Thursday, October 22, 2009

How To Lie: the Government Option

As I have mentioned before, I get emails from Moveon(left).org. Mainly, this gives me an idea on the angle that the far left is using in their campaigns. So after a couple of days of not paying attention (warm weather, days off, 2 kids; 'nuff said) I open my Gmail inbox and find, among the usual from the Heritage Foundation and the Libertarian Party of Ohio, an email from the Moveon bunch staring the ever-bonable Heather Graham.

It's technically a good ad, and there's visible cleavage, so if you don't want to hear the propaganda, turn of the sound and salivate at least:



Ok, requisite ogle is over. Now to the point.

First, let's address the major-assed misnomer, the "public option." It's not a "public" anything,similar to the lie of "public" schools. It's a government option. It is controlled and funded by 535 people so far removed from the everyday that they exempt themselves from all the shit they pile on us. The government option (like everything else) would be geared to serve their need to get reelected. In health care, this means creating dependence on the government for this "right" so that any threat to it means automatic turnouts (like Social inSecurity).

The ad begins, "Insurance companies have gotten lazy." True. If you're going to go on to lie, it's always best to start with a grain of truth. In this case, it's that the health insurance industry has gotten lazy because they enjoy a semi-protected oligopoly status in Washington and the 50 individual states. In the idea that injecting competition into the market would solve many problems, I can agree. The problem lies in how competition can be reintroduced. I've gone over my ideas. But this post is about babes and bullshit.

The ad goes on to say, ..."over 70% of Americans want the [government] option." Well, they do if it's a government option that "competes" with private insurance and you quote the June 20 CBS News/New York Times poll.  When it's magical ponies and fucking rainbows and all is right in the world, the government option sounds all happy and shit.  But that was June, when the crap was just being rolled out.  As for the "competition" thing....

The ad states that "Some in Washington say this is unfair competition...." No. It's not competition at all. Washington does not "compete." It mandates and manipulates and controls. It decides what is the "right" price and compels private industry to play ball by its "plan out of ass" rules. But it sure as shit does not compete.

Now if they were to illustrate the government option properly, Heather Graham would not show up in a lose and mildly revealing track outfit and contort in ways that made me have to loop that segment of video in the bathroom.  She would come roaring up in a skin tight pair of jeans and a hot leather jacket, driving a "green" Humvee, tie the insurance company folks to it, then drag them down a track until they were merely a collection of shredded legs bouncing along and a scattering of entrails over the prior mile of track.  Because the lie of "competition" in a government option is an obstacle to honest damned debate here.

So don't waste time calling the Washington dumb.  Send them an email with the text of this post.  And for those of you in the government-payer camp, be honest about it and admit that the government option is a bullshit lie being used to achieve your end.  You'll be better for it.

20 comments:

Name: Soapboxgod said...

..."over 70% of Americans want the [government] option." Well, they do if it's a government option that "competes" with private insurance...

If that's the case, and these Americans honestly think that competition could exist between the two, then they're bigger idiots than even I took them for.

As Exhibit A, consider the (ahem) "competition" between Public K-12 and Private K-12 education.

Patrick M said...

Soapster: One correction. It's government K-12, not public.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Exactly. And it's quite a racket; a monopoly that prices individuals out of the private market. Sure you can put your kids into a private school. But not without having to also pay into the monopoly.

TRUTH 101 said...

You really take the cake here Patrick. Your precious private insurers, of which you don't have, have to be forced to allow mothers that just delivered babies to stay at least one freaking night in the hospital. I do have some experience and connection to what mothers go through and need to know during delivery.

One of your wonderful private insurers has to to be shamed into covering a baby because it's charts said it was "too fat" or would the phrase "too fucking fat" have any impact with you.



The freaking government has to regulate the hell out of the goddamn insurance companies or we would pay our premiums and they would pay us nothing for the privilege.



If a government option is what it takes to eventually lead to a single payer system that we all pay into and covers all of us, including you Patrick, then hell yes I'm for it. The tragedy of this is we have to go through the bullshit of all the manuvering to get us there. In the meantime, Congressman Grayson is correct. People will suffer and die because they have no health insurance.

Patrick M said...

101: My "precious/wonderful/[what the fuck ever] private insurers?"

Let's stop the bullshit for a second here. I am not, and will never be a fan, of the companies who have so mismanaged their affairs that they allowed the situation to degenerate into what we have now. Not all of it can be traced back to idiotic government mandates.

But the reason we are in such a mess is because we took a marketplace and turned it into a fucking "system." The government-payer system is the ultimate in turning something that can function with some reasonable regulations into the nightmare of bureaucracy. Because whether it's an oligopoly hosing fat babies or a government monopoly mandating how we live our lives (and consequently, how we die), it's still having another person in control of your life.

That's not our government. And while Grayson is right that people will suffer and die because of the mess that is health insurance, he neglects to look at the heart of the problem (government power of us) in his quest for government power over us.

We have scheming bastards like this on both sides of the aisle, just with different priorities on how to control. And therein lies the problem.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

The real heart of the problem is that companies, without regulation, will fuck the people bone dry whilst convincing them its in their best interest.

And I went through 11 years of private school that my parents paid dearly for, and got a bullshit education that in no way, shape, or form matched what I could have gotten in the public school system.

TRUTH 101 said...

I concede your point about scheming bastards Patrick. But I ask you this: Who do you want managing your health insurance? A company who's main concern is profit. Or a government entity with a Congressman's office a phone call away if you need help?

I trust the scheming bastard that wants my vote far more than I will ever trust the scheming bastard that's trying to make a profit and thinking of ways to keep from paying the bills I bought insurance to pay.

Beth said...

