Why Right Wingers Can’t Afford to Let Universal Health Care Succeed

[Time for change]

In their aggressive opposition to universal health care, whether through government single payer or even a public option of any sort, the Republican Party and their corporate backers in the health care and health insurance industries are in the process of laying bare their utter hypocrisy for all the world to see. Their only weapons for combating meaningful health care reform are lies and hypocrisy. And they are using those weapons to the fullest extent.

So why expose the utter hollowness, corruption, and callousness of their Party just to fight universal health care? The fact of the matter is that they may not have a choice. They are desperate. A successful national health care program could mean not only the end of the Republican Party, but the end also of a great deal of the philosophical underpinning for the RW agenda. Let’s consider some of that philosophical underpinning:


THE PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING THE RIGHT WING ANTI-HEALTH CARE AGENDA

The ridiculous idea that private corporations inherently do things better than government can

Ronald Reagan, perhaps more than anyone else, helped to establish the myth that the private sector is inherently better than government at just about everything. He summarized the right wing philosophy in a sound bite when he joked “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’”

That joke and the ideology behind it is stupid beyond belief. Yet Ronald Reagan sold that ideology to millions of Americans, rode it to victory in two presidential elections, and helped turn American politics sharply to the right for decades to come.

Think about it. What is government and what are corporations? Government is us the people. It is the vehicle by which the American people have arranged to serve their needs. Without government we have anarchy and the rule of the jungle, as opposed to the rule of law. The purpose of a corporation, on the other hand, is to make a profit. If we as a people have a need that has to be met, such as the provision of water or health care, and all other things being equal, would we rather that need be met by an entity – government – which we created specifically to serve our needs and which is accountable to us? Or would we rather that need be met by an entity – a corporation – that was created to make a profit? In sum, Reagan’s implication that government is inherently bad or incompetent compared to the private sector is, well, incredibly stupid – and dangerous.

The right wingers are now persisting with this idea in their attempt to defeat meaningful health care reform. They want us to believe that government health care or government provided health insurance (such as with Medicare) is inherently inferior to private health insurance. Yet at the same time they whine that government competition with the health insurance industry will drive them out of business. Apparently they think that the American people are too stupid to notice their absurd contradiction.

President Obama did a great job of pointing out this contradiction at a recent town hall meeting. In response to the question “Won’t that (a public option) drive private insurers out of business?”, Obama threw their hypocrisy right back in their face:

Why would it drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality healthcare, if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government – which they say can't run anything – suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical.

The even more ridiculous idea that private insurance companies welcome competition

In their efforts to explain why the private sector always performs better than government, corporate America consistently emphasizes the issue of “competition” in the private sector. But the truth of the matter is that there is very little effective competition in private health care insurance. A recent editorial in The Nation makes that point:

Indeed, despite their avowed reverence for competition – which they claim a public plan would undermine – insurers in large parts of the country enjoy a near-monopoly. Health Care for America Now recently issued a report showing that 94 percent of local insurance markets are “highly concentrated,” according to the guidelines used by the Department of Justice.

Anyhow, the idea that health insurance companies actually want competition is absurd. What they want is to maximize their profits – not competition. And that is precisely why so many millions of Americans have been screwed over by them. If they really wanted competition, then why would they whine so much about government competition driving them out of business?


THE POLITICS OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

How a successful universal health care program could destroy the right wing agenda in the U.S.

In his book, “The Conscience of a Liberal”, Paul Krugman focuses on the provision of universal health care as perhaps the most important issue that liberals should set as a goal. In explaining his reasons for recommending that, he ironically quotes a right winger who – apparently inadvertently – made the point for us as well as anyone could have done. (Apparently William Kristol was speaking to a right wing audience when he provided the quote that Krugman used.) Here is Krugman’s statement on the issue.

The principal reason to reform American health care is simply that it would improve the quality of life for most Americans…

There is, however, another important reason for health care reform. It’s the same reasons movement conservatives were so anxious to kill Clinton’s plan. That plan’s success, said William Kristol, “would signal the rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy” – by which he really meant that universal health care would give new life to the New Deal idea that society should help its less fortunate members. Indeed it would – and that’s a big argument in its favor…

Getting universal care should be the key domestic priority for modern liberals. Once they succeed there, they can turn to the broader, more difficult task of reining in American inequality.

The above discussion by Krugman also helps explain one very important reason why Republicans and their corporate backers are dead set against any meaningful health care reform. Krugman explained this during the presidential primary season in the fall of 2007:

There won’t be a serious Republican alternative. The health care plans of the leading Republican candidates, such as they are, are the same old, same old: they principally rely on tax breaks that go mainly to the well-off, but will supposedly conjure up the magic of the market. As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect cruelly but accurately puts it: “The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don’t have – and can’t get – on their taxes.”

But the G.O.P. nominee, whoever he is, won’t be trying to persuade the public of the merits of his own plan. Instead, he’ll try to scare the dwindling fraction of Americans who still have good health insurance by claiming that the Democrats will take it away. The smear-and-fear campaign has already started.

This should not be a bipartisan issue – there is no need to accede to the health insurance industry

As I said above, Republicans and their right wing backers are desperate. So there is no good reason for Democrats to accede to the wishes of the health insurance industry. Paul Krugman made the point in his book that this is inherently a partisan issue, and we make a grave mistake in pretending that it is bipartisan:

The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved by political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish. On health care reform, which is the first domestic priority for progressives, there’s no way to achieve a bipartisan compromise between Republicans who want to strangle Medicare and Democrats who want guaranteed health insurance for all. When a health care reform plan is actually presented to Congress, the leaders of movement conservatism will do what they did in 1993 – urge Republicans to oppose the plan in any form, lest successful health reform undermine the movement conservative agenda…

To be a progressive, then, means being partisan – at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism – leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us from making our society better.

A final word about the politics of health care

I recently made similar points to a caller from the DNC who asked me for money in support of the DNC’s efforts towards “health care reform”. I told her that I was very confused as to what exactly their stance on this issue is – that I couldn’t even discern a commitment to providing a public option to meet the health care needs of all Americans. She acknowledged that there was no absolute commitment to that – that things are currently in political limbo, and they’re trying to get the best deal that they can. I told her that as far as I’m concerned a health care plan without such a public option would not be worth supporting. She agreed with me that a health care plan without a strong public option that would meet the health care needs of all Americans – one that forced people to get their needs met through private insurance – could not truthfully be called health care reform. I told her to call me back when the DNC decided to commit at least to a strong public option plan.

I get very nervous when President Obama or our Congressional Democrats appear to be giving in on this issue. In the very same town hall meeting in which Obama politely but straightforwardly pointed out the hypocrisy of the health insurance industry whining about government competition, he then went on to exhibit his political side:

Now, I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly, that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money.

