May 24, 2013
May 22, 2013
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom :
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak:
Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
May 13, 2013
Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo: Why the giving of the document that would permanently change the world could only be done in desolation
David G. Savage:
Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross :
Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same?
With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May:
Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.:
How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
Jewish World Review
July 22, 2009
/ 1 Menachem-Av 5769
Beware of comprehensive health care reform
I was listening to National Public Radio's morning "news" Monday
on the way to work, during which the newsperson read the apparently
"factual" statement that the United States is the only developed country
that does not provide "comprehensive" health care coverage.
Perhaps only those of us who are highly trained ideological
vigilantes would leap to attention on the use of the word comprehensive. To
most people, the word comprehensive sounds good. Of course, those who
opposed "comprehensive immigration reform" a few seasons ago might have
started twitching on hearing the word applied to health care reform.
Comprehensive, as the dictionary defines it, means "including
all or everything." It is very similar in meaning to the definition of
total, which the dictionary defines as "complete, thorough." If something
includes everything, it is complete.
Of course, it is not surprising that NPR uses the White House
talking-point word "comprehensive" rather than its synonym "total," because
total health care coverage easily might sound like totalitarian health care
coverage. And by the way, the dictionary defines totalitarian as "having and
exercising complete political power and control." Note that pesky word
complete a synonym for comprehensive in the definition of
And of course, the word "reform" (as in the phrase
"comprehensive health care reform"), which is defined as "to improve by
alteration, correction of error or removal of defects; put in better form"
is itself subjective and assumes several facts not in evidence most
pointedly that a reform will "improve" or "correct" an "error" or "defect."
The foregoing is not intended as merely overdrawn semantics.
Words convey concepts, which shape public thoughts, which lead to public
support for legislation, which may change the way we live our lives and
meet our deaths.
So to provide comprehensive health care reform suggests that
defects and errors in our current limited health care system would be
improved and corrected with complete health care services for all. What
could be wrong with having new, improved and complete stuff for all? After
all, for generations we have heard on television similar words: "Improved
Tiger Flakes provide complete calcium and vitamin needs for your children's
But sometimes, partially hidden meanings in persuasive-sounding
words may be unwelcome truths that advocates don't want the public to think
Because, when you think about it, it also could be said of
America that we do not have a "comprehensive food-provision system" or a
"comprehensive clothing-provision system" or a "comprehensive housing
system" or a "comprehensive economic-planning system" or a "comprehensive
In fact, of course, those comprehensive systems are only
available in countries that comprehensively control human lives and actions.
How else can the government assure "complete" things if it doesn't control
things "completely" or "totally"?
We have seen many examples in this sad world of what the
citizens get when their governments provide comprehensive or total goods and
services. Freedom of action or inaction is possessed "comprehensively"
by the government, while whatever the government gives the public
"comprehends" the total that the public gets of a good or service. As
between two parties, something comprehensively possessed by one is, by
definition, completely not possessed by the other.
The current health care proposal is a ripe example. In a recent
op-ed defending the administration's health care proposal, Sen. Ted Kennedy
and Bob Shrum argued: "We also need to move from a system that rewards
doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one
that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today,
18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30
days at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these
readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for
preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while
improving the quality of care for patients."
But as Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard brilliantly pointed
out about the idea that the readmissions aren't needed and that we don't
reward the prevention of them: "The most important implication of the
Kennedy-Shrum claim ... is this: The government is going to decide ahead
of time, obviously, since deciding after the fact wouldn't save any money;
and based on certain general criteria, since the government isn't going to
review each individual case what kinds of hospital readmissions for the
elderly are 'unnecessary' and what kinds aren't. And it's going to set up a
system 'to reward hospitals and doctors for preventing' the unnecessary
ones. That is, the government will reward hospitals and doctors for denying
care they now provide, care the government will now deem 'unnecessary.'"
Of course, we have the advantage that the Kennedy-Shrum article
was published for all to read. The actual legislation doubtlessly will not
be available for review before it is voted on.
All we can know for sure is that the Democrats' comprehensive
health care reform legislation will empower bureaucrats comprehensively to
make all decisions, vital and trivial, regarding your health care
coverage or non-coverage. The comprehensive power of the federal
government will completely and totally extinguish your control over your
The price of freedom is that you will not be taken care of
comprehensively. The price of being taken care of comprehensively is that
you won't be free. You pays your price and you takes your choice. Down with
Comprehensiveness! Up the Revolution!
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. Comment by clicking here.
© 2009, Creators Syndicate
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
Ask Doctor K