411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 107

Posted by Brandon Crow on 10.27.2008

Is it time for the US to make a serious move towards universal health care? Does ACORN cause bigger election fraud than Diebold? Would Hillary Clinton make a poor Supreme Court Justice? Does the world want Barack Obama for president more than the US?

Welcome to Politics Fact or Fiction, Week 107. This week, we have two more readers jumping into the political fray. I'd like to welcome back to F or F, long-time reader and second-time participant, Vinay Sundaram, who, if you can believe, is a doctor…DOCTOR who watches pro wrestling…hmm…that's almost as a bad as a college professor watching wrestling. Yes, I'm looking at you, Crow!! Wait—I'm Crow…okay, never mind…let's just move on!

But before we do, I have to lay down a public apology to Vinay. Last time he came on, I accidentally referred to him as "Krunchy Law," because I had a brainfart. Krunchy was participating the week after Vinay, and I had been emailing with Krunchy back and forth. So, I made a mental boo-boo.

Also featured this week, first-time participant, but very astute comments poster, Matt Hanna. I'll leave you all to figure out what his "handle" is. Welcome, gentlemen! Let's get ready to rumble! Oops…I guess Ashish now owes Michael Buffer some money.

Let's get to it.

Ding! Ding

1. It is time for the US to make a serious and committed move towards universal health care.

Vinay Sundaram: FICTION. As a doctor and a person who enjoys debating the state of health care, this answer will require a short essay, as it's really not an easy fact or fiction type answer.

First, let's start by looking at what universal health care means. Does it mean that everyone has access to health care or that the government pays for everyone's health care? If it's the latter, that is certainly not the way to go and I'll tell you why. People may think a government-based health care system is ideal but for that to work, it would require a tremendous change in the overall culture of what Americans want. The reason England can afford to pay for everyone's health care through a government-based system is primarily through a focus on preventative health.

One can argue that doctors in America should focus on preventative health, and in fact, I hear from Democrats all the time how they are going to make doctors focus on prevention which really pisses me off because here's a news flash: WE DO FOCUS ON PREVENTION. I spent 3 years as a resident in internal medicine and am now sub-specializing. During my three years in general medicine, the majority of my focus was on trying to control blood pressure, diabetes, get patients to quit smoking, etc. But what people have to understand is that the doctor can't do everything. There has to be cooperation from the patient.

Americans can't just not take care of themselves by having RECORD numbers of obesity and diabetes (including children for god's sake!) and then expect the doctor to fix everything when they suffer from complications of their disease, and have the government to pay for it. They can't ignore their doctors and countless amounts of advertising regarding smoking and then expect the government to provide their oxygen tanks and motorized scooters because they're so out of breath from emphysema.

And that is the reason why such a health care system will never work in America. Because many of our citizens want the absolute best quality health care, but won't take care of themselves to reduce the costs so that the child who gets lymphoma or the mom who gets breast cancer can get money allotted to them.
Now let's look at giving access to all people. This is something I really wish would happen, but I just don't know how it will be paid for. It is ridiculously unfair how so many hard working Americans don't have health insurance, and those that do, have to jump through hoops to get things paid for, even when it's the standard of care.

The other day, a patient was telling me how he was paying $600 a month for pills which were the only medicine which would treat his disease. This has got to stop. I appreciate what Barack Obama is trying to do in terms of allowing everyone to buy into Congressional insurance. And I think he may be the first Democrat who finally "gets it" in terms of giving all Americans access to health care. He's certainly much better than that jack-ass John Edwards, who probably thinks we can pay for health by suing all the doctors.

I like Obama's idea of mixing the market with both government and private insurance. But for this to work well, the government insurance simply cannot pay for everything under the sun (eg: that extra MRI when you already have a CT scan). In other words, government insurance can only pay for what's necessary as determined by the doctor. For people who want insurance that pays for more, they can buy privately and pay higher premiums. This way, you can get what you pay for. I know it's not fair that some people would have better insurance than other, but this way all Americans still have health care access in a system where we can pay for what we buy.

For those of you who feel differently, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Matt Hanna: FICTION. While I am not going to pretend to be anywhere near the expert as Vinay on the subject, I agree that Universal Healthcare has its share of drawbacks specifically on cost. The country is in horrible shape finacially with billions going to bailout packages, a massive national debt, and an unstable short-term economic future which will likely reduce tax revenue for the next few years.

One problem w/ Universal Healthcare is that allows Adverse Selection which means people with the poorest health will drain the system. Private companies avoid these people such as smokers, heavy drinkers, overweight, etc. via pre-screening. With Universal Healthcare, there is no way to practice this form of risk management which is an expensive proposition.

As Vinay touched on, I am also worried about people seeking multiple opinions or going to the doctor over minor issues which would clog the system in both money and efficiency. I don't see how a system can be implemented without significantly raising personal or business taxes (which DO effect the middle class despite the belief of some). While I realize the current system is far from perfect, I do not view healthcare as a fundamental right that government is obligated to provide

1 for 1. You cold-hearted bastards! Why do you want little Timmy to suffer? Heh, heh!

2. ACORN is a bigger threat to causing actual fraudulent elections than Diebold and Sequoia, who make and run the voting machines.

