Time For A Little Honesty From Public Option Supporters (Guest Voice)
Time For A Little Honesty From Public Option Supporters
by Jonathan Wells
As the Senate wraps up its business and the House heads home for vacation, the debate over health care reform continues. Central to the Democrats’ selling of their health care proposal is the notion that their “public option” won’t lead to government takeover of health care and won’t lead to the destruction of private insurance.
The only problem is that their own words contradict it.
In a spliced together video, President Obama, Rep. Barney Frank, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky are all caught on tape telling what they hope will happen with health care (Hot Air and Michelle Malkin have it). In a SEIU health care forum, President Obama speaks of not being able to eliminate employer coverage immediately, and in a 2003 speech before AFL-CIO, he says he’s a proponent of a single-payer system. Rep. Frank says a public option is the best way to get a single-payer system, and Rep. Schakowsky practically crows about the fact that a government plan will destroy the private insurance industry (which we pointed out back in May).
Some would argue that none of those goals is a bad thing.
My question is then, why not be open about it?
Why not just come out and say that the plan is move to a single-payer system, to get rid of those evil private insurance companies, and to admit that the model is a European or Canadian one?
The answer is that if that agenda were put to voice, the American public would react with even more vigorous rebuttal than it’s currently displaying. So at the heart of the matter, there is a certain dishonesty in motive and design in selling the public plan, as if a government plan would have no impact at all on employer coverage or on private insurance companies.
This same cognitive dissonance leads to the recent mixed signals on tax increases. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Obama economic advisor Larry Summers (who had just finished Googling the topic of the day) left the door open for tax increases on their respective news shows, leaving it to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to assure the press that, yes, the President would keep his pledge to keep taxes low. The rub is that tax revenues are already declining, and to pay for such a massive increase in the size of government, the funds must come from somewhere, and you can only soak the rich for so much.
It all comes down to messaging. The proponents of the public option can’t be honest and say they hope government runs the private insurers out of town, and they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that what they’re asking for isn’t cheap and must be paid for. Is health care reform necessary. You bet? But as I’ve stated before, trading a private bureaucracy for a government one isn’t reform – it’s cost-shuffling that doesn’t attack the fundamental cost of care. And, as the President, Rep. Frank, and Rep. Schakowsky state, at some point, perhaps not immediately, but some years removed, it will indeed lead to the single-payer state and the disappearance of private health insurance.
If that’s the goal, and such a noble one, then be honest about it.
Jonathan Wells is a 28-year-old husband and father who lives in Ohio and works in the microbiology field. He plays guitar and wants to write science fiction novels. He notes that he tends “be conservative in most of my views, but by no means do I bare blind allegiance to a political party.” He stresses that he is open-minded and encourages “any civil disagreement (or uncivil agreement) any of you would care to express.” He likes to make people think – and does so on his blog Wellsy’s World. As he does in the above post — which is cross posted from his blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
59 Responses to “Time For A Little Honesty From Public Option Supporters (Guest Voice)”
Obamacare? Who was in charge while all of these events took place? Not Obama. Oops. Why is this so hard for conservatives to understand? Why because their core philosophy pretty much consists of “The government is bad. It can't do anything right. Private businesses are always much better.”. It doesn't matter how many corporations go bust because of incompetence. It doesn't matter how many crooks in the executive suites are exposed. It doesn't matter that the current non-system fails millions. The private sector must be deferred to at all costs. Yes, AR, that is exactly the entire point of your posts as well as the other conservatives who want to kill any chance of a public option in health care. The only acceptable option to them is one that either condones the existing problems or, if the government is involved at all, it must be in a way that subsidizes the current inefficiencies in the private sector. That certainly is the only thing that has been proposed by Republicans so far.
Steve, the comment that I made about losing the war on words was a general observation about how I've experienced and observed the responses that proponents of the current reform plan give to their critics- it wasn't directed at you personally. IOW, I wasn't saying that you personally were demonizing people, either here in this thread or elsewhere. I will add though that the argument you bring up from Olbermann is an example of that kind of response- basically saying that because certain Reps have financial backing of the industry they can't possibly be opposing the bill for other reasons than being bought. I do think there's a place for that kind of analysis, to 'follow the money' as they say- but the problem I have with the way its being framed now is that ONLY the Blue Dogs' financial backing is being attacked, while no one mentions or explores the various left wing activist groups and unions who donate heavily to the Dems who are pushing this legislation. There's money on both sides. The other problem is that that argument alone isn't sufficient- you also have to show people why you think the bill is good and the alternatives that have been put forth are not. An actual debate would involve those kinds of arguments being made- not just dismissing the opponents due to the taint of money.
As for my remark that you quoted- I'll let readers reread the sequence of the comments and see if they think I was out of line. And BTW- my kitchen smells great and has all day- meatballs and tomato sauce simmering on the stove all day!