A Congressman who is a phone call away, you honestly think they'll do something to help you if you call them? Truth 101, you are deluded. But knowing that you THINK that could happen does explain why you would go along with a government takeover of the health care system.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Who do you want managing your health insurance? A company who's main concern is profit. Or a government entity with a Congressman's office a phone call away if you need help?"

Or how about a government official who's only concern is the next election and as such they'll do whatever is necessary to buy as many votes and make as many fucking promises as is possible.

There is no such thing as profits. There are only costs.

TRUTH 101 said...

Government already runs half the system Beth. Ever heard of Medicare or Medicaid? And the people on it thank God LBJ started it. Millions were able to retire because of Medicare. Millions would be able to retire now opening their jobs to a new crop of workers if we had a national health insurance plan. Now they have to wait until they're 65.

You ever try calling your Congressman's office Beth? That is if you even know who your Congressman is.

Patrick M said...

101: Who do you want managing your health insurance?

I'll take the company who's goals and motives remain a constant rather than someone with the power to manipulate things for his own benefit which may change depending on the election cycle, political philosophy.

That's why, for the most part, we shouldn't have to look to either. A total government takeover removes the option.

Beth said...

Where do you get the idea that Medicare and Medicaid is equal to HALF of the system, Truth?

dmarks said...

I have no problem with Medicaid and Medicare, other than that they both need to be means-teasted. Otherwise, it is free health care for the rich.

It should really be pointed out that the Dems plans have a major element of giving tax money to the rich and well-off in the form of free healthcare.

"Who do you want managing your health insurance? A company who's main concern is profit. Or a government entity with a Congressman's office a phone call away if you need help?"

This is just hilarious, and ties into the "We're from the government, we're here to help you" joke. And we must all remember the fact that competing private companies are much more accountable and accessible than the government. After all, the government is the only outfit that can get away without shooting and killing you for not obeying it.

TRUTH 101 said...

Please tell me where all these competing health insurance companies are Dmarks and others?
They have the system rigged and you, Patrick and others exhibit naievity beyond anything shown by the most liberal liberal with your belief in the benevolence of health insurers.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"Please tell me where all these competing health insurance companies are Dmarks and others?"

There aren't any compteting health insurance providers which is why when proponents of a government option cite a failure of the free market system in healthcare it is a complete and total flippin' canard. We haven't had a free market in healthcare for eons. Consider that an employer can, by the current tax code, deduct their health insurance costs. An individual who were to purchase their own private plan cannot. That's fucked up. What's more, because [at least in Minnesota] due to government mandates (of which Minnesota has the most in the country with about 64) and regulations, a competitive environment is not allowed to flourish. I am given a choice between about 5 providers in the state. Due to these mandates and regulations by government, the providers are required to cover all sorts of healthcare related issues (many of which I don't even need or want like something so completely outrageous as port wine stain removal: health.state.mn.us/divs/.../publications/costs/2001-02.pdf) which does what? It drives up the cost. But not only that, it prices real competition out of the market.

Port wine stain removal....JHC we have lost our fucking minds.

dmarks said...

Truth: There are several hundred competing health insurance companies. However, bad regulations prevent them from competing completly with everyone one of the others across state boundaries.

Soap sure hits it when he says: "I am given a choice between about 5 providers in the state"

A perfect example of over-regulation damaging healthcare.

"Patrick and others exhibit naievity beyond anything shown by the most liberal liberal with your belief in the benevolence of health insurers."

No, it's clear we don't trust them, so we want them to be kept honest by competing with each other. You are the one who wants to trust unaccountable monopoly control.

The left usually has a better idea than the right in its distrust of monopolies. However, when it comes to demands for government-controlled healthcare (single payer), this good precaution, and fact all common sense, is thrown out the window.

Patrick is one of the least naive people around. He has a good solid sense of how things really work.

TRUTH 101 said...

You're at the mercy of whomever your employer chooses for it's employee health care provider. That is if your employers offers that. Single payer corrects this.


And there's good reason for all these regulations guys. Because without them insurance companies would be free to take your premiums and when the time came for you to file a claim they could and would say "screw you."

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"You're at the mercy of whomever your employer chooses for it's employee health care provider. That is if your employers offers that. Single payer corrects this."

Howz that? It merely puts you at the mercy of the decision making of bureaucrats in Washington. And, I think we have a number of examples on what we might expect given that those same bureaucrats are now dictating the salary and benefit packages of CEOs et al.

Patrick M said...

101: The purpose of regulations is not to mandate every facet of the health insurance industry (which is what the current mess and government-payer does).

It's to regulate, i.e. take the excesses out of a necessary industry, somewhat like the utilities. As you reinvigorate competition, you need fewer regulations.

And as for the companies saying "screw you," that is where the government absolutely has a role, especially if it's a company breaking a contract (violating the rights of an individual).

dmarks said...

Truth said "And there's good reason for all these regulations guys"

The "Screw you" scenario has nothing to do with the entirely needless regulations that prevent all 1,200 health insurance companies from competing in all 50 states.

Truth: "You're at the mercy of whomever your employer chooses for it's employee health care provider. That is if your employers offers that. Single payer corrects this. "

Let's use some logic here. In the situation you decry, you have only one choice in a health insurance provider. In the situation you support (the "corrected" situation of a complete government monopoly), you have only one choice in a health insurance provider.

I'm not sure that you read what you were saying before you clicked "publish"?

--------------

Patrick said: "It's to regulate, i.e. take the excesses out of a necessary industry, somewhat like the utilities. As you reinvigorate competition, you need fewer regulations."

That's exactly it, and we need to get rid of the regulations whose sole purpose is to prevent competition.