Standing in front of a microphone in a crowded auditorium, a frustrated cabinet maker chided Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, saying politicians fight like third-graders and give massive bailouts to big companies like AIG.
[...]
Through most of the session, Souder listened to several questions before making comments. When he did comment, he referred to past efforts by Republicans to change health care to reflect free-market principles, including the tort system, that were blocked by Democrats and some liberal Republicans.
Souder also said innovation in medical care, such as hip implants, come only from the private sector, not from government programs like Medicare or Medicaid.
“So we’d better not kill the system that has created these innovations,” Souder said
[....]
Most other things have been heard before such as the people being frightened of socialism, euthanasia, rationing.... There were also protests outside the event.
I love this comment from Souder. He mistakenly thinks, that innovations like this would be killed if there was a single payer plan. He forgets that many innovations like this also take place in Europe were there is government owned facilities. From my understanding of the bill all hospitals would still be owned by their current owners and doctors wouldn't become federal employees. Biomet and Zimmer would still be controlled by their current owners. The point of this debate has everything to do about access and insurance, not the complete government take over of every facet of health care. So, here again is a republican spreading either misinformation or one not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of the issue.
And, of course, his comments about market based solutions is code for keeping the status quo. And why not for a conservative like him. Keeping people downtrodden, depressed, broke and afraid means they don't vote and are easily manipulated though conservative fear mongering and propaganda.
The News-Sentinel had more coverage and more quotes from Congressman Souder.
[...]
Anyone hoping to move Souder to support the changes in health care that President Obama advocates saw no sign of success. But the event did show how sharply the House bill on health care divides his constituents. The town hall provided supporters and opponents alike the chance to question Souder closely. And it allowed Souder to explain his perspective on the bill and on problems and potential solutions in health care.
[...]
Souder said that the public option would be so heavily subsidized by the government that private insurance plans could not compete. Before long, it would be something close to a single-payer system, he argued.
Souder and many others opposed to Obama's approach on health care reform argue for several elements of less-radical change in how Americans obtain health care.
[...]
“There is not true health care reform on the table until we have tort reform on the table,” Souder said.
Souder also favors expanded use of health savings accounts, which allow account holders to bank what they don't spend on health care in a given year.
He also supports loosening restrictions on health insurance so that insurers could hedge their risks through reinsurance. That, he argues, could help provide private-sector insurance for pre-existing conditions and catastrophic illnesses.
Fort Wayne attorney David Van Gilder asked Souder a pair of fundamental questions: Is health care a fundamental right or a privilege? Will saving the public costs of health care reform the president advocates outweigh the increased costs for Medicare, Medicaid and other government health care if nothing is done to stop cost increases?
“I believe access to health care is a basic right,” Souder told him. “Do you have a right to have other people pay for it?” Souder argued that in the spirit of charity, Americans should fund medical care for people who cannot afford it. But that doesn't mean such charity should become a government institution.
He confirmed that he thinks not extending government-funded or -controlled health care to everyone will save more money. More important, it will save the character of the health care system.
“When you cut back and take out the profit in the system, you'll have a decline in quality,” Souder said.
[...]
Late in the evening, one woman asked Souder, “Is our president counseled by Marxists and communists?”
“I do not believe he is, honestly,” Souder told her. “You don't have to be a committed Marxist or socialist” to believe that expanding government is the best answer to health care problems.
“It's a different world view,” he said. “Down deep, he's just a kind, misguided liberal.”
I forgot about tort reform in my earlier predictions about what Souder would say. Republicans have been harping on that issue for years. I like the idea of allowing health insurance companies to do purchase re-insurance, like a life insurance company can. This would help spread more of the risk around.
At least Mr. Souder thinks some part of health care is a right, but I am not sure how him saying "access" is a right is meaningful. What does he think access means? A hospital and doctor in your area? Your ability to pay for it or purchase insurance to help pay by pooling the risk?
Finally, concerning the NS article, it was nice to hear Souder defend the president against these asinine attacks of being either a Marxist or Communist, especially since most American don't have a clue as to what those terms mean.
