The irony of Ted Kennedy and universal healthcare

Richard Parker: “No government regulations restricted the Senator in this extremely important personal choice. Facing a life threatening illness, no bureaucrat forced the Senator to chose his surgeon nor hospital from a government ‘approved’ list–a list not generated by Kennedy’s independent and free judgment, but by ‘public servants’ who’s expertise is not Kennedy’s life, but the arbitrary and byzantine politics of ‘pull’, of favors owed and collected, of political pressure groups and the bitter reality of healthcare rationing. No, Kennedy was not forced to sacrifice his life, liberty nor property in the name of the so-called ‘greater public good.’”

Comments

Anonymous
I don’t want to split hairs, and I certainly don’t feel qualified to argue for or against universal health care, but the supposed “irony” of Ted Kennedy receiving care on his own terms is lost on me. Senator Kennedy is incredibly wealthy, and for that reason alone choices are available to him that are not available to me. I am allowed (under my HMO through work) to choose my primary care physician from a certain group. I certainly have that choice. However, I couldn’t choose to have a procedure done at a world class facility in North Carolina. Even if I could afford the plane ticket, I would be receiving care outside my coverage area and would need to pay out of pocket for it. Since I don’t have access to those kinds of resources, that choice does not exist for me. Don’t get me wrong, I have great coverage through work (and am happy to have it), but people of means have choices that don’t exist for me as anything outside of the sphere of hypothetical. I’m not arguing right or wrong, or that wealthy people shouldn’t be able to use their wealth to their best advantage. But does the universal health care debate really center around the choices available to the extremely wealthy?
So, is this really ironic? Does Senator Kennedy’s legislation create an environment where people of means can’t use their wealth to their advantage? If that is the case, then yes, this is ironic. Otherwise, I’d like to see a different adjective used. Thanks!
Anonymous
Does the author know what health plan the Senator picked? He’s a Federal employee who is beyond Medicare age.
I’m sure he didn’t spent one more cent of his own money than he felt he had to, because he’s well insured on the job.
He may have been out-of-network which could have entailed additional costs.
I’d say more than his insurance, that Senator Kennedy’s fame got him an appointment promptly. It’s doubtful that anybody “lost” any of his lab work, or “forgot” to return his physician’s call. I doubt that he heard “well we don’t have room on the schedule right now” when arranging things.
Personally I’d rather this discussion wait for a year or more so we can see whether all this actually buys Senator Kennedy any time.
Anonymous
“Does Senator Kennedy’s legislation create an environment where people of means can’t use their wealth to their advantage?”
I don’t know about any of his recent legislation, but he was involved in the legislation that resulted in you having an HMO that can, without recourse to the courts, deny your can and which can restrict your choice of doctors and control the care you get by manipulating them in various ways. If you are happy with that arrangement, I guess you are ok with that. Before that Kenndy sponsored legislation, nearly 40 years ago now, you would have emplorer sponsored indemnity, which would enable you to go to whatever doctor and hospital you wanted.
Of course you might would just have no insurance at all, something that is still true. What is also true is that Kenndy is not just rich because of his old man’s thieving, he is also a US Senator which means that he has access to the best insurance that exists in this country. Even if he weren’t born rich, he would never have to know the indignity of having to beg for an authorization for a test or a procedure.
He will also never have to endure the humiliation of working in a deadend job rather than pursuing his dream of entrepreneurship by doing without health insurance for a few years–something many more ordinary Americans will experience if universal health schemes that mandate insurance are enacted.
Anonymous
I am also not sure I would use
“ironic” to describe the dissonance between what Kennedy seeks to impose on the USA, and his actual personal medical options.
“Flaming, beyond belief hypocritical” comes to mind as a better description.
Anonymous
Doesn’t the House and Senate have health insurance coverage separate from what other Federal employees have? If it’s anything like their retirement plan, then I’m sure he got the best treatment without any money out of his pocket.
Anonymous
Hillarycare 93 would have completely prohibited doctors from working outside the system, just like the Canadian system. There would be no elite system for the wealthy or privileged. Teddy would get exactly what anyone else would get. No doctor shopping for expensive but futile care.
Anyone think that Americans are really ready for that?
Anonymous
So what, with this diagnosis, he will be dead in one year no matter where he goes. All the money in the world won’t buy him life.

The irony of Ted Kennedy and universal healthcare

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels