Comments on Death Panel by Proxy by CK MacLeod

@ miguel cervantes:
The "amnesty solution" of '87 was rather trivial compared to the reality of the "problem," as we learned. The size of the problem - all those laundering, drywalling, lettuce-picking illegals - is what makes an approach of that sort more, not less, justified, because the alternative is an ever harsher, more inequitous and self-defeating status quo. Depending upon attrition - i.e., a harsher, more suspicious and oppressive, racially divided society, with a besieged under class - may tend to make the problems all worse.

@ fuster:
Might be one or two, but they said it was a big mistake.

Also there was OJ, but he's in Nevada now.

@ fuster:

Interestingly insistent repetition of the word "illegals" there. Spoken aloud, with the right wrong intonation, that could be one ugly paragraph.

And makes for an odd comparison next to all of the other stuff about how every Californian depends on illegals to be housed, fed, landscaped, brought up, laundered, etc. Kinda might make some people wonder about the typical HotAirian attitude toward "Shamnesty."

@ miguel cervantes:
As for Santana...

But back on the main subject - they really do think that Obamacare is the end of the country as they know it. It's enough to make you wish they were right.

fuster wrote:

JED has a pretty fine one as well.

You'll have to share... Can't bring myself to go searching. (You know how to link to a comment, right?) Plus, she's your specialty now. If I were still a JED-scholar, I'd have wasted an afternoon replying to parts of the Pakistan piece that you linked, too.

@ fuster:
Obtuse? Gee, what makes you think that?

Now, I think it's likely that the provision of universal health coverage would certainly include some increase in unnecessary demand. I suspect it's been studied to death, but no one really knows for sure what the exact increase would be because there are so many variables to consider, and because "necessary" is in the eye of the beholder.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it a fairly safe assumption that most of the increase in demand would be people seeking treatment for conditions that under current circumstances they tend to self-diagnose and live (occasionally die) with?

So there is currently some amount of "latent demand" - some fraction of it frivolous demand, some fraction (one tends to presume much larger) of suppressed demand.

And that is the issue that Morrissey, representatively, ignores.

As for whether Morrissey controls what Morrissey writes... I'd say that his ideology or his perception of the ideology of the audience he's anxious to serve controls what he writes a vast majority of the time. Just like with everyone else.

@ fuster:
I was trying to stick to the argument as presented by the blogger. The other thing I didn't bring up is that the study is funded by a group whose main reason for existence, as far as I can tell, is to advance the interests of some 100+ medical teaching colleges - including by pushing for greater support from the government. So a skeptical recipient of the info might wonder if the conclusion was kind of conveniently dramatic - unless his main desire was to propagandize against O-care.

@ miguel cervantes:
IIRC, the plan includes measures to "expand the pool of doctors." Those measures may be inadequately funded. A transition to near-universal coverage may involve difficulties and inefficiencies. The whole thing may turn into a war between public option or even single payer on one side, system collapse on the other.

Without attempting a full-fledged discussion of the entirety of Obamacare, but just sticking to this single issue highlighted by Morrissey's criticism, what is the Republican answer to the problem other than to refuse to acknowledge it? Without the plan, there is a doctor shortage. With the plan, the doctor shortage appears worse, even with a larger number of doctors.

Under the current system, the shortage doesn't show up as a supply-demand problem on the same level in the same category - i.e., number of practitioners relative to demand for their services - because potential demand is strangled in the cradle - that is, diverted to and exhausted in other forms... self-medication, implicit dependence on emergency services, immiseration prefatory to access of services for the poor. In short, instead of satisfying the demand through health services, we convert it into pain, fear, illness, poverty, and death. THAT is the current system, and, as far as I can tell, the greatness that conservatives hope to restore.