I have to take issue with that statement. No, there are no “legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers” on this point. It’s very simple. Private insurers have a lot of costs associated with their attempts to make a profit. Those costs are routinely passed on to the consumer in order for health insurance companies to attain the profits that they desire.

Of course a public plan that meets the health care needs of all Americans will be subsidized by taxpayers. And in return, a good government health care plan will more than make up for the taxes used to pay for it. If the private insurance industry becomes obsolete in the process, because they are unable to compete with such a plan, then good riddance. They can turn their skills to more productive uses. The government of our country does not exist for the purpose of meeting the needs of private insurance companies. It is our government, and we have the right to demand that it meets our needs.

[Cerridwen]

1. When you get some time, if you haven't already read it...

here's an old link about the "first" health care debate from PBS when it was still kinda, ya know, PBS.

[Time for change]

10. Thank you -- This looks very interesting

[defendandprotect]

43. At one point, they let Phil Donahue run a program on health care which was great . . .

Can't recall if it was one hour or two --

PBS should be running "SICKO" . . . and not car commercials.

[OHdem10]

2. Bill Kristol and otthe more thoughtful Republicans have put it more

simple terms. If the Democrats ever pass Health Care the GOP
is in the Wilderness for years to come.

It is not in GOP's interest to have Democrats pass Health Care.
Otherwise they would not expend the energy they do "scaring"
the American People.

This has been stated by GOPers more than once.

[defendandprotect]

44. And we should all send that quote to Obama .... if he moves on this, it's a win . . .

If he goes with the DLC corporate poison . . . he and Dems will be on the way out.

[glitch]

74. "If the Democrats ever pass Health Care the GOP is in the Wilderness for years to come." nt

:grr:

[TheBigotBasher]

3. I wrote something similar ages ago.

on my blog and on here (but it got deleted ???)
http://thebigotbasher.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/if-universal-health-care-is-achieved-barack-obama-can-inherit-the-mantle-of-popular-capitalism/

I made the point that with universal healthcare, President Obama and the Democratic Party have the potential of removing completely the last bastions Reagan Democrats from the GOP. The 1980s working poor who were crapped on by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II afterwards.

The GOP has neglected these. When they use the Reagan mantra of Government get out of my way, it was the poor working bod, who watched Dallas and wanted to be JR.

I have to say that is "Joe the Plumber". Although the Reagan Democrat still wanted protection against unemployment, ill health and old age.

President Obama faces worse challenges to those faced by Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980's.

A nation in massive debt
18.5% Unemployment (not just claimant count)
Crippled industry
Crippled Government

In addition - President Obama had to add a World in the same economic position and his Country as a World Pariah.

On top of that he faces the problem of growing unemployment and deflation in the economy as a whole. The most dangerous and pervasive economy killer. This is combined with consumers still facing inflation in food and energy costs.

The International Pariah problem was relatively easily solved. Any new President who was not George Bush was better. Although the outside World would have looked at America with a degree of incredulity had McCain been elected.

The problems of the Cold War may become miniscule if the situation if Pakistan worsens. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the peace during the Cold War. That may not be the case if the Taliban reaches Islamabad.

Calmer voices are more likely to solve the Korean problem.

The economy is going to be a lot tougher but yet again this is why both the GOP and Conservadems are out of touch with reality. Attempts to block or reduce his programme will hurt only them and more importantly the US.

It is also why claims that he is a Socialist fail.

Barack Obama is not a tax raising President. Whatever Tea Party protesters may have said, Barack Obama has not increased taxes, in fact, through the stimulus, Barack Obama introduced $282 billion of tax cuts. The largest ever in history. Beating the Reagan and Bush tax cuts in cash terms and GDP terms. The difference. Where they are targeted.

Reagan cut taxes on all levels but as Republicans fail to remember – only after significantly increasing them. Bush targeted tax cuts towards the richest. Obama cut taxes for the ordinary worker. The economic importance of this is crucial. Tax cuts for the rich boost savings levels. The lower paid you are the higher propensity to spend. The key to ending a recession is spending.

One of the key factors killing off the US Industry, (especially the Car Industry), is not the productivity level of US employees. American workers are the most productive (in many ways over productive without enough holidays), in the World. It is the failure of the US Government to provide for the basic needs of ordinary Americans. The GOP claims to be Anti Government but defence spending has sky rocketed, the US has a prison system larger than that of China. Both of these elements have bloated the cost of Government and NO GOP President would ever tackle these issues. Despite the growth of Government, education for many remains poor, there is no decent health care system and pensioners have had their federal Social Security funds stolen to pay for GOP deficits.

Tackling the defence budget will be difficult, but it is something that must be done. The same must apply to the Prisons budget. That does mean a thorough examination of drugs laws and sentencing. The War on Drugs has done nothing except destroy talent and fill prisons.

They key factor though is health care. Universal Health Care removes that cost from the employer, allowing American companies to compete better in the World. It will allow American consumers to worry less and spend more as they need not worry about personal bankruptcy if things go wrong. It re-involves the un-insured in America, whose population group represents the size of a reasonably large economy. Most importantly it will truly give the average American worker the feeling that the Government works for them. This is no time for compromise solutions. Real health care reform must be introduced.

Barack Obama as Candidate was not radical enough to push for true single payer health care, in part because of the problems caused by the failure of Hillary Clinton in the past. Hillary and Clinton and Barack Obama pushed for a compulsory/ semi compulsory private health insurance system during the Primaries. It is for the Democratic Party to push for true single payer now, given the size of the election victory the American people gave him. Critically though, the key to any successful health care reform, is not the provider, something Blair was trying to get his party to recognise in Britain, but the outcome. Something Brown failed to recognise.

Reducing costs for American employers, ending health care bankruptcies for individuals and covering the uninsured is critical to any recovery. That can only be done through a truly universal system. If people want a gold plated service, they will still be able to buy it even if there is a universal health care system. Just because coach class exists on planes, it does not exclude the airline from providing first class seats.

Once universal health care is achieved it is not the GOP that will have involved everyone in a capitalist revival, it will be the Democratic Party. The consequences of that will be to keep a newly enriched America well away from the GOP for years.

[Time for change]

29. Very well said. I agree with everything you said except for one thing.

I'm pretty sure than neither the Clinton nor the Obama plan offered during the primaries pushed for semi compulsory private health insurance. Rather, the crux of their plans was to provide a government sponsored alternative/competition to private health insurance, available to all Americans. True, the plan would subsidize private insurance to some extent by virtue of the fact that people had the option to choose private over government plans. But, given that these plans would have required private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, and given the inability of private insurance companies to compete with a government option that didn't have to drain money for health care into profits, these plans would likely have driven private insurance companies out of business.

Unfortunately, the idea of government sponsored health care/insurance is now being attacked with the excuses noted in the OP, and there appear to be too many Democrats willing to give in to that. If the Democratic Party fails to deliver decent health care for all Americans, then they deserve to have serious competition from a third party.