And finally, I looked back to see what questions you'd asked that had gone unanswered. I guess you mean about whether or not we are accusing Olbermann of lying about the funding numbers and names? I don't doubt the truthfulness of the numbers- I just feel, as I've already mentioned, that that's not sufficient reason to dismiss the alternative plan put out by the Blue Dogs. If you have reasons to believe that it will be ineffective or inferior in some way to the public option plan, then explain why (and as an additional argument, it's appropriate to also point out if you think that the alternative was just crafted due to the industry's interests being protected.)
Jim, I don't trust corporate execs any more than I do govt bureaucrats. However, I prefer to have private companies to deal with in a competitive environment, so that I can get out from under one and choose a different company that might compete for my business by serving me better. Once a single option govt plan is put in place, there is no longer any such choice on the part of consumers.
And before you come back with the obvious- no, I do not think that the current environment provides the competition necessary to give consumer satisfaction. That's why I feel there are various places where the govt really should regulate the insurance company more effectively (stop the megamergers, get rid of the employer tax advantage so that consumers can purchase their own insurance and drop one plan to pick up a better one when they need to, and put tighter regulations against recission and denials for preexisting conditions, among other needed changes.) That's how I feel about the changes needed to improve my OWN healthcare insurance- and then I've also explained my feelings about providing more govt assistance to help low wage earners get insured.
Having stated many of these things over and over and over again when I'm asked “OK, so what alternatives do you propose”, it's a bit obnoxious for you to continue to say that I'm in favor of the status quo to protect insurance company profiteering and prevent other people from getting healthcare. Adding insult to injury* is to come to these boards over and over and get accused of stuff like that from you and a few others here, and then also read the constant posts about how people on the right are 'lowering the bar' of political discourse.
*Just an expression, as it's not important enough to me to actually feel that I'm insulted and/or injured
I do think there's a place for that kind of analysis, to 'follow the money' as they say- but the problem I have with the way its being framed now is that ONLY the Blue Dogs' financial backing is being attacked, while no one mentions or explores the various left wing activist groups and unions who donate heavily to the Dems who are pushing this legislation. There's money on both sides.
I am coming late to the discussion but you're right that this isn't simply a “follow the money” situation. According to this week's Time magazine proponents of heath care reform have outspent opponents by 2:1, so it's not as simple as saying the health care reform movement is fading from a disparity in funding.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859…
But CS, your proposals won't really change anything. Competition? My employers look at several insurance companies every year when they feel forced to spend their time evaluating insurance because the current one wants to jack up prices/cut benefits. The only question in the end, though, is exactly what path the different companies use to reach the same ends. There is no difference, therefore no competition. In a market with inelastic demand and the ability to redefine the contract in any way they want they can get away with that kind of thing. The market system will always fail the consumer when the point of consumption is separated from the purchase decision, which it will be most of the time in any system that allows you to try to cover or contribute to medical costs in advance.
My employers look at several insurance companies every year when they feel forced to spend their time evaluating insurance because the current one wants to jack up prices/cut benefits.
That's why I mentioned that the mergers of companies have to stop (and the megaliths broken up), and we need to get consumers purchasing directly. Both of those changes would be far more likely to add real competition to the market than the public option would.
I don't think there will ever be a perfect situation- but I do belief that most of the problems and the exponential rise in cost of insurance have come in recent years as the companies have reached oligopoly status. The govt has not acted appropriately to prevent that, and before we allow the govt to attempt something so massive we ought to ask them to step in where actually helpful and get out of the way in cases where policy has done harm to competition.
My employers look at several insurance companies every year when they feel forced to spend their time evaluating insurance because the current one wants to jack up prices/cut benefits.
That's why I mentioned that the mergers of companies have to stop (and the megaliths broken up), and we need to get consumers purchasing directly. Both of those changes would be far more likely to add real competition to the market than the public option would.
I don't think there will ever be a perfect situation- but I do belief that most of the problems and the exponential rise in cost of insurance have come in recent years as the companies have reached oligopoly status. The govt has not acted appropriately to prevent that, and before we allow the govt to attempt something so massive we ought to ask them to step in where actually helpful and get out of the way in cases where policy has done harm to competition.
“The market system will always fail the consumer when the point of consumption is separated from the purchase decision.”
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. There's a big gap between purchasers and consumers, and you the consumer are on the Arctic side of it. Your doctor doesn't work for you, he works for your insurance company. And your insurance company doesn't work for you, they work for your employer. Your employer works for you only a little, for the period of time you work for them. As little as you matter in the system now, if you're unemployed you'll matter even less.
This gap is a huge problem, draining all accountability out of the system. But it's neither the inevitable result of market forces, nor inevitable at all. It's the result of a single tax law that makes it cheaper for you to let your employer buy your health insurance. All we have to do to get the system working for you again is change that one law.
[...] Time For A Little Honesty From Public Option Supporters [...]