Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > August > 16 > Entry
Editorial: Boehner offers some truths, some nonsense
U.S. Rep. John Boehner had a piece in USA Today on Thursday, Aug. 13, about health care. To his credit, the column got beyond the ongoing fight about political tactics (those famous town hall brawls).
To his further credit, he didn’t mention the preposterous “euthanasia” complaint that he has raised before.
Because Rep. Boehner (whose district includes parts of Dayton and Huber Heights, as well as Miami, Darke and Preble counties, and part of Butler) is the leader of the House Republicans, his statements have to be taken as important.
He starts by insisting that “Republicans have stood ready to work with him to pass bipartisan health care reforms.”
In truth, though, many in his party have been in a “Just Say No” posture, to quote a chant from some town halls. All the political energy seems to be coming from the “Just Say No” people.
Rep. Boehner complains that Congress and special-interest groups want to “put Washington in control of Americans’ health care.” If that where true, they simply would extend Medicare to cover everybody. Instead, the reformers are bending over backward to maintain the outlines of the current system, while pursuing the goals of covering everyone and controlling costs.
Rep. Boehner also says “the more the American people learn about the Democrats’ health care bill, the less they like it.”
What’s really happening is that a small group of people spread false and outrageous alarms, and some other people do, indeed, become alarmed.
After these general points, Rep. Boehner makes four specific others, in response to points President Barack Obama made Tuesday in New Hampshire. The congressman says:
• Some people could lose their employer-based health insurance. “Experts at the Lewin Group estimate the number could be more than 100 million Americans,” he says. This is a reference to the “public option,” in the various Democratic plans, under which people could join a government-run insurance plan. The Lewin Group, funded by the health insurance industry, worries that employers would stop paying for health insurance.
Of course, people would actually have more options than they do now: not only the public plan, but new private plans that would be fostered and could compete for customers.
At any rate, the Lewin Group has lowered its figure a little, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office uses a number just a tenth as large.
The public option is a big idea that needs more airing. Serious debate of its potential flaws has been crowded out by irrelevant noise.
• The pending bills would worsen the deficit, despite the president’s insistence that he wouldn’t sign any bill that does that. On this Rep. Boehner is right. Democrats have not put forth a bill that meets the Obama standard.
And yet, standing still makes no sense. The deficit is on an out-of-control path, with health care being one of the big drivers.
• Democrats would cut Medicare “to the tune of $361.9 billion over 10 years. That means fewer choices and lower quality care.”
What the White House says it wants is more efficiency. Do the Republicans really want to insist that, in a huge government program, there’s no way to cut costs without cutting care?
• The Democrats plan would foster more “rationing” by creating a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” to make decisions about what can be covered by insurance. Some advocates have said the idea is to mandate what must be covered — to set minimum standards for insurance programs. They say it’s not about rationing.
Rep. Boehner makes points that are worth debating in the shaping of a plan.
But in a time when tens of millions have no insurance, when scores of millions are on the edge of having no insurance if they lose their jobs, when costs are soaring to the point of driving employers crazy, and when the nation’s long-term fiscal health cannot be addressed without dramatic changes in health care, all efforts must be bent to passing something.
Permalink | Comments (27) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, National Politics, Social Services
Comments
By Bill in Brookville
August 16, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this
Again, if you only follow Rash Lardball and Fox news you will never hear what is really in the Bill or being discussed. You will only hear the lies and twisted dytribe from losers like beck and hannaday who have their own agenda.By we got fooled
August 16, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this
Government is so inefficient that they can not make a profit when they have a virtual monopoly(Amtrack, The Post Office)and they have bankrupt Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why would Americans support their takeover of our health care system! Every other government in the world has to ration care because money is tight and everyone wants something “for free”. We don’t even have the money that this administration has spent in its first 6 months! They do not want to help us, they want to CONTROL us. If they were serious about lowering costs they would be talking about interstate insurance competition and tort reform. If they want to insure those without health insurance, they could have just paid for it with part of the stimulus package. The truth is that once government controls our heath care, they control our lives. Wake up America. After all, Germany fell for the same thing in the 1920’s and 1930’s.By CMT
August 16, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this
Bill in Brookville, if you only read the bill you will know what is in the bill. Google it dude, you must have loads of spare time if you believe this nonsense. The bill does in fact state that if you leave your employer or if your employer changes plans you must become part of the public plan. The bill also states that if you are an employer who does not offer private insurance you must pay an 8% tax on your payroll. That would shut down many small businesses. And, how can you add millions of people onto a health care plan without adding doctors and hospitals without rationing? Those of us who work hard every day are tired of you leaches who made one bad choice after another and want to take what is not yours. Health care would not be free, someone has to pay for it, and it is those who are productive members of society who will pick up the tab. Get off your duff and do something with your life instead of envying those who have.By drunken orangetree
