Senatorial Surveytista

http://lemieux.senate.gov/public/?p=NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=e71996f7-d15c-47bd-9399-f0fb9c3fe489

Not to put too fine a point upon it, Senator Lemieux’s recent survey regarding health care sucks. The results of the survey do not give any clue to the reasons for opposition to health care legislations, and are contradictory considering that the legislation addresses every concern included in the survey. Does 80% opposition make sense if the opponents understood that the legislation addresses the concerns? How does legislation that basically doesn’t go into effect for another four years qualify as a rush job? Does anybody seriously think we won’t be picking at it with tweezers and a magnifying glass for the next four years? How long are we supposed to wait to start doing something? Until everybody agrees on everything? That could be even longer than four years. Or is opposition simply a knee-jerk response to proposals that seem to change existing conditions for people who already feel they have advantages that they are entitled to? If Democrats are ramming this down Republican throats, that seems to suggest that Republicans aren’t willing to open their mouths, even a little bit.

Would somebody please explain to me what insurance it is that is not already regulated, and what insurance premiums are not already increasing? A government program extending availability of insurance coverage to a wider range of individuals will cost money, just as interstate highway systems or missile defense systems cost money to insure increased access and security. Why is that only a good idea if it means I don’t pay?

Like roads and defense, insurance is by nature a socialist project. Insurance pools resources to prevent any one individual from being completely destroyed by circumstances beyond their control. It’s hard to believe anyone who understands the fundamental nature of insurance or realizes that the cost will increase regardless would categorically oppose changes. I don’t particularly see Obama health care as a solution to the problems, but the survey simply invites opposition, it does not reflect the resolution of any issues. What would happen if the survey asked how health care costs should be contained, or how insurance coverage should be extended, for instance, and gave alternatives from Democratic and Republican proposals as the response? I’m not a Democrat, but I suspect Senator Lemieux would be afraid to find out the answers to those questions. The survey seems to say what people want is bi-partisan cooperation, and the Democrats won’t. Who opposes malpractice reform? The Democrats? Think again. Yeah, doctors want to limit recovery for malpractice. Guess who doesn’t? Right, the trial lawyer lobby.

Lemieux’s “predictive modeling” is a study in the ludicrous. Predictive modeling means don’t give credit to someone who probably can’t pay for it. So I have to agree with him there. If people who don’t have insurance don’t get health care, there will be less opportunity for fraud. We already have predictive modeling in the insurance industry. It’s called pre-existing condition exclusions. It means that people with a high risk of need have no resources, but that’s the breaks, right?

Likewise, Lemieux’s video comments make only a superficial kind of sense. He reminds me of Glenn Beck. He has the earnest face of a toddler, and he can speak in coherent sentences without stuttering to repeat the phrase, “money we can’t afford,” which should endear him to any conservative mentality, but his health-care debate “myth-busting” is largely based on restating the obvious as if it somehow means something else, such as increased costs in the Massachusetts health care system. Yes, costs increased, but not as much as other places. Massachusetts residents overwhelmingly approve of the state system, but they’re the wrong color, right? (On the electoral map, that is).

In the end, I can’t argue with Mr. Lemieux. The survey indicates conclusively that 80% of the people opposed to Obama health care legislation are opposed to it. The other 20% are undecided, or obviously misguided and irrelevant. Even I received a copy of the survey, which I did not complete, because I don’t like surveys in the first place, and this one seemed especially misleading. Now I wonder if the reason for sending me a survey was simply that I expressed concern about the timing of the legislation, and might therefore conceivably have been opposed to it, which would explain a lot of things.

Here's Thinking for You
Iffy