[starzdust]

65. I will be voting...

...all third party that is if, at a minimum, a high quality gov sponsored alt is not in any health care bill. As an independent voter I usually go with the Democratic party , but never again unless this happens. I am actually in favor of a single payer gov run system, removing the insurance companies from between my doctor and myself. BTW, I HAVE health insurance, but I am constantly battling them to pay for the medical services and equipment that is necessary for my life.

[Time for change]

75. So many of us have had similar experiences with insurance companies

Welcome to DU
:toast:

[TheBigotBasher]

92. It will not be third party though.

The people will be upset that the Democratic Party failed to deliver and will punish them by voting Republican. From that the Party learns the wrong lesson. They are punished not for being "too liberal" (whatever that is) but for not delivering.

There is a lesson form 2000 in that. The Democratic Party need not have been so close for Florida to have mattered so much, but having cut back on unemployment for the poor, so punishing the poor for the crime of being poor, why should they come out and support the Party?

Not a lesson that Conservative Dems like to learn.

[defendandprotect]

53. Just also want to compliment you on your post -- which I don't recall seeing -- !!!

And, can't imagine why it would have been "deleted" but thank you for reposting this --

I just want to comment on the situation you mentioned --

A nation in massive debt
18.5% Unemployment (not just claimant count)
Crippled industry
Crippled Government

Of course, Thatcher took advantage of the economic problems in order to starve their
health care system, etc.

However, our economy has been purposefully wrecked -- the trade agreements should, of course,
be overturned.

In the last decade we've lost close to 50,000 factories.

Bush, needless to say, bankrupted our Treasury while continuing to borrow the $250 BILLION
SURPLUS and more that Social Security runs every year to pay for his wars and tax cuts for
the rich!

We should also restore full Unemployment benefits and the Welfare Guarantees which Clinton
overturned -- with encouragement from Gore, btw.

Enron -- Global Warming -- and Pollution of the planet point to the need to stop burning
fossil fuels. We need to renew a committment to mass transportation which also moving to
electric cars. And to end monopoly on energy such as Enron had. We also need to return to
the idea of public utilities -- and NOT drag electricity from North to South, East to West.

Who says that we can afford two wars -- either morally or financially?
These should be ended immediately.

And, I agree, that after 8 years of warmongering by Bush we have worrisome situations -
however, as far as I can see the US/CIA has always owned the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- we've given
them hundreds of millions of dollars, including millions just prior to 9/11. We used them
in Afghanistan to "bait the Russians in . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience."
Indeed, the US went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in to set this all up!
Traditionally, imperialists/capitalists have always used religious fanatics to penetrate and
co-opt other nations and Afghanistan and Russia was no different.

Meanwhile, also want to comment that we are already spending enough on health care to provide
for the most luxious of health care systems -- as the Swiss have. And, we provide health care
for all of Congress/government. There should be serious savings in moving to a system like
MEDICARE FOR ALL -- plus it would provide 2.3 million jobs. And, needless to say, we have to
closely monitor corporate theft from the Medicare/Medicaid--!!!

I love the many reasons that you and Time for Change have recited which should give impetus to
Democrats/Obama to move ahead with single payer. Among them it would also say that Americans
deserve something else for their money than the GOP's MIC which was increased by way more than
40% during Bush's reign. Shouldn't Americans be entitled to something other than weapons and war?

And, I don't know which you or TFC mentioned schools and prisons -- perhaps both of you -
but I just want to mention that they were hiding money for the CIA/intelligence in education
budgets at one time. Therefore, it's impossible to really say how much education in America
has been shortchanged -- and it opens questions about what other lies and misrepresentations
have been in budgets we are not aware of.

Thanks!

[napoleon_in_rags]

71. But NEITHER of you mention the slavery!

That's the real argument against health care. If I accept my companies insurance, I pay like $70 a month. If I lose my job, Cobra is $340 a month, so I can't afford it. At a different company, I knew a woman who was working 7 day strait shits, 16 hours a day, sleeping on site. She had cancer, so if she lost the job and had to pay Cobra, she would be dead. My point is that with the current system, there are situations where a health condition can render employees slaves to their company. Its unethical as hell. Any kind of health care separated from employment will is an abolitionist stance, so you can bet the slavers are against it.

[bread_and_roses]

91. bingo! And it will free workers - at least the unionized - to bargain for better wages -

among the many factors contributing to wage stagnation is that organized workers - who lead the way and raise the standard for the unorganized - can bargain for better wages, which have been suppressed for years in part by having to bargain for life (health insurance) rather than for wages.

Even the unorganized will benefit, not only from the greater leverage in unionized workers wage bargaining, but in not having critical health needs hostage to a job.

And THAT kind of psycological freedom is anathama to our Corporate Masters, who would really prefer that we all live in a company barraks and buy our few purchases at the company store (if they can't have slavery that is, which they really prefer, as they show in those places in the world where they can get away with it).

[defendandprotect]

97. Right . .. Schultz was talking about this yesterday . . . our businesses are

burdened by the costs of health care for workers -- and find it harder to compete
with businesses from other nations where there is health care for everyone.

And, of course, the benefits continue to be cut - etc.

[napoleon_in_rags]

99. "THAT kind of psycological freedom is anathama to our Corporate Masters" Well said!

THAT's exactly what its about to me, freedom. Quite literally freedom. You could correctly classify it at as a labor issue, but it is even bigger than that to me, its about creating real freedom for workers to change jobs, go back to school and take bold risks in starting businesses without fearing for their lives if they lose their health insurance. So in this view, its about creating a good old fashion free labor market too, where people can stop clinging to lifeboats of underemployment and start cultivating careers which really utilize thier talents. Its about making this competitive in a global economy, just as it is about workers rights.

[Frank Cannon]

4. Very nicely put

Thanks for that. K & R.

[checks-n-balances]

5. Your explanation of public vs. private is as good as any I've ever heard

I think it should be used in the health care debate on a national level. Can you imagine members of Congress or even the President explaining what a sham their "government is the problem" has always been and how we the government is ours, "and we have the right to demand that it meets our needs"?

If only Obama would read something like this and internalize it so that he could teach this to the whole country (at least to those who would listen), we could rid the country of this government=the problem meme.

This thread is a keeper. Thanks for putting it into understandable words!

[FatDave]

67. "If only Obama would read something like this and internalize it"

I don't trust that much that gets sent to him from the likes of us actually gets read by him, so I guess the question is how do we get this message noticed by our elected officials?

Something that *might* work, and this is just me theorizing, would be to write--physically write with a pen--letters to our senators, congress people and president and send them in a hand-written envelope. Getting something like that is probably out of the ordinary these days and may merit special attention.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I dunno. At any rate, keep spreading the word. Good ideas can catch on, build up steam, and eventually reach critical mass.

[Time for change]

76. Thank you very much

[inna]

6. i could not recommend this enough!

