October 12, 2009

Mr. and Mrs. Obama and Health Care Reform

Many on the left are displeased by both the effectiveness and content of Barack Obama's leadership on health care finance reform. Where's the Canadian-style single payer system? Is the public option in or out?

What's almost never mentioned is that a large private medical institution, the University of Chicago Hospitals, invested heavily in influencing Obama's mindset on this issue by employing his wife, back when he was the ranking Democrat on the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services committee, as their diversity outreach coordinator at a six figure salary. When Obama moved up to the U.S. Senate, his wife's compensation was bumped all the way up to $317k. When she became First Lady and could no longer serve, the U of C Hospitals simply eliminated this previously crucial position.

Funny how you never hear much about that from the left ...

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

40 comments:

dearieme said...

"diversity outreach coordinator": are you being serious, or satirical, Mr Sailer? Or are you being serious about a post that was named by someone tongue-in-cheek?

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Steve, count me as one of those people who are disappointed in Obama for not proposing single payer. (Although I am no leftist, by my standards anyway). While no system is perfect, single payer is just much more efficient and cost effective in delivering health services to the overwhelming majority of people.

So yes I am disappointed in Obama. You may even say I am pissed off ;D.

Anonymous said...

"diversity outreach coordinator": are you being serious, or satirical, Mr Sailer? Or are you being serious about a post that was named by someone tongue-in-cheek?

As they say on Slashdot: You must be new here.

[Although your handle looks familiar.]

Svigor said...

Funny how we never hear that from the right, either. Kinda relevant, even if only for making political hay.

Dearime, I'm fuzzy on this, but if memory serves that's the title she held.

Steve Sailer said...

Here's what her biography on the campaign website used to say:

"She also managed the business diversity program. Michelle has fostered the University of Chicago's relationship with the surrounding community and developed the diversity program, making them both integral parts of the Medical Center's mission."

It's been altered since then with references to diversity removed.

John Seiler said...

"the U of C Hospitals simply eliminated this previously crucial position."

That's because, under Michelle, the hospitals achieved complete and perfect diversity, now and forevermore.

jody said...

it's not something republican opponents mention either.

for that matter, republicans seem to have completely censored themselves over questioning anything that is shady or underwhelming about the obamas.

are they taking mccain's lead here? if so, they are doomed.

Funny I follow the news all the time said...

Michelle gave a graduation speech this year during which she complained that the University of Chicago didn’t recruit her out of high school. She described herself as an “outstanding” high school student.

So, even though the University of Chicago had paid her off handsomely, she was still bashing them for “racism”

Funny I follow the news all the time said...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/05/michelle_obamas_early_alienati.html

Michelle Obama's early alienation from the University of Chicago. UC Merced speech transcript
By
Lynn Sweet
on May 18, 2009 5:20 AM

First lady Michelle Obama for the second time has talked about how alienated she was from the University of Chicago when she was growing up on the South Side.
Mrs. Obama commented about her relationship with the U. of C. in a commencement address she delivered Saturday at the University of California, Merced -- echoing remarks she made to children in March at a school here.
The context: Many of the UC Merced graduates were the first in their families to earn college degrees, and Mrs. Obama said, "By using what you have learned here, you can shorten the path perhaps for kids who may not see a path at all.
"I was once one of those kids. Most of you were once one of those kids," and then told the students how she grew up just a few miles from the University of Chicago.
"Yet that university never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me -- a bright and promising student in their midst -- and I had no reason to believe there was a place for me there.
"Therefore, when it came time for me to apply to college, I never ... considered the university in my own backyard as a viable option."
She went on to earn degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law.
Ironically, the U. of C. would become a focal point of her life: She was a high-level administrator at the school and medical center; President Obama taught at the law school for many years; their daughters attended the Lab School; their close friends are on U of C boards and were major presidential campaign fund-raisers and many members of the Obama White House have ties to the institution anchoring Hyde Park.

Anonymous said...

One reason Canada has such a ball hold on the number of specialists that can practice is that they can also control the curicculum in the Universities and what type of immigrants can get into the country. They have already choked off the supply of specialists which is where the high costs / specialized care comes from. When Obama and the afirmative action crowd finishes off the medical system there will be mandated quota for black doctors and nurses. This also ties into your article on Who's Asian this morning. Once the Chinese and Jews who are practicing medicine reflects their numbers in the country it will deminish care not make it better. I think once asians understand that their medical school slot / doctor degree goes to a hispanic or black instead of coming from a white they will start singing another tune.

