does not include the "public option." They went into this at length in their presentations. Goldstein led by pointing out that even if the "public option" is dropped, a major expansion of Medicaid to include, among others, single men would still be left in the bill. You 60 Congressmen are promising not to vote for a bill that doesn't include the public option. But, she asked, won't you be jeopardizing this expansion of Medicaid. Although both Ellison and Hacker said things in response, they avoided answering her question. They stated how important the "public option" was and how important was the expansion of Medicaid, opinions that I'm sure Goldstein shares. But they didn't confront the tradeoff that she had pointed out.

Also, Hacker, Ellison, and Grijalva stated their belief that a coop option would not be much a substitute for the government option. Hackers stated that coops are "largely symbolic and untested" and that they "would not be able to break into the market."

One last tidbit: Ellison referred to the opponents of the bills who have spoken up at town hall forums as "a few rowdies."

Comments and Sharing

COMMENTS (3 to date)
mark writes:

Probably 90% of their constituencies have no idea what they said. Of the other 10%, 9% probably have their mind made up regardless of what they said. I doubt 1% are interested in exploring the tradeoffs.

Shayne Cook writes:

" ... a major expansion of Medicaid to include, among others, single men would still be left in the bill."

David, did you glean anything else during these conversations that could possibly justify why "single men" should be singled out for such special societal consideration/benefit?

The reason I'm asking is because I have to confine my mental activity to a very tiny little space (metaphorically speaking) in order to conceive of any possible justification for such "societal special treatment" for "single men" in a health care "reform" legislation. I can only conclude that these policy-makers' minds are similarly operating in a very tiny little mental space - metaphorically speaking, of course.

Perhaps there's a "Single Men" lobby that I hadn't heard about?

Perhaps they meant "every, single man" (as in: ALL MEN), ostensibly to be followed by "every, single woman" (as in: ALL WOMEN), so as not to violate sexual discrimination laws?

Shayne Cook writes:


Disregard my previous queries - I've figured it out. It's "Cash for Clunkers".

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top