:applause:

:applause:


:yourock:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. K n R

:kick: :dem: :kick:

[quidam56]

8. We are the change

As a former health care giver, I am shocked and saddened to see what has become of health care in America. $ 1. 4 million is being spent per day in DC by the health care lobbyists so your elected representative is getting taken care of and has quality health care we pay for and can't afford ourselves for our families, I know what is deemed, defended and supported in Tennessee and Virginia as quality health care and clearly profit care comes ahead of patient care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 MRSA ( methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas ) is infesting our communities because filthy, uncaring hospitals and emergency rooms are breeding them and spreading them into our schools, homes, restaurants. How many more Americans' will be diseased or die while 74 % of Americans' are begging for health care reform ? More people died in America last year from MRSA complications than AIDS. When MRSA and a flu bug start mixing, it won't be pretty and we are being infected by the very health care system we depend on and trust to keep us safe and healthy.

[mod mom]

9. This is interesting TFC, 538: Blue Dog Districts Need Health Care More than Most

Not exactly RWers but close:

7.14.2009
Blue Dog Districts Need Health Care More than Most
by Nate Silver @ 10:24 AM


One thing I don't understand is the equivalence, such as in this Roll Call article today, between the health care debate and the climate bill that was passed by the House a couple of weeks ago. There are 48 Congressional Districts that were won by John McCain and that currently have a Democratic Representative. Most of those districts are rural and blue-collar. On the climate change bill, this might give those Representatives ample reason to vote against the initiative: 38 of the 48 have per capita carbon output rates above the national median, and 36 of the 48 have an above-median concentration of jobs in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. But something the opposite holds true on health care.

Throughout last year, Gallup included a module on health and well being in their standard tracking surveys. This meant they had tens of thousands of interviews between all 435 Congressional Districts. One of the questions on the well-being module was about whether or not people had health insurance. Eric Nielsen at Gallup was kind enough, a while back, to send me these results broken down by Congressional District.

The median Congressional District has an uninsured population of 14.6 percent, according to Gallup's data (the average is slightly higher at 15.5 percent). Of the 48 McCainocrat districts, 31 (roughly two-thirds) have an above-median number of uninsured. A complete list follows below (actual Blue Dogs are denoted in ... you guessed it ... blue):

-snip

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[undergroundnomore]

47. i think that's

why it confuses me so much that people in those areas all too often vote against their own best interests. Health care for EVERYONE should be a priority. Right now I'm taking care of my fil. Luckily for him he has some health insurance but it doesn't cover everything and my husband and I are making sure that he's given the best care possible. Not everyone has a friend or relative looking out for them. If we are truly a Christian nation, why can't we reach out to others in their time of need?

[Time for change]

77. Interesting

Through the use of a compliant news media, corporate America persuades many Americans to vote against their own best interests, and the interests of their country as well.

[annm4peace]

11. very interesing

[MisterP]

12. and if the populace isn't running desperately on the treadmill, scrambling and worrying about cash

to pay the bills, bills, bills, they might have the time to look beyond the present and the narrow, and won't be as selfish
and where would the Repubs be without "I've got mine, screw you"?

[PretzelWarrior]

13. Wow. Lengthy and well thought out post

This is what DU should be all about. Advocacy for progressive change

[Time for change]

78. Thank you

[hfojvt]

14. it's kinda tough, for even a progressive to support government sometimes

In business, in theory, there is accountability. Make the wrong choices and you lose money and/or go out of business. There is less compulsion. If I don't like what a business is selling, then I don't have to pay for it.

I used to be in a business that had major government competition. I owned a new and used bookstore. Government was competing with me in public libraries, school libraries, the university library and the university bookstore (not to mention teachers selling Scholastic books at wholesale prices, and schools having book fairs and book sales, etc.). Not that I don't support the first three.

But there is no competition between the two. The library has a million dollar building, a $70,000 staff budget and limitless resources for electric bills, repairs, etc. Certainly far more than I could scrape together. I started with $12,000 in savings and then worked a full time job, later part-time, paying usually less than $6 an hour.

There is more compulsion with a government service. It is what WE decide to do, but who decides? A majority of 51%? A group of lobbyists or insider special interests? A set of big-shots and their buddies? Could easily be all of the above. Sometimes it seems like the government will propose X, put it on the ballot for the voters to decide and then use tax dollars to lobby for X. The compulsion happens when even 51% decide on something, they still force the other 49% to pay for it.

It's just not always that clear that government is such a good thing. Too many Americans have experience with local bureaucrats who seem to be jerks just because they can be, whereas the typical business experience is that 'the customer is always right', unless that business is an insurance company.

[defendandprotect]

55. They are closing libraries in John Steinbeck's Salinas, CA . . .

and presume in CA in general --

And certainly we have some very poor libraries in my state of NJ -- and our own library
in a wealthy town has cut back on hours.

A people's government is dedicated to providing the "greatest good for the greatest number
of people" --

That doesn't mean that we all decide to cut down all our trees --

However, government is like a typewriter ... it depends on who is in control of the keyboard.

When you have government corruption as we have had with the right-wing GOP and corporatism
invading political parties, that's corruption!

Assassinations and election steals -- are the only way that the right-wing can arise.

And, of course, this corporate penetration is also going on at local levels and states.

Needless to say, the DLC-corporate wing of the Democratic Party is also there to move the
party to the right to satisfy corporate interests based on PRE-BRIBING candidates with
campaign funds.

[Time for change]

80. But on the issue of health care it's much more than 51%

It's been consistently 70 + percent for years.

And that's in spite of the millions of dollars put out by corporate interests to persuade the American people to be against it.

The wealthy get plenty of breaks, including bank bailouts. What's wrong with a little socialism to even the playing field a little?

Though certainly it is true, as you say that government bureaucrats can just as well be jerks as other people. As far as the slogan, "the customer is always right", that only applies to private business as long as they don't have a monopoly that makes them immune from customer backlash. That's why it doesn't apply to the health insurance industry.

[eridani]

15. They have explicitly stated as much, both in 1993 and in 2008

In 1993 conservative pundit Irving Kristol advised the GOP that the Clinton proposal "should not be amended; it should be erased," because "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.“

In 2008, the Cato Institute has stated that “blocking Obama's health plan is key to the GOP's survival. If Obama succeeds in passing health care, then people who might have been conservatives will like it, and will be more likely to vote for the people who passed it.“

[TheBigotBasher]

16. Can someone remind Blue Dawg Senators of that.

Remaining in power is worth far more than lobbyists can throw at them - and it is the right thing to do.

[struggle4progress]

18. Bill Kristol’s 1993 Memo Calling For GOP To Block Health Care Reform

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bill-kristols-1993-memo-calling-for-gop-to-block-health-care-reform/

[struggle4progress]

19. Events following Clinton's Healthcare Address to Congress through March 1994

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html

[defendandprotect]

57. Americans aren't much fooled about MEDICARE -- MEDICARE FOR ALL . . .

They are frequently fooled by the right-wing . . .