Vinay Sundaram: FICTION. Ok, I'll be much briefer with this. The problem with ACORN is they unfortunately inflated voter registration because they're employees were lazy and greedy. With that said, Mickey Mouse will not vote even though he's registered. I just don't see how registering a number of fake people will affect the overall election when none of those people will vote. I'm far more concerned with those who are registered properly and do show up to vote and whether their votes will not be counted due to faulty machines.

Matt Hanna: FICTION. I do think that ACORN is a partisan organization that has an interest in an Obama victory. Being a native Clevelander, I've heard the reports of them bribing homeless w/ cigarettes, beer, etc. for votes for Obama (although admittly, it is likely they were not going to vote Republican). While it may be a reach, it is possible that some of those falsely registered could vote twice via the help of a fake id or inside help at a polling station as some states are pretty lax on rules double-checking registration.

However, I say fiction because the scope of fraud would be much greater if someone hacked the machines which determine the election. A number of reports have indicated that the security on these machines is very basic and they are vulnerable to hackers. A good hacker could theortically influence the vote total on a massive scale.

I don't believe the impact from ACORN is that deep or sophisticated in scope.

2 or 2. Hey Faux News, stop talking about ACORN and focus on Diebold!

Switch!

3. Lots of rumors and speculations are swirling about regarding Hillary Clinton's next move, one of which is a possible Supreme Court appointment. Hillary would make a poor Justice.

Matt Hanna: FICTION. I believe she would make a fine justice if appointed as she is a very bright and articulate person. The one glaring omission in her resume is that she does not have any bench experience, although she does have a law degree from Yale. All of the judges currently sitting on the bench do have prior bench experience at the federal/state level. However, this has not always been the case as some of the Court's most respected alumni such as Earl Warren and John Marshall never sat on the bench prior to their selection. I think Clinton's mix of both policitical and legal knowledge would add a scope of diversity to the Court that it has lacked in recent years.

That being said, I wouldn't hold my breath on an appointment as I am not certain it would interest her (or for that matter if Obama would offer it). Supreme Court Justice's are often out of the public eye. The Clinton's love publicity and being a leader in the Democrat-controlled Senate would certainly give her more opportunities for sound bites, TV time, and Republican bashing. I still believe she has Presidential ambitions and wouldn't be shocked to see her run again in eight years (or 4 if McCain pulls the greatest upset this side of Buster Douglas or Obama goes the way of Jimmy Carter).

Vinay Sundaram: FICTION. Matt gave a pretty good answer to this and I tend to agree what he said. I think that she is very intelligent and knowledgeable. Though she does have lack of bench experience, I honestly don't see that as a large detraction. I'm not in the field of law, so I don't know how necessary experience as a judge would be, but my conjecture is that with Hillary's knowledge and intellect, she will do fine. I agree with the second part of his answer as well. I just don't see Hillary becoming a Supreme Court Justice. She really wants to make a mark in this country, particularly with regards to women's accomplishments. There have already been female Supreme Court Justices. I honestly see her running in 2016 (or god forbid 2012) for president. The other option I see for her is Senate Majority Leader.

3 for 3. Wow, we may be headed to a 4 for 4.

4. You believe that citizens of the world want to see Barack Obama as the next US president more than American citizens do.

Matt Hanna: FACT. Obama has run a practically air tight campaign since the primaries and his supporter's enthusiam have not been matched since Reagan's Goldberg-like squashing of Mondale in '84. However, most polls show that Obama's lead is in the 7% range. A Gallup poll released this week showed that world citizens prefer Obama by a 4 to 1 ratio (only Georgia & the Philippines!? prefer McCain). Like many in the US, most citizens of the world disdain Bush and feel McCain will result in more of the same (i.e., U.S. as World Police). Also, many countries outside the US are naturally more left-leaning often favoring more "socilaist" type policies such as Universal Healthcare. I suspect the world community would strongly favor any Democratic candidate regardless of who it was. There is still a strong conversative base in this country that supports McCain and that makes the race closer here than it is abroad.

Vinay Sundaram: FACT. Again, I agree with Matt and I love the boxing and wrestling analogies. I don't quite equate this to a Goldberg like squashing, more of a Hopkins vs. Pavlik type squashing. But with the way McCain's campaign is going, who knows? Maybe in 10 days he'll even lose Arizona. Regarding the world's view of Barack Obama, yesterday I think on Rachael Maddow, a world map was shown regarding their views on the election. I think only Iraq and Namibia were pro-McCain, with Georgia leaning McCain. I think there are many reasons for this. First, Bush is as unpopular with the world as he is here, particularly because he acted like a war-monger who invaded a sovereign country. And McCain, unfortunately, is viewed as a continuation of Bush, right or wrong.

Also, I agree that Europe especially is more left-leaning, but I think it's their socially liberal views which make Obama more attactive, as opposed to fiscal views. Nobody really believes Obama will change this country to a socialist country except Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, so I don't think his economic policy is as big a factor. But more so, the social conservative base in America which seems to detest Obama for his "Muslim" faith is not as strong in the rest of the world. And that's another reason why his international support is stronger than it is in the U.S.

4 for 4.

4 for 4 this week. Week 108 coming your way in seven. Thanks to Vinay "Krunchy" Sundaram and Matt Hanna for participating. Come back any time, fellas! If any other reader and/or commentator would like a shot, email me at [e-mail] and I'll schedule you in.