< 2009 Weekly local football review | Main | "But not me" >
December 1, 2009
Kay Bailey's health care finance confusion
What exactly is Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's political appeal?
She has never seemed to me to have a particularly good grasp of even basic issues. But I never dreamed that she actually supported universal health insurance even while mimicking the GOP party line against such a mandate all these years.
Uwe Reinhardt provides the Senate subcommittee context for Hutchinson's revelation:
[Hutchison] was proposing that women should not have to decide between spending $250 of their own money to get a mammogram or go without it, and that the key here is to get someone else — either public or private health insurance — to pay for it.
I cannot recall a clearer statement of unreserved support for universal and comprehensive health insurance for America and a more straightforward definition of rationing health care.
I am sure that she would extend her remarkable dictum on rationing to cover routine screening for other cancers as well — e.g., to colonoscopies for colon cancer, to P.S.A. tests and biopsies for prostate cancer or to regular examinations for thyroid cancer.
Furthermore, I would assume that her concern for timely medical attention extends even beyond cancer to the prevention of all serious illnesses — e.g., the control of blood pressure for Americans with hypertension through drug therapy or the prevention of diabetes.
In a nutshell, whether she realized it or not, hers is a clear clarion call for comprehensive, universal health insurance in America.
I don't agree with Senator Hutchison's viewpoint regarding universal coverage. However, I understand it and acknowledge that it's not an unreasonable position. I just don't think it's the best way to control the cost of health care services and products.
But why isn't she honest about her true position?
Posted by Tom at December 1, 2009 12:01 AM
Comments
That is a rhetorical question, isn't it? Because I can answer it, for sure.
Posted by: jdallen ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blog.kir.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 1, 2009 6:04 AM
Rhetorical, for sure. Sadly, we can all answer it.
Posted by: Tom K. at December 1, 2009 6:06 AM
For me, her political appeal is that she isn't Rick Perry and she isn't Bill White. That's about it.
Posted by: cmilford at December 1, 2009 8:55 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)