« NBC's flawed health care misperception poll | Main | Marshall calls out "treason," gets backlash »

August 19, 2009


I certainly hope to see this one show up on Language Log.

It's clear from this example that many members of Congress are ignoramuses. That's one reason why I think a governmental redesign of our entire health care system is more likely to mess it up than improve it. (Another reason is that politics will play a large role. E.g., plaintiff's attorneys and drug companies will be protected in the new law.)

A whopping three members of Congress (out of 535) being ignoramuses related to a single issue (the Internet, in this case) is a good example of "many members of Congress" being ignoramuses in general?

daniel rotter, you have a point. Although I do believe that few if any members of Congress have the expertise needed to redesign our health care system, these examples don't prove it.

BTW note Sen. Baucus's unsubstantiated charges: the demonstrators were agitators, their sole goal was to intimidate and disrupt, they intended to not let any meaningful conversation go on, they were paid, and they were probably from out of state. I was pleased that the Times report made it clear that Baucus had no basis for these accusations. They did so by including Baucus's quote, (“I could just sense it,” he said.)

He sounds like the people who are promoting the idea of "death panels".

Republican ignorance is less harmful than Demcratic ignorance. If Sarah Palin were President, she wouldn't have a clue of how to restructure our health care system. But, she wouldn't try to do it, so we wouldn't be harmed by her ignorance.

Obama and Congressional Democrats are more knowledgable than Palin, but unfortunately they also don't have the expertise to fix the health care system. Also, politics will play a role in whatever bill they pass. Nevertheless, the Dems are going to make big changes, which I expect will make the health care system worse.

For example, the "take all comers" rule will help a few sick people buy health insurance, but it will also drive up the cost of individual health insurance to levels unaffordable for most of us.

Another example is medical malpractice lawsuits. These suits are expensive in themselves. They also lead doctors to order unnecessary medical tests that serve only to help protect the doctors from lawsuits. Any real reform of health care would include reforming medical malpractice. But, plaintiffs' attorneys give so much money to Dems that malpractice reform will never be a part of any reform.

"plaintiffs' attorneys give so much money to Dems that malpractice reform will never be a part of any reform"

Malpractice reform will not have a big impact on health care, because Republicans will demand that reform will not restrict (ration) health care.

The very types of tests that might be dropped if malpractice were less of an issue are the very type of care Republicians are fighting to preserve.

Medical diagnostic firms and examination equipment manufactures and pharmaceutical companies give so much money to Repubs that malpractice reform will never lessen heath care costs. Just malpractice premiums. This pattern has already occurred in several states that have initiated tort reform, on the state level.

The comments to this entry are closed.