August 16, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this
CMT, Here’s the text of the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text Show me where it says what you say. As for your comment about rationing: The insurance companies are already rationing health care.By Ice Bandit
August 16, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this
Marty and Ellen, frustrated at not being nominated as press secretaries for the Obama administration, soldier on and carry the Great Helmsman’s message to an increasingly skeptical (not to mention shrinking) readership. The people who pay the freight for the government’s dog and pony show are outraged at astronomical national deficits and decreasing liberties, not to mention the nose-holding “we know what’s best for you” nanny-state mentality. Trust me, the Miami Valley will do much better by ignoring Marty and Ellen’s liberal lockstep opinions than we would be without the leadership of John Boehner…..By drunken orangetree
August 16, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this
“Trust me, the Miami Valley will do much better by ignoring Marty and Ellen’s liberal lockstep opinions than we would be without the “lies” of John Boehner…” There ya go, Ice. I fixed that last sentence for you.By DAVE LODGE
August 16, 2009 6:18 PM | Link to this
I am a rino in favor of reforming health care. With reference to your text that the Lewin Group study estimation on the amount of people who could lose their employee-based health insurance (more than 100 million) was funded by the health insurance industry, you should have included that the Lewin Group is actually a division of UnitedHealth Group, a more ominous connection when it comes to producing a purportedly independent, credible report that is being used by those who oppose health care reform.By DAVE LODGE
August 16, 2009 6:19 PM | Link to this
I am a rino in favor of reforming health care. With reference to your text that the Lewin Group study estimation on the amount of people who could lose their employee-based health insurance (more than 100 million) was funded by the health insurance industry, you should have included that the Lewin Group is actually a division of UnitedHealth Group, a more ominous connection when it comes to producing a purportedly independent, credible report that is being used by those who oppose health care reform.By DAVE LODGE
August 16, 2009 6:20 PM | Link to this
I am a rino in favor of reforming health care. With reference to your text that the Lewin Group study estimation on the amount of people who could lose their employee-based health insurance (more than 100 million) was funded by the health insurance industry, you should have included that the Lewin Group is actually a division of UnitedHealth Group, a more ominous connection when it comes to producing a purportedly independent, credible report that is being used by those who oppose health care reform.By capitalist
August 16, 2009 6:23 PM | Link to this
Drunken Orangetree, Don’t drink and vote!By g-man
August 16, 2009 9:36 PM | Link to this
What a lame editorial. I have just begun subscribing to the Daily News. I hope I have not wasted my money on a paper that is published to carry water for the democrats. How can we blindly march toward government run healthcare when we have such shining examples as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA system? What makes anyone think the government is capable of managing our healthcare? Show me examples on the same scale where government runs anything as well or better than the private sector. Show me another country’s government run healthcare system that is as good as our present system and is sustainable. The editorial takes the position that it is OK that the proposed healthcare plans cannot be paid for; the deficit is out of control anyhow so what’s wrong with a little more. Wake up, read the constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not equal entitlements to HDTV, cell phones, new cars, free healthcare, and what ever other gifts the dems have planned around the corner. Pursuit means you need to work to achieve it. Work hard if you have too…By the way, how many people do you see limping around the streets and dying of untreated diseases in this great country of our. While the system may not be perfect and we should work to make improvements, it is working pretty darn well. Let’s not confuse getting medical treatment with someone deciding that this weeks lottery tickets and carton of smokes is more important to them than making a medical insurance payment. That is their choice in their pursuit of happiness.By drunken orangetree
August 17, 2009 7:36 AM | Link to this
g-man, that is a nice collection of rightwing cliches there. Now, let’s get back to the main point of Gottleib’s column: Boehner’s lying about what is in the democrats’ health care bill and what its results would be.By joe_mamma
August 17, 2009 8:03 AM | Link to this
Orangetree, Yes insurance companies ration. But do they ration more than a single payer government run healthcare system? If an insurance company does not cover a procedure it does not mean you cannot get the care. You may need to do some unpleasant things like sell your house or something, but who wouldn’t do that to try and save the life of their spouse or child? There is also the option for charity. The point is with private health care there are multiple options. With a government run system there is only one option and that is the government. If you are deemed unworthy by the government under a single-payer system you are toast.By drunken orangetree
August 17, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this
joe, I’m glad to hear you admit that under our current system you have to resort to either bankruptcy or charity if you can’t meet your bills. I’m also glad to hear your propose something that MIGHT happen under a single-payer system, rather than arguing that your scenario will happen. That said, we should also note that the current house bill is not in any way shape or form a single-payer plan. (A single-payer plan would be like Medicare.) What is instead being proposed is a public option. If you can’t get affordable insurance in the private sector you can go to the public sector to get it.By AVGJOE
August 17, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this