Only recently, Rep. Bernie Sanders, in the open discussions on health care had to make clear

and emphasize that thefts from Medicare/Medicaid were not a problem of individuals begging

for operations they don't need -- BUT OF HUGE CORPORATE THEFT BY EVERY PHARMACEUTICAL CORP

THAT DEALS WITH MEDICARE .... AND BY FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE CORPORATIONS!!!!

Loved that he did that because many citizens things that other citizens are the problem!!!

[eridani]

86. That account leaves out the most important information

Namely, that the 1993 plan was written by large insurers in secret, and it was only the smaller insurers who would have been taken over or eliminated who objected. No health care activist or any consumer group was ever consulted in the writing of the plan (which was a huge public subsidy to large insurers), therefore when Clinton was viciously attacked, none of us thought that defending her was worth the bother. The big boys who wrote the plan couldn't be bothered either, which should be a lesson that all Dems take to heart.

[Demeter]

17. And It Is ONLY Because the GOP Is On Its Last Legs That Public Health Care Has a Chance

After all, they've fought it off for 70 years or more.

They screamed about Medicare, but that was indeed the beginning of the end, the first crack in the Free Market. The proof that they were full of it was how well Medicare worked.

The GOP further shot themselves in the foot by working to deunionize the workforce, because instead of a bunch of unions fighting over the same turf (health care benefits on an industry by industry effort), now there's a national and unified movement for change on many fronts, but first is health care, because it is the most pressing.

If we can keep the GOP around a little bit longer and working as hard as they can, we might get fully publicly-funded elections at the federal level, and perhaps even the Depersonification of Corporations.

[DailyGrind51]

20. Bill Kristol on National Health Insurance, 1993

William Kristol: Defeating President Clinton's Health Care Proposal

Project for a Republican Future

December 2, 1993

MEMORANDUM TO: REPUBLICAN LEADERS
FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL
SUBJECT: Defeating President Clinton's Health Care Proposal

What follows is the first in what will be a series of political strategy memos prepared by The Project for the Republican Future. The topic of this memo is President Clinton's health care reform proposal, the single most ambitious item on the Administration's domestic policy agenda.

These four pages are an attempt to describe a common political strategy for Republicans in response to the Clinton health care plan. By examining the president's own strategy and tactics, this memo suggests how Republicans might reframe the current health care debate, offer a serious alternative, and, in the process, defeat the president's plan outright.

Nothing in these pages is intended to supplant the many thoughtful analyses of the Clinton health are plan already produced by Republicans and others, analyses which have done much to expose both its glaring weaknesses and immediate dangers. In fact, this memo borrows heavily from articles and papers prepared by conservative public policy think tanks, the Republican National Committee, House and Senate Republicans, and the dozens of superb critiques that have appeared in newspapers and magazines. Nor is this an attempt to prescribe legislative tactics for defeating the Clinton bill; for that we defer to our Republican leaders in the Congress. Instead, it is an effort to assess the current political climate surrounding the health care debate and to provide a winning Republican strategy that will serve the best interests of the country.

The Project for the Republican Future was founded last month to help shape a Republican vision and advance an agenda for governing. It seeks to frame a new Republicanism by challenging not just the particulars of big-government policies, but their very premises and purposes. In the coming months, we will prepare and circulate other memos on critical issues of politics and policy. We welcome your reactions to this memo so that we can further refine a Republican strategy, and we encourage your thoughts on future subjects for consideration.

I. THE CURRENT SITUATION

Just after President Clinton introduced his health care plan in September, opinion polling reflected strong public support for it. That support has now sharply eroded. A late September Washington Post/ABC News poll, for example, had national respondents approving the plan by a 56 to 24 percent margin; the same poll in October had approval down to a 51 to 39 percent margin; and a mid-November Post/ABC poll now shows bare plurality support for the plan of 46 to 43 percent.

To some extent, these results follow a predictable pattern of Clinton Administration policy initiatives, which have tended to open well on the strength of the president's personal advocacy, and then to falter as revealed details make plain his attachment to traditional, big government, tax-and-spend liberalism. Faced with forceful objections in the past, the Administration has generally preferred to bargain and compromise with Congress so as to achieve any victory it can. But health care is not, in fact, just another Clinton domestic policy. And the conventional political strategies Republicans have used in the past are inadequate to the task of defeating the Clinton plan outright. That must be our goal.

Simple Criticism is Insufficient. Simple, green-eyeshades criticism of the plan--on the grounds that its numbers don't add up (they don't), or that it costs too much (it does), or that it will kill jobs and disrupt the economy (it will)--is fine so far as it goes. But in the current climate, such opposition only wins concessions, not surrender. The president will lobby intensively for his plan. It will surely be the central theme of his State of the Union Address in January. Health care reform remains popular in principle. And the Democratic Party has the votes. After all, the president's "tax fairness" budget, despite unanimous Republican opposition and rising public disapproval, did pass the Congress.

Any Republican urge to negotiate a "least bad" compromise with the Democrats, and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president "do something" about health care, should also be resisted. Passage of the Clinton health care plan, in any form, would guarantee and likely make permanent an unprecedented federal intrusion into and disruption of the American economy--and the establishment of the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security. Its success would signal a rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment we have begun rolling back that idea in other areas. And, not least, it would destroy the present breadth and quality of the American health care system, still the world's finest. On grounds of national policy alone, the plan should not be amended; it should be erased.

But the Clinton proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party. Republicans must therefore clearly understand the political strategy implicit in the Clinton plan--and then adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose...
http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/03/william-kristol-defeating-president-clintons-health-care-proposal.html

[DailyGrind51]

21. (Double post)

[Myrina]

22. Brilliantly stated, thank you!

:applause:

[MadHound]

23. And yet the fate of any sort of public option isn't in the hands of right wingers

With a healthy majority in the House, and filibuster proof majority in the Senate, it isn't the Republicans that hold the fate of the public option in their hands, it is the Democrats.

So while it is nice to remind people of how the right demonizes the public option and why, it is, in the end, irrelevant. The question is why are Democrats opposing it, that's the question.

Of course the answer is obvious, but one that most Democrats don't want to acknowledge, namely that the overwhelming majority of Democrats are as deep in the pockets of the insurance industry as Republicans are.

I suggest that devoting our energy towards taking corporate money and corporate influence out of our government via publicly financed elections would be more fruitful than ongoing demonization of the right, which ultimately are irrelevant in this debate, at least currently.

[Time for change]

24. It is true that the question of why Democrat are opposing this is the crucial issue

And it is also true, as you say, that devoting energy towards taking corporate influence out of government is essential.

But that does not mean that it is irrelevant to remind people of why the RW is against health care. The purpose of reminding people about this is to sway public opinion and to influence them to put pressure on their elected representatives -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to do the right thing.

