It’s bad enough that Donald Berwick favors every bad idea the Left has hatched in the past century—-central-planning, wealth redistribution and health care rationing.
Now we discover that he has made a special deal with his former employer to avoid the very health care system he plans to impose on the most vulnerable of our citizens:
Berwick himself does not have to deal with the anxieties created by limited access to care and the extent of coverage. In a special benefit conferred on him by the board of directors of the Institute for Health Care Improvement … Berwick and his wife will have health coverage ‘from retirement until death.’
Meanwhile, though he holds a very powerful position in an administration that has yammered incessantly about “transparency,” Berwick is already dodging reporters:
President Barack Obama’s controversial pick to run Medicare and Medicaid made his first public appearance Tuesday since he landed the job in a recess appointment, but he did not remain at the press conference long enough to take any questions from the news media.
Is there ANYONE on the Obama team who isn’t a brazen hypocrite?
Comments 11
I am not sure about this, but his term will only last until the next Cogress is sworn in. Then his nomination will have to voted on. I think that happened to Bush’s appointment to the UN. Harry Reid wouldn’t bring his nomination up for a vote so he had to resign. Let’s hope he won’t do too much damage between now and January.
Posted 14 Jul 2010 at 10:41 pm ¶This makes no sense. Are you saying that well-off people who can afford other provision should drop it and use Medicare, adding to the pressures on the system? Why not just take their taxes and let them do what they want?
Posted 15 Jul 2010 at 7:01 am ¶Are you being intentionally obtuse Marc? Here was the point of the post:
“Is there ANYONE on the Obama team who isn’t a brazen hypocrite?”
Sounds like a fair question. Seems that Socialism is for the subjects, not their rulers.
Posted 15 Jul 2010 at 12:54 pm ¶The healthcare package was granted in 2003, Matt. Are you saying that any well-off person taking a public post has to give everything away?
Posted 15 Jul 2010 at 4:39 pm ¶Of course not. But any person that advocates taking the choice away from others and not themselves is a hypocrite. It’s pretty simple really.
Posted 16 Jul 2010 at 8:38 am ¶So…there you have it. The verdict is, Marc Brown is being intentionally obtuse.
Some people are more equal than others.
Posted 16 Jul 2010 at 10:57 am ¶Sorry Matt - you’ve lost me. What choice is he taking away? As far as I’m aware Medicare is a right for all over-65s who’ve paid their taxes, and certain other groups. He is not a free marketer who wants to abolish it like you - he actually wants to strengthen it. Also, he is not proposing to remove the right to buy private insurance as an alternative or extra. So what choice is is taking away?
Posted 16 Jul 2010 at 4:20 pm ¶Marc- you’re logic makes the point. I’ll probably need the system, but would, if I could, pay for whom ever I choose to see for my healthcare untill I die.
Posted 19 Jul 2010 at 12:48 pm ¶Marc–Have you or anyone you know tried to get Medicare-free health insurance after the age of 64 and 9 months? I tried to get quotes from multiple insurance companies. Most do not even offer insurance to people of Medicare age. The one insurance broker who said he would get me a quote never called back, but warned me that it is incredibly expensive.
Why? Because Medicare has destroyed the individual insurance market for the elderly, even more so than government education has severely diminished private school options fro primary and secondary education. No one can opt out of the taxes, so you must pay twice.
So far, Medicare has been very generous to recipients, so few people have looked for alternatives. This is bound to change as Medicare goes broke, rationing is put into place and doctors increasingly opt out due to reimbursement below their costs of providing care. Although you theoretically are “free” to choose an alternative to government provided healthcare after you turn 65, the existence of Medicare has made this option achievable only for the very wealthy few.
Posted 19 Jul 2010 at 4:51 pm ¶Beth, I see you are making a strong case for a single payer insurance system. There never can be - or could be - a separate insurance market for older people given that the majority of healthcare spend happens in the older years. But much of that spend is wasted and unnecessary so there is considerable scope to improve Medicare as it stands and Don Berwick is recognised as the prime mover across the political spectrum bar the lunatic right.
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 6:21 am ¶Single payer. Yep, monopolies always reduce costs. Seem the MA system beat the hell out of Medicare, so the pols choked them out.
Posted 21 Jul 2010 at 1:01 pm ¶Post a Comment