Did Limbaugh Unwittingly Give ObamaCare A Thumbs Up?

Did Limbaugh Unwittingly Give ObamaCare A Thumbs Up?


Rick Ungar of True/Slant thinks so and his case is compelling.

First, this quote from Rush after his visit (via USA Today):

I don’t think there’s one thing wrong with the American health care system. I got no special treatment other than what anybody else that would have called 911 and had been brought in with the same kinds of symptoms.

Then Ungar notes why this is significant…

Limbaugh was actually right. He was telling the truth when he said he did not receive special treatment because, since 1974 when mandated health insurance was instituted in Hawaii, pretty much everyone in Hawaii has the same health care availability afforded to Rush.

It turns out that Limbaugh has not been keeping up with his current events. If he had, he might have known he was lavishing praise on the most socialistic medical system in the United States.

Not only is Hawaii the closest thing to a socialist health care system in the nation, it was actually the model for the Clinton Administration’s failed effort to institute universal health coverage back in the early 1990’s. Despite the fact that the state has the highest costs in the country for just about everything – due to the necessity of shipping everything to the islands from the mainland- Hawaiian comprehensive health insurance comes with some of the smallest co-pays and premium charges in the country. What’s more, the costs per Medicare beneficiary is the lowest in the United States.

Be looking for Limbaugh to endorse the Dems’ health care bill any day now. :-)

  • http://www.frankhagan.com/blog/ Frank Hagan

    I’m sure Limbaugh’s health insurance will be billed for the charges, not the state-run system. In his case, having health insurance in his home state of Florida meant that anywhere in the US he had access to great medical care.

    Emergency care is the same across the US, and no one is refused life saving treatment.

    Hawaii’s system has been both praised and criticized. While the claims of universal coverage persist, one wonders why the state implemented, and then had to cancel, “Keiki Care”, a program for health care for poor children. The problem? Parents pulled their kids out of their privately funded health insurance and put them into Keiki Care, overloading the system. The officials were “shocked, shocked!” that people would do that.

    There’s a good article on the benefits and problems with Hawaii’s approach (employer mandates) at The Boston Globe. It is successful at halving the percentage of uninsured, but that still leaves 8% of the people uninsured. The Hawaiian leaders, who evidently believe health insurance = longer life, evidently don’t care about 8% of their population. (I don’t believe health insurance has much to do with life expectancy, so it doesn’t bother me that some people choose not to have health insurance.)

    Life expectancy in Hawaii IS higher, which is why I propose we all move there. Or at least to the sunbelt; I suspect the higher levels of vitamin D due to sunshine have at least something to do with the life expectancy, as well as more active lifestyles from taking advantage of all that sunshine. Those of you who live in areas where there is cold weather and lack of sunshine have lower life expectancies, and are throwing the curve off for the rest of the country.

    (Warning: The sentences above may contain off-hand remarks meant to be read in a conversational tone. Sensitive readers should be aware of the possibility of extreme discomfort due to “regionalism”, “state-ism”, or other politically incorrect ideas. And no, I will not prove any of my statements … Google it yourself).

  • http://detroitskeptic.com/blogs Nick Benjamin

    As you pointed out Hawaii’s got high coverage rates largely because of the employer mandate. In other words the same private insurance system that pays their bills will pay for Limbaughs.

    Their system has major flaws. Notably it isn’t really universal, and the people the state counts on to pay for it can dodge it. Obama’s bill is a lot trickier to dodge, and if they do it people still get health insurance via an individual mandate and subsidies.

    And for all the crap the MA system gets it should be noted that it seems to be improving their position relative to the rest of the country in terms of cost, without any noticeable effect on people’s health. Yeah they’re one of the most expensive states in the country, but in 2004 they were the most expensive:
    It should be noted that Massachusetts’ plan has no cost controls whatsoever, which implies that ObamaCare will reduce cost-growth some even if none of theproposed costs controls work as expected.

  • http://centristcoalition.com/blog/ kranky kritter

    And for all the crap the MA system gets it should be noted that it seems to be improving their position relative to the rest of the country in terms of cost, without any noticeable effect on people’s health.

    Which cost would that be, the reducted out-of-pocket costs for residents who now get subsidized care?Or the increased cost to MA taxpayers? I know that unemployed people getting MassHealth at a substantial discount consider the program quite beneficial. Those footing the bill? Not so much.

    And like most other states, MA is stuck cutting services in many other areas. It would be dishonest not to acknowledge that the higher than predicted costs of this program have adversely affected the state’s ability to fund other services.