[MadHound]

26. Well, since we already know the stance taken by Republicans,

And the utter futility of trying to change that stance, don't you think that your time would be better spent going after why so many Democrats are against the public option? Don't you think that it would be better to put pressure on people that we have at least a chance of moving on this issue instead of trying to whip up a frenzy against a group of people who will ignore us anyway?

We're trying to move health care, with a public option forward, yet it is Democrats who are the largest threat to that. Focus on the real threat, not the faux threat of Republicans.

[Time for change]

28. I agree that we need to go after the Democrats

They are the ones who are more likely to be persuadable.

I'm just saying that pointing out the hypocrisy of the arguments that the right wing uses to demean government health care is useful in doing that. Conservative Dems do not want to be seen as supporting hypocritical arguments.

My argument is not aimed at Republicans or other right wingers. It is aimed at moderates and conservative Dems, etc., while pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing arguments.

[Kaleko]

40. Exactly. Your target audience is the weasel contingent among the Dems.

Rec'd, of course.

[defendandprotect]

58. And why aren't Democrats out there educating the public re MEDICARE FOR ALL ...

Yes -- someone was pointing out the other day that many citizens can feel tricked into

feeling somewhat secure that we have some heroes out there fighting for us --

but that's not always what's happening and that's certainly true of Democrats and Obama.

They have been PRE-BRIBED by corporations --

and we should all be out in the streets demanding MEDICARE FOR ALL.

We really can't rely on the Dan Rather's . . . or the Olbermann's . . . or Schultz --

and sit back and think this is going to come to us!!!

[kjackson227]

25. Another informative, and insightful post by TOC, but...

But the G.O.P. nominee, whoever he is, won’t be trying to persuade the public of the merits of his own plan. Instead, he’ll try to scare the dwindling fraction of Americans who still have good health insurance by claiming that the Democrats will take it away. The smear-and-fear campaign has already started.
********************************************************************************************************************

in regards to the above paragraph, the prospective GOP nominee still remains SCREWED if he/she is relying on this particular scare tactic, because MOST Americans with the so-called "good health insurance" are business/corporate EMPLOYEES and EMPLOYERS (the working middle-class). These employees and/or employers do realize (myself included), that this "good health insurance" will most definitely be disappearing within the next 5 or so years. My HR director is sweating bullets right now because within the next year or two, our employees will have to pay out of their pockets for part of their group insurance. In an effort to keep this from happening, the company, on an annual basis, downgrades coverage/benefits to try to keep costs down. Needless to say, it's not working so we'll either have to pay over half our paychecks to keep the status-quo watered-down company group insurance in the next 5 or so years, or elect the government sponsored plan. I'm willing to bet that unless you're part of the affluent/elite with the cadillac policies, you would be willing to choose the government sponsored public option with open arms (I know I will). So, basically, this "smear-and-fear" campaign will not work for the GOP either. One thing is for sure- the GOP are in deep, deep trouble as a party.

The ball is in the Dems court, and the ones to fear are the Blue Dogs. They will make it or break it for us. Public option and the Middle-East wars are THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES for the Dems right now. I don't know about other Dems, but if we miss this opportunity to put in place the PUBLIC OPTION healthcare reform, I will most definitely be looking to join that THIRD PARTY. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this to be defeated. DEMOCRATS, it's now or never. All our FUTURES are in the Democrats' hands. Don't EFF this up!

[Time for change]

83. Yes, if the Democrats screw this up, they'll just be asking us to support a third party.

The American people voted them in to get things done. If they don't deliver they're in big trouble.

[alfredo]

27. Will abortions be allowed in the public option? I think they should, but

the reich wing will probably try to block reform on the grounds that the public option will allow abortions.

[gorfle]

30. I would drop the abortion issue.

If I could guarantee single-payer health care without coverage for abortions I would accept that.

People are going bankrupt and dying in this country because of lack of health care, not because of lack of abortions.

[alfredo]

36. I think the Repigs will try to use "taxpayer funded" abortions as a wedge.

[gorfle]

45. Absolutely they will.

This is why I'd take abortion right out of any proposal. It can be added in later. We need universal health care now.

[alfredo]

48. That's what I was thinking

[defendandprotect]

59. And you're saying we should fear the ABORTION topic . . . ???

New Sen. Al Franken did a terrific job today with Sonia Sotomayer in asking her
about abortion and the right to privacy.

His questions said what all Democrats should be saying -- "We are not afraid of the
the topic of abortion nor do we fail to protect a female's need for medical abortions
when necessary to defend her life -- and elective abortion."

A good move by Franken which other Democrats should follow --

ONLY WHEN THE GOP CAN MAKE ABORTION INTO A SHAMEFUL OR GUILT-RIDDEN TOPIC CAN THEY WIN.

[alfredo]

64. No, not fear, just be ready to fight or do an end run on the issue at

a later date. Right now we need to get universal healthcare. I think we have a good argument to say it should be allowed. It is legal and should not be banned. We shouldn't allow the issue to scuttle reform. If we can get it in on day one I'd be really happy, but if we have to wait a period of time, I'd be willing to wait until we can.

[defendandprotect]

66. Don't plan on compromises . . .

we should also find out what the other countries do re abortion and
late term abortions --

I've been meaning to do this for two days but I know I won't get to it today.

We also need eye glasses and dental to be covered --

What we're spending now would provide for the most luxurious of health care

systems -- as Switzerland has!! So we should be able to save something and

MEDICARE FOR ALL would create 2.3 million jobs!!!

:)

[alfredo]

95. Dental and eye glasses should be covered. BTW, Glasses are very inexpensive

through the VA.

Dental work at Dental Schools is half the cost as the free market prices and the work is very good. A complete set of dentures is cheaper at dental schools than replacing one crown at a private dentist.

[defendandprotect]

96. My husband uses the VA --

Interesting about dental schools -- thanks!

[alfredo]

98. Our dental school is the University of Ky. It adjoins the VA. There's a lot

cross pollination with staff.

[undeterred]

94. I agree.

As long as its legal, there are other ways that we can make it affordable. But it has to be safe for both patients AND doctors. That's the biggest concern.

[defendandprotect]

56. Why not? If a poor woman can't get an abortion because of the costs . . .

then it's the same as not having a right to it.

We also need, of course, more efficient and more user-friendly birth control.

[Time for change]

84. It's hard to know

They should be, but may be taken out due to political pressure.

[Faux pas]

31. Thank you.

[Larry Ogg]

32. If people only understood the power of Pretense!

I look at it like this; the pretense behind the idea that government should stay out of the business of running a business should be looked at carefully; of course my lack of faith in our leaders leads me to believe that few elected members of our current government are capable of properly managing anything beneficial to society, and they should be subjugated too the confines of a jail cell where their detrimental value to society could do the less or no harm. But it behooves society to gain insight as to how the most incompetent, corruptible and venal elements of our society somehow ended up getting elected as our leaders in the first place; and with a few exceptions, their mostly a bunch of paid actor corporate shills beholden too the capitalist masters who financed their campaigns.