OneSTDV said...

SO to liberals, diversity is an end itself. It has inherent value.

What is the rationale for this?

Leftists could actually use HBD to support diversity, but using race as a proxy for individual attributes would be extremely inefficient.

@ Steve:

I sent you an e-mail yesterday.

David said...

The plan is conservative right down the line - given the third rail of Medicare. It's about reforming the current system and getting it closer to semi-solvency by forcing the deadbeats to be more moral, i.e. make them be paying customers: health insurance would be made mandatory, thus solving - poof! - the crying problem of the uninsured. Just outlaw being uninsured and there will be no more uninsured people. Simple! The fact that this moral crusade requires a colossal mulcting of the millions of people who make a private (private? whazzat? oh, I know: irresponsible) choice not to carry health insurance (and involves an even larger soaking of insurance companies, which would be providing a subsidy and not, technically, insurance) is covered up by implicit appeals to Fox-News-ish rage: them damn deadbeats oughta start payin'! Let's MAKE 'em get insurance (pre-existing conditions be damned?)!

Meanwhile, the same moral and responsible plan is also supposed to cover millions of illegal immigrants by the simple expedient of legalizing them.

The result will simply be massive premiums...then demands for price controls...leading to shortages, leading to rationing. Has anyone in our government taken an economics course? No - too busy with community organizing and winning elections. Besides, why should they care? The kickbacks and influence-peddling are going massive, nip for the cat to roll in.

Cat Patrol said...

My understanding is that there will be fines and jail sentences for those uninsured who will not buy insurance.

What about the tens of millions of poor (disproportionatly Black and Mexican) who are already getting it for free? Will they be fined and go to jail?

Or will the fines and jail sentences only apply to working people?

Anonymous said...

What is the rationale for this? ...as a proxy for individual attributes would be extremely inefficient...

It's called nihilism.

It's extremely efficient at turning today's prospering, growing, thriving civilizations into tomorrow's arcane archaeological artifacts which are already gathering dust in the museums of the future.

Concerned Netizen said...

Do you really think that MO's former job influenced BO's mindset? I don't think it meant one damn thing to BO. He knew that it was a do-nothing sinecure job.

By the way, I'm shocked, shocked, that you managed to miss this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703679_pf.html

Imagine ANY other First Lady trying a stunt like this. They would lay her over the coals. But M'lady Michelle gets away with everything.

Anonymous said...

Barzouf here

I may be digressing a bit, but why is it each time I hear of Michelle Obama's scintillating intellect I'm reminded of Elena Ceau┼čescu. She was the wife of former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceau┼čescu. As such she was revered as a 'noted scientist' whose works were frequently published. In fact, REAL scientists were forced to write on her behalf, with Securitate goons collecting them.

I imagine honoris causa doctorates will soon be showered on the 'noted diversicrat' Michelle Obama

Anonymous said...

I think once asians understand that their medical school slot / doctor degree goes to a hispanic or black instead of coming from a white they will start singing another tune.

Would that be in the same way that, very soon, anytime now blacks are going to wake up and realize that mass hispanic immigration is bad for them?

Anonymous said...

single payer is just much more efficient and cost effective

How are you going to reduce costs by eliminating competition altogether?

How are you going to increase efficiency when there is no penalty for inefficiency (no threat of bankrupcy + constant increases in size driven by forcible taxation).


There is no "public option", that is the ultimate leftist frame. You have NO CHOICE, you MUST BUY the public option.

Imagine if Sony pitched the Playstation option. "Everyone must buy a PS3. But you can choose whether to come and pick it up!"

l said...

Here's some funny faux debunking:

http://factcheck.org/2009/05/michelle-obamas-salary/

Nanonymous said...

Here is a press-release announcing more than doubling of Michelle salary.

Michelle Obama has been appointed vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals. Obama, who was previously the executive director for community affairs at the Hospitals, will be responsible for all programs and initiatives that involve the relationship between the Hospitals and the community. She will also take over management of the Hospitals' business diversity program.