The two examples BHO uses to justify the single payer system:tonsils and amputations. Miracles of modern medicine are far reaching . Why do we want to stifle medical innovation?By AVGJOE
August 17, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this
The two examples BHO uses to justify the single payer system:tonsils and amputations. Miracles of modern medicine are far reaching . Why do we want to stifle medical innovation?By AVGJOE
August 17, 2009 11:57 AM | Link to this
The two examples BHO uses to justify the single payer system:tonsils and amputations. Miracles of modern medicine are far reaching . Why do we want to stifle medical innovation?By AVGJOE
August 17, 2009 12:01 PM | Link to this
Insurance companies are mostly public owned. If BHO wants more competition he should resign and start an insurance company. He can raise capital in the public capital markets. BHO was an incredible fundraiser, he should have no problem getting the money to start his insurance business.By g-man
August 17, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this
Orangetree. I don’t believe Boehner is lying. I think he is being misrepresented by the blind author. You did not answer one point in my statement. There are several versions of the plan and I don’t have time to read the thousands of pages, so I’ll trust my trusted sources to provide the details. But aside from that, where is the logic stepping on the accelerator of a broken system that will be out of gas in the near future? Is it to kill all private options so that there will be no choice but putting a hand out to the government for our ration of health care? So tell me where the revenue neutral government entities are that provide satisfactory goods and services? Where there is no waste, fraud and abuse… Where unions are not in control… What examples are there of successes in this world upon which to build this system? I have not heard one logical argument that says “OK, we have not done so well with M-care, M-aid, or taking care of our veterans, but this is how the system will be better and how it will not drive our country into bankruptcy.By joe_mamma
August 17, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
Orange, I would rather sell my house or declare bankruptcy than have a bureaucrat dictate to me my healthcare options especially if it concerns life and death decisions involving my family. Frankly, your comfort with letting a government bureaucrat make that decision for you is disturbing to me, however, I know that is how a statist thinks. You really don’t think that the public option isn’t going to lead to a single payer system? Really? You don’t see how it might be a problem for a company to compete against a competitor that does not have to at least break even?By drunken orangetree
August 17, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this
joe, let’s deal with your points. Think about the first one, the contrast between going bankrupt or having a bureaucrat dictate your healthcare options. Under our current system, you don’t have to make that choice, since you could go bankrupt because a bureaucrat at an insurance company decides that you’re just too darn expensive to cover! And this is the system you’re arguing for. And, then, inevitably, the cliched comments about “statist” or whatever. The two countries that have the dreaded single-payer system you’re so concerned about, Canada and Britain, both spend less, insure everyone, and both Canadians and the British live longer than us. And it has nothing to do with our homicide statistics or our accident rates. It has to do with our crummy health care system. But, it’s nice to see you’re so concerned about the poor insurance companies. When they’re denying your kid’s health care claims I’m sure they’ll remember your support and apologize first.By joe_mamma
August 17, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this
Ha. Orange you have shown your true statist stripes. You are for single-payer healthcare. I’m glad I could ferret you out. It would be nice if you and Martin Gottlieb would just come out and say that you are for single payer systems instead of playing these games. As I said before I WOULD GLADLY GO BANKRUPT IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD NOT COVER A PROCEEDURE FOR MY FAMILY. I WOULD SELL MY HOUSE. I WOULD WORK 24-7 TO PAY FOR IT OUT OF POCKET. I would do whatever it takes. Even if it didn’t work out at least I had the chance. I get to decide if it is worth it not you or the government. WITH YOUR PRECIOUS SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. Someone else ultimately decides. There is no out. It’s sad that you are so uncomfortable with freedom that your intellectually lazy knee jerk response is to federalize. I mean really…you can’t come up with one idea that doesn’t involve a government takeover to make things better? You just want to turn it over to the government?By drunken orangetree
August 17, 2009 4:12 PM | Link to this
joe, if you went bankrupt, you wouldn’t pay for anything. You’d be destitute, and then WE’D have to pay for it. Geezus, grow up.By joe_mamma
August 18, 2009 7:24 AM | Link to this
Orange, really man, no offense here, but it sounds to me like you are the one needing to grow up. You want the government, ahem…I mean the taxpayers, (or as you might say “we”) to pay for YOUR health care. Heck…you even don’t seem to mind having the government make life and death treatment decisions for you.By insured
August 19, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this
joe-lots of people who have insurance DO go bankrupt due to medical bills. do you really think that is good for the country and its citizens?By joe_mamma
August 19, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
Insured…I’m not sure what you are getting at? If you are under the impression that I do not favor reforms to the healthcare system, then you are wrong.By scooby do
August 24, 2009 8:27 AM | Link to this
Boehner’s lying, just when is he ever going to take responsibility for his lies and the MSM ever going to call him out on it, death panels, killing gamma, get real, if he does not know better, than he should be impeached for stupidity. It is past time to start holding them responsible for what come out of their collective mouths. If you want to debate facts, fine, but spread rumors and lies, its defiantly time to stop that. If the MSM is so liberal and into Obama, why is it, they NEVER call these liars on any of the crap that spews out of their mouths.