So should our current elected officials stay out of the business of running a business? Referring too a majority of them - I would have to say absolutely! And they should also be out of the business of running a government, along with their capitalist masters who used their ill-gotten capital in order to finance political campaigns well maintaining control over the debate and the perception of reality through their corporately owned conservative biased hypnotic fraud, propaganda and entertainment machine - aka the M$M (main stream media). Historical precedence of this fact does have a few exceptions, although these exceptions are marginalized and or neutralized to the point of having little or no effect; but still, for the most part it is the M$M which helps the majority of citizens decide who to vote for and what manufactured realities become the premises of public opinion and thus the outcome of elections. How ironic is it that the corporate masters would have their political puppets reveal the opinions as to how incompetent our political leaders really are when it comes to managing the affairs of the people! The pretense here is how these politicians got elected in the first place, and now the pot is calling the kettle black and the joke is on We the People…

Secondly: How is the government going to pay for such things as health care when bombs and bullets are so important when it comes to protecting us from those evil terrorist and communist liberals who hate us for our freedom? So yes affording it is an issue, but it seems to me that the argument of health care being unaffordable is also a huge pretense, as it cast our debt based money system in a monolithic stone that must be protected against bankruptcy at all cost, and maybe that’s why we need all those bombs and bullets; yet still, it is a system that by its very design, is designed to steel the benefits of labor from the poor and the working class, while giving it to the predator class, and in the case of our foreign policy this theft is achieved by virtue of the bombs and bullets we need so fervently. Now maybe it’s a little harsh calling our money system steeling, after all, this type of theft has been legalized by our corporately owned lawmakers and perpetuated throughout the world by our military industrial complex; and if their was any impropriety what so ever we could rest assured that the corporately owned M$M would certainly inform the uninformed debt slave public, so as we could vote the venal politicians out of office.

It’s like I said, “If people only understood the power of Pretense!” I think they could find a way to hold politicians accountable and start electing people of conscience, ones who would favor an honest money system, a system that would put the word fairness in the concept of distributing wealth and wellness; a system that could afford life saving health care for all, and a system that puts life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as something that will not be stolen by or for the few whose profits are won by the long suffering of others and by death and destruction in far of lands; alas the product of a working class that doesn’t understand the power of Pretense is that they should endure the suffering of political lies and deception…

K&R
Larry

[defendandprotect]

60. Correct . . . we're spending the money . . . but we're not the care -- MEDICARE FOR ALL--

[Time for change]

69. Excellent points Larry

When I speak of the people being the government, of course I'm speaking theoretically. That's the way it's supposed to work. The people whom we elect are supposed to represent our interests. But as you point out, somehow the system has been corrupted, and many of the people we elect are in bed with corporate America. We need to let them know that we will throw them out if they don't represent our interests, but that requires a lot of organization.

And yes, we would find an awful lot of additional money for health care if we cut our military budget in half -- or more.

Getting the people to understand the power of pretense that has been foisted upon us is no small task. All we can do is keep on talking about the way we see it. Maybe the Internet, in the long run, by means of educating people in ways that they haven't previously been educated, will help to reverse our course.

[Time for change]

70. Excellent points Larry

When I speak of the people being the government, of course I'm speaking theoretically. That's the way it's supposed to work. The people whom we elect are supposed to represent our interests. But as you point out, somehow the system has been corrupted, and many of the people we elect are in bed with corporate America. We need to let them know that we will throw them out if they don't represent our interests, but that requires a lot of organization.

And yes, we would find an awful lot of additional money for health care if we cut our military budget in half -- or more.

Getting the people to understand the power of pretense that has been foisted upon us is no small task. All we can do is keep on talking about the way we see it. Maybe the Internet, in the long run, by means of educating people in ways that they haven't previously been educated, will help to reverse our course.

[TankLV]

33. As usual, Krugman is 100% correct on this one, while Obama isn't even in the ballpark...

[kjackson227]

35. In what regard to "Obama isn't even in the ballpark"... are you talking about???

The ONLY mistake he's made so far with regard to healthcare reform is trying to get bipartisanship approval. To hint that Obama doesn't UNDERSTAND at all the importance of healthcare reform is totally false, if that's what you're doing.

[defendandprotect]

61. Is OBAMA support Single Payer Health Care - MEDICARE FOR ALL??

[TankLV]

87. He's AGAINST even DISCUSSING "single payer" let alone have a place in the discussion at all...

let me know when he does...I won't hold my breath...

[DemReadingDU]

34. thank you, very interesting

[bullwinkle428]

37. The jagoff "Chief Medical Officer" from Wellpoint, the biggest

health insurance company in the U.S., was whining about universal health care on NPR this morning, using all of the general talking points.

When he was asked point blank whether he was willing to accept ANY kind of government-backed universal health care, he hesitated for a second before finally stating "NO"!

LESSON : Y'all need to give up any idea of a "happy medium" or compromise with any of these wing-nut free marketeers!

[Uncle Joe]

38. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[Vinca]

39. The Grand No Party needs to rethink this.

Considering their shrinking base, they can't afford to lose any because they die prematurely from lack of medical care.

[sybylla]

41. The end of the party?

I would never underestimate the ability of Republicans to find ways to fuck up this country on behalf of the wealthy while scamming the poor and middle class. They're not going away any time soon. Unfortunately.

[defendandprotect]

62. Agree, but they are evil, corrupt and suicidal . . . and that has to be watched carefully--!!!

[Deep13]

42. And America cannot afford to have it fail. USA! USA! USA!

Why does the insurance "industry" hate America? :shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

46. Excellent article. If you'll forgive the shameless self-promotion, I wrote something similiar...

a couple weeks back on HuffingtonPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/self-preservation-the-rea_b_220057.html


Basically, a public health care option is not only the morally correct thing to do as well as the economically correct thing, it also makes the most sense politically for the Democrats.

[Time for change]

85. Very nice

I hope you posted this on DU as an OP.

[GrantDem]

49. Glad to give the 100th rec.

[Joanne98]

50. Thank you TFC. That was EXCELLENT!

[GeorgeGist]

51. You're thinking like ......

a right winger can't afford to be sane.

[omega minimo]

52. kR #103 -- and Here's to the "General Welfare"

:toast: :yourock:

[defendandprotect]

54. Another terrific effort TFC . . . and we need to constantly have this issue before us --

:)

[Arkana]

63. It all goes back to the New Deal and Great Society.

Roosevelt and Johnson put many programs in place (chief among them Social Security and Medicare) that have become absolutely untouchable institutions. They're worried that if we get a healthcare plan with a robust public option, it'll become another one of those untouchable institutions--and another feather in Democratic caps.

[Time for change]

89. Absolutely

And they will too, if they ever get passed.