The "promotion" was from executive director to the previously unexisting title of vice president...

Prior to joining the Hospitals, Obama worked as an associate dean of student services for the University of Chicago where she developed the University's first office of community service. She came to the Hospitals in 2002 and quickly built up programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting.

In other words, while her job was to serve students, she quickly built all kind of programs to serve neighborhood where she grew up and strengthen a system of racial quotas in university's hiring and contracting.

"My goal in this position," Obama said, "is to continue to broaden the Hospitals' relationships with our neighborhood and with our city." ... "We have an obligation," she said, "to ensure that we use our resources on behalf of our neighborhood and our city. In this new role, my goal is to better integrate community engagement into the culture of this institution and to expand our partnerships with local organizations and institutions."

While some may think that university's goals are educate and to research, Obama clearly thinks that universities exist to be milked.

Andrea the Terrible said...

"While no system is perfect, single payer is just much more efficient and cost effective in delivering health services to the overwhelming majority of people."

The real issue isn't really whether 'single payer system' might work better or not. The more fundamental question is, 'does the government have the right to confiscate or appropriate much of the private sector and, if so, by what constitutional right?'

Personally, I don't think the 'single payer' or socialist system will work better, but EVEN IF IT DID(for most people), I believe we should oppose it because it fundamentally undermines our idea of a private property and liberal democracy. When the state can take over--socialize, nationalize, etc--ENTIRE SECTORS in the name of common good, we should wake up and smell the coffee(and the gunpowder). What matters above all in a free society like the US is the idea of personal choice and private property. Of course, personal freedom has to be limited by laws, and economic activity must be regulated and follow certain commonly agreed-upon principles. But, the government has no right to take over the private sector in a wholesale manner. "Good of all" isn't good enough as an excuse to take away the basic rights of Americans, rich or poor.

After all, there's may be a lot of good things that might come out of curtailing personal freedom or private property laws. If we allowed policemen to barge into any house without warrants, crime rates would indeed go down, and we would live in a safer society. Former communist countries had lower crimes rates during the days of the Iron Curtain. Authoritarian socities may be more orderly and stable than free societies with constant protests and even riots. But, do we want to give up on fundamental rights in exchange for this notion of the 'common good'?

So, the real issue concerning healthcare isn't whether single payer system might work better or not. The real question is what right does the government have to take over entire sectors of the economy in private hands? Who gave government such authority? And, where does it end?

Ever notice that big government liberals also want to regulate free speech(in the name of controlling 'hate speech') and develop an army of nudgocrats(devised by Cass the Ass Sunstein)to prod us like sheep on the range or guinea pigs in a lab. Of course, the left dropped Stalinism and Maoism long time ago. Instead of brutocracy, they now go for nudgocracy, chipping away our freedom and individual dignity in the name of 'progress', 'tolerance', 'diversity' and all the Mr. Rogersy virtues. It's freaking Brave New World. It happens with a smiley face and goo goo language, and so, we don't notice what is really happening. Sunstein is one of those very smart Jews who look upon us as not-too-intelligent goyim who must be treated, manipulated, and softly coerced like children. There is the SPANK method of discipline and control--Stalinism--and lollipop-and-smiles way of goading the child to do as the adult wants him or her to. Since we don't wanna give up our freedoms, the likes of Obama and Sunstein smile a lot, put on goo goo faces, make us go gagagoo and pee in our pants in happy delirium and then cry and ask them to change our diapers. Ironically, consumer-capitalism which has infantilized the American mind has opened the path toward socialism. Americans, forever child-like with pop culture and idiocy, never want to grow up and take on adult responsibilities.

And notice that nations with single payer system like Canada, UK, and France are less free than the US. People end up behind bars for THOUGHT CRIMES and HATE SPEECH. Steve Sailer and guys at Vdare would be locked up in Canada. Michael Savage is banned in Britain. Is it just a coincidence that more socialistic goverments tend to be more censorious? I think not. When the government says it wants to take care of you, it also means it wants to take control of you. When it says it want to fill you with 'good ideas', it also means it wants to ban 'bad ideas'. Wake up, America.

Anonymous said...

David touches on the future outcome of heath care "reform". Rationing.

Where unlimited demand meets price ceilings/controls, rationing is the result. Unless you're wealthy enough to obtain care overseas, but you'll pay for it with dollars whose declining purchasing power will only accelerate.

Anonymous said...

Uh. Could also because you aren't going to get rid of the health insurance industry in this country because they are frikkin huge. As opposed to the nifty payola theory you got...

Just sayin.

ben tillman said...

While no system is perfect, single payer is just much more efficient and cost effective in delivering health services to the overwhelming majority of people.

I don't get it. How can anyone think that adding an intermediary aids efficiency?

Anonymous said...

OT

GREAT news.

Good news: Pawlenty rounding up McCain strategists for 2012 run

An all-star list of GOP strategists for his PAC’s first fundraiser. Hey — I thought Mitt was supposed to be the RINO candidate this time!

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

A single payer system would have multiple providers. I'm not proposing that the government make every doctor and nurse a federal employee. Rather I favor the systems across the world where the government is the insurer and our premiums are paid out of tax revenues. As the single insurer, the government will have leverage in dealing with medical service providers and pharmceutical firms. Frankly I think it is idiotic to leave something like healthcare to private market forces when the rest of the industrialized world does well with some form of socialized medicine.

Anonymous said...

Typical Chicago nonsense. MO's "job" was ghost.

Anonymous said...

So, even though the University of Chicago had paid her off handsomely, she was still bashing them for “racism”




"Racsim" must mean low test scores...

headache said...

jody sed:
it's not something republican opponents mention either.

for that matter, republicans seem to have completely censored themselves over questioning anything that is shady or underwhelming about the obamas.

are they taking mccain's lead here? if so, they are doomed.


I don't think Republicans are that daft. I'd guess they got some ominous warnings from the Obama campaign, Soros and possibly the MSM that if they were to go after Obama's dirt, they would be hounded out of office. We all know that any political campaign started by the left is always much more effective than one started by the right. Because they have much more coverage, are much more ideologically motivated and have a lot of stamina. In addition they have deep pockets and lotsa dumb-shits willing to do the work, whereas conservatives usually worry about their jobs, taking care of family or enjoying the countryside. Unlike the Right, the Left needs power to breathe, which is why they are so desperate about it. They have nothing else.

So it’s up to the Steve’s to dig up the dirt and hope it lands up on a larger conveyer belt.

headache said...

Nanonymous said:While some may think that university's goals are educate and to research, Obama clearly thinks that universities exist to be milked.



This was one of the funnier things about Zimbabwe and South Africa: Everybody thought there would be instant Communism of the original Lenin-style pure variety once these Black Nationalist Terror organizations took power, courtesy that US Nobel recipient Carter.

But these new black "elites" were really after the fleshpots. They only thing they hadn't managed to figure out is that if you milk the institutions too fast they just die off and eventually collapse. Once the public institutions were broke, Mugabe went after the farmers. It was a last resort move, kinda like selling off the family silver.

In South Africa there was so much more to milk that the strains are only becoming obvious now, 15 years after "liberation". In the US there is even much more, so you guys can look forward to being milked by Obama-like "liberators" for another 50 years! Enjoy.

headache said...

Pissed Off Chinaman said...
While no system is perfect, single payer is just much more efficient and cost effective in delivering health services to the overwhelming majority of people…


I live in Germany, which was one of the countries which Hillary touted as an example, back when she tried to force this through. The system here is dual, with the bulk of the population in a single-payer system managed by the government and a myriad of public insurers, composed of shades of grey w.r.t. quality, and a smaller private sector for the better-off. Private patients get better care and faster appointments. Socialist pols here have of course been trying to yank the private system, even though ALL of them are privately insured. Unless the post-communist party which used to run the DRG (DDR) gets in, the system will stay as it is coz it best serves the interests of those who pay most of the taxes and socialists know this. Plus socialists want quality care for themselves and their families.

Single payer is costing the country a fortune and no longer affordable. Monthly rates have been going up for as long as I can remember, and the employers, who used to foot 50% of the monthly rates, have now managed to cap their contributions. So the rising costs now fall on the average Joe. What’s worse, since all the public insurers are centrally governed, there is little point in changing to another one. You are essentially screwed, thanks to socialized medicine. In addition the quality of care is going down coz the government mandates the content and quality of care and medication through its massive bureaucracy which probably sucks up half the money anyway. This system will eventually lead to a basic minimum care which will be insufficient, and then people are going to have to augment that with additional private care. The quality of that difference will depend on the depth of your pocket. I have a feeling this is not much different to the current situation in the US.