[SanchoPanza]

68. Adverse Selection

The phenomenon of unequal holdings of information between two parties involved in a transaction. When one party knows more about what is being sold than the other, this shapes the market for that good or service away from product competition (firms compete by offering better quality goods/services at a cheaper price). If one party can limit the knowledge about the product/service being provided, and provide a lower quality product/service at a high price, they profit. Thus the competitive model is based on furthering asymmetry with respect to information, allowing firms to insulate themselves from risks and pass it on to either their customers or a third party. PhDs in economics refer to this as moral hazard. Everyone else refers to this as fraud.

Private insurance is a cesspool of adverse selection, for the reason that expectation of service may not be met. If you have health insurance, chances are likely that you won't need it for very expensive care. Thus insurers can craft policies that are deliberately obscure with respect to what kind of care they'll actually cover, and maintain a higher price for the service that they claim to provice. Policy holders don't actually discover this unless they actually require expensive care. When they do, companies within this market deny them care through an assortment of practices centered around adverse selection. Holders have to navigate an opaque claims process, claims adjustment proceedings, and the like. Everything about the system prompts firms within it to limit information to their customers as much as they possibly can, and gain as much "relevant" information about their customers as they possibly can (financial status, medical history, etc.).

In other words, private medical insurance is a prime example of market failure. When low prices, high quality, and an even distribution of goods/services are not met through private business. So for anyone to claim that unregulated private insurance is required to prevent cost increases, substandard care, and rationed care, is ignorant of economic principles and is arguing strictly from an ideology that demands market failure to simply not exist. Either that, or they're profiting from the current system.

Given that, the question, really, is how to get all this adverse selection out of medical insurance (it exists in other markets, too, most notably financial products like mortgages and credit cards (duh)). A public option without triggers may do it, so long as it offers a level of care that can form a baseline of expectation and it offers what it states that it offers. This is pretty much how the French do it, and their system is consistently ranked first in the world in terms of outcomes. They have a basic, publicly-funded health insurance plan that everyone can get, along with a secondary market for private insurance that complements the public system. They basically compete amongst themselves (and private insurance in France is heavily competitive) to offer services that the public plan doesn't.

[MellowDem]

72. Once there is universal healthcare

It will never be repealed either.

[LaPera]

73. We have to do everything possible to fight the republicans/insurace corporations everyday, we

need to get the word out to all our friends, family, co-workers and politicians!!

Universal Health Care with a Public Option NOW - For ALL Americans!

Support it, donate & work for it for yourself & everyone else.

It's the most important legislation in our lifetime - the republicans have been defeating it since every time the Dems bring it up since the forties!

[cascadiance]

79. Capitalism only works for things that people want, but ultimately can do without...

That's where the laws of competition can actually work. When the marketplace can say to a supplier, "You're expecting too much, and not buy it at all, which forces the supplier to reset its pricing, and perhaps find ways of lowering costs in a way that there's demand for their product."

The problem is that when you deal with goods and services that people HAVE to have to have any kind of decent life (Health care, legal assistance, police and fire protection, electricity, education, food, water, etc.), at some level these are NECESSITIES, and any company that tries to profit from either not supplying it or only providing it for a certain price is profiteering, as they are trying to profiteer from people's absolute necessities.

There are some goods and services such as the above that really have to be provided by the government. Now perhaps heavy regulation can set the rules such that the basics are still provided to people either through government itself or heavy regulations on the industry that's licensed to provide it. An example is our media (though its a poor example the way it is regulated and allowed to operate currently). Broadcasters are supposed to comply with a broadcast license that has traditionally tried to make sure that the media's responsibility was to provide necessary information for people in order to keep that license. Now if they wanted to sweeten up what they provide with added programming, etc. that people might be willing to spend money on but don't HAVE to have, that's where even regulated capitalism can work at times, and can allow them to compete with others for the best *optional* products and services to maximize the benefit and costs to the customers, and still allow them to make a reasonable profit.

But the corporations can't boss the government, and they can't go unregulated, especially when it comes to selling products/services NECESSARY for people rather than optional for them.

At some point Republicans and Libertarians need to realize this cold fact and adjust their philosophy to acknowledge and work within that frame of reference. If they don't, then all they are doing is still lying, distorting, and trying to control us for their own greed, and more and more people will continue to become aware of their quest for greed being their true motives and not accept them.

[unpossibles]

81. well said

I've tried to explain to right wing friends I know that instead of fearing the government, they need to realize that We the People are and should BE the government.

Instead of smaller/larger government, how about smarter and more responsible government?

Plus I find it ironic when the alleged no government bootstrap types are always somehow manage to shirk all responsibility and consequences for their actions.

[sellitman]

82. This post is why we come here.

Thank you!

[Yavin4]

88. Republicans Are On The Side of The Healthcare Insurance Predators

The healthcare insurance agency preys on the sick, the American people, American businesses, healthcare providers, etc. They make their profits by denying coverage to people, limiting payments to real healthcare providers, and raising healthcare premiums on businesses and people.

Even if the Republicans are successful and manage to kill a public option, then the predatory problems of the health insurance inustry will remain. Less people will coverage. More claims will be denied. More healthcare providers will be denied payment for their services. And, in the end, government will spend more and more on healthcare as people will wait until an emergency before seeing a doctor.

Much like the tobbacco industry, being on the side of an industry that preys on the American public is a political loser. In the long run, America will have some sort of public option healthcare or a majority of the public will be without it which will be a disaster in the making.

[quaker bill]

90. Two bottom lines

You are correct that the result would be antithetical to the conservative position, as would be any generally applied positive role for government in society in general. This would be the true taste of defeat for them. They could tolerate Obama for 4 years, as long as he got nothing significant done. This would in effect cement a growing political consensus for a larger and more effective government in our everyday lives.


Beyond this they know once done, this can never be undone politically. They get this much, if nothing else, you cannot touch social security or medicare and survive politically. Once general and universal healthcare steps in as part of the social safety net, the republicans will never be able to undo it. There will no longer be a politically viable path to unravel it toward "free" market hegemony. Government will become permanently too large to successfully "limit" in any meaningful way. The only option left to limit the size of government will be to cut defense, a bridge too far.

[snake in the grass]

93. This is an excellent piece on health care.

Thank you for taking the time to post it. I lived in Germany for 22 years and had full coverage the entire time. I've seen that it works and we finally need to join the rest of the civilized world.

[Overseas]

100. K&R, Insurance companies have had 15 years to prove their case & they have failed.

When they stomped on the Clintons' attempt to introduce national health insurance they used the same arguments about the "efficiency of free market solutions" and they have had over 10 years to prove their case.

They have failed.

I don't understand why our Democrats don't just say that over and over again. You had your chance to prove your case and you have failed.

When the insurance industry trots out their 2009 versions of Harry & Louise and arguments about "free market" (i.e. cash dominated) solutions, I hope someone retrieves their 1993 ads and declarations to put side by side with the 2009 claptrap.

They have had over a decade to prove their case. It is time for a change.