So in all, your statement is contradicted by the reality in Germany, which is probably a country which could have made it work if it was possible. But it does not work. Scandinavian countries are not good examples because they have small high IQ populations, hideous tax rates and lotsa resources. Norway basically pays for everything in the public sector with its oil, and Sweden is a major arms exporter. Yeah, then there is that Nobel Prize; we all heard about that right.

Mark said...

Would that be in the same way that, very soon, anytime now blacks are going to wake up and realize that mass hispanic immigration is bad for them?

What are you talking about? They woke up to that fact long ago, it's just that they're too busy taking handouts from leftists to notice. They don't care if Hispanics are stealing their jobs - Obama's gunna give them so much free shit that none of them have to work, anyway. At least for the time being...while America's credit rating holds up...

Then they'll want those jobs, but then it'll be too late.

Anonymous said...

headache,

Thanks for your long, well-thought-out comment. I'm going to show it to some O-Bots I know.

Anonymous said...

Mark - I dont think we are disagreeing, I was going for a more ironic tone. Clearly whether blacks have woken up to their hispanic problem or not it hasnt translated into even an iota of support for immigration restriction.

I rather suspect that the earlier commenter (asian/deluded white?) who is hoping to bring asians into some republican big tent is peddling the same flawed idea. That asians will see where their 'real' interests lie thus not sticking it to whitey. Im not holding my breath.

ben tillman said...

A single payer system would have multiple providers. I'm not proposing that the government make every doctor and nurse a federal employee. Rather I favor the systems across the world where the government is the insurer and our premiums are paid out of tax revenues.

We know what "single-payer" means; the question was, how does it promote efficiency to place an intermediary between buyer and seller? You, of course, have no answer as your contention is preposterous.

David said...

Cat Patrol said

> My understanding is that there will be fines and jail sentences for those uninsured who will not buy insurance.

What about the tens of millions of poor (disproportionatly Black and Mexican) who are already getting it for free? Will they be fined and go to jail?

Or will the fines and jail sentences only apply to working people? <

Outlaw being uninsured, and only outlaws, etc. The law-abiding citizen is the victim every time.

In some states (such as Florida) auto insurance is mandatory; it's the law. But does anyone think all people in those states have auto insurance? Does anyone think MOST people in those states have auto insurance? Here I chortle. Just have a wreck in Miami. The way to bet is that the person who T-bones you is: a. "Hispanic" or black male; b. drunk or drugged or both; c. running a red light; and d. uninsured. Nothing ever happens to these people for being uninsured - nothing at all. Where they hit a snag is in having no drivers license. YOU, however, if you lack insurance but lack nothing else and are not at fault...well, it's easier to get tough with the law-abiding, isn't it?

jimbo said...

The health care debate reminds me of the old George Carlin line: "If you think there's a solution, you're part of the prblem."

The fact is, health care is going to continue to get more and more expensive, and take up a larger and larger share of GDP, and that's fine - technology has made it so we can feed, house, and build flat screen TVs for everyone with a tiny portion of the population, so more and more of our resources are going to go toward keeping ourselves healthy. The question is how do we do that in the most efficient way possible?

Anonymous said...

"Once the Chinese and Jews who are practicing medicine reflects their numbers in the country it will deminish care not make it better. I think once asians understand that their medical school slot / doctor degree goes to a hispanic or black instead of coming from a white they will start singing another tune."


Demand for excellent doctors will not go away. Smart little countries will establish medical schools in "paradise", bring in the best professors and be very selective. You can't screw the rich.

Anonymous said...

"I don't get it. How can anyone think that adding an intermediary aids efficiency?"


Not just any intermediary, an incompetent can't-be-fired government intermediary under no pressure to perform effectively.

Anonymous said...

"What about the tens of millions of poor (disproportionatly Black and Mexican) who are already getting it for free? Will they be fined and go to jail?

Or will the fines and jail sentences only apply to working people?"


The fines will be for historically privileged working people: whites.