-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
President Obama's proposal to create a new government-run plan has been one of the most contentious aspects of the ongoing health care debate. The plan isn't a Trojan Horse for a government takeover of the health care system, proponents argue, but merely a "public option" that would compete on a level-playing field along side private plans. They argue that the new government plan wouldn't have any unfair advantages or access to general tax revenue. Meanwhile, they say, individuals will be able to keep their health care if they like it. As the public becomes increasingly skeptical of their plans for overhauling the nation's health care system, liberals have fought back by arguing that opponents are resorting to to "scare tactics" and not paying attention to what is actually in the legislation.
But this is a bit rich coming from liberals, whose strategy to kill Social Security reform in 2005 was built on attacking not what President Bush was proposing, but what they said his proposals would lead to. His proposal was portrayed as an attack on seniors, even though Bush said that the changes wouldn't apply to anybody under the age of 55. Liberals warned that it would privatize Social Security, even though it would be completely voluntary. And they said government would be gambling Social Security on the stock market, even though participants would be limited to investing in diversified funds rather than individual stocks. The bottom line is that it was considered fair game in the media for critics to focus their attacks on what they saw as the broader effects of Bush's proposals.
Therefore, I see no reason for critcs of the Democratic health care proposals to hold their fire. The bottom line is that President Obama has gone on the record as saying he's in favor of a single payer health care system (video here), and has maintained that it would be the ideal system "if we were starting from scratch." The idea of a government-run plan is to create the infastructure for the government to seize control of the health care system over time. For all the talk of a level playing field, the bottom line is that government would be running the health care exchange and setting the rules for private insurers. Under the House bill, insurers would be forced to join the exchange if they want to continue offering individual insurance policies. Even if the legislaton says that the government-plan would not have access to general tax revenue, it's unrealistic to believe that would be the case if the plan ever ran into financial trouble (see Fannie and Freddie). And it's also wrong to say people would be able to keep their insurance if employers will be able to dump workers onto the government-run exchange. After their behavior in the Social Security reform debate, liberals don't have a leg to stand on when they accuse Obamacare critics of distortion and "scare tactics."
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/27/the-public-option-and-the-soci
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Medicaid Freedom of Choice
- …And a Young Child Will Lead
- Laughing on the Wrong Side
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Terry Schwartze| 7.27.09 @ 1:52PM
As I sit down to write a check for my one household employee's health insurance for $2,141.20 for three months, I say there must be a public option. I would be glad to pay a "fine" or make a reasonable contribution.
jacksmith| 7.27.09 @ 2:50PM
LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. (Thomas Paine)
We have the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed world. Conservative estimates are that over 120,000 of you dies each year in America from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. This is what being 37th in quality of healthcare means.
I know that many of you are angry and frustrated that REPUBLICANS! In congress are dragging their feet and trying to block TRUE healthcare reform. What republicans want is just a taxpayer bailout of the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry, and the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry. A trillion dollar taxpayer funded private health insurance bailout is all you really get without a robust government-run public option available on day one.
YOU CANT HAVE AN INSURANCE MANDATE WITHOUT A ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION. MANDATING PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE AS YOUR ONLY CHOICE WOULD BE UNETHICAL, CORRUPT, AND MORALLY REPUGNANT. AND PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL.
These industries have been slaughtering you and your loved ones like cattle for decades for profit. Including members of congress and their families. These REPUBLICANS are FOOLS!
Republicans and their traitorous allies have been trying to make it look like it's President Obama's fault for the delays, and foot dragging. But I think you all know better than that. President Obama inherited one of the worst government catastrophes in American history from these REPUBLICANS! And President Obama has done a brilliant job of turning things around, and working his heart out for all of us.
But Republicans think you are just a bunch of stupid, idiot, cash cows with short memories. Just like they did under the Bush administration when they helped Bush and Cheney rape America and the rest of the World.
But you don't have to put up with that. And this is what you can do. The Republicans below will be up for reelection on November 2, 2010. Just a little over 13 months from now. And many of you will be able to vote early. So pick some names and tell their voters that their representatives (by name) are obstructing TRUE healthcare reform. And are sellouts to the insurance and medical lobbyist.
Ask them to contact their representatives and tell them that they are going to work to throw them out of office on November 2, 2010, if not before by impeachment, or recall elections. Doing this will give you something more to do to make things better in America. And it will help you feel better too.
There are many resources on the internet that can help you find people to call and contact. For example, many social networking sites can be searched by state, city, or University. Be inventive and creative. I can think of many ways to do this. But be nice. These are your neighbors. And most will want to help.
I know there are a few democrats that have been trying to obstruct TRUE healthcare reform too. But the main problem is the Bush Republicans. Removing them is the best thing tactically to do. On the other hand. If you can easily replace a democrat obstructionist with a supportive democrat, DO IT!
You have been AMAZING!!! my people. Don't loose heart. You knew it wasn't going to be easy saving the World. :-)
God Bless You
jacksmith — Working Class
I REST MY CASE (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010.
* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa
* Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana
* Kit Bond of Missouri
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
* Bob Bennett of Utah
Tim| 7.27.09 @ 3:26PM
TO THE BARRICADES COMRADES!
VIVA CAPSLOCK!
Bob NT| 7.27.09 @ 4:15PM
Jack Do you really want someone in the government deciding that you mother has had enough treatment? That based on their calculations it would be in the best interest of the country to deny cancer treatment to you wife because of her other conditions.
Is it so important to you to have someone else pay for your coverage that you would force us all to accept these horrors?
The whole effort is fraudulent Jack based on number of false premises and outright lies...
Nothing "public" works see Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, USPS, EPA, Dept of education, Amtrak, and the list goes on and on...
Live free or Die... which in the case of the healthcare debate is literal.
Sue| 7.27.09 @ 5:09PM
Jacksmith: If it looks like a duck; walks like a duck; and quacks like a duck; it's a duck.
You make the blanket statement that we have the 37th worst healthcare system in the world, but offer absolutly no evidence.
We also have the highest obesity in the world which can and probably will dramatically change our life expectency in the next decade or so.
Outcomes do not equal quality of healthcare. A lot of things affect outcomes. Also, quality of healthcare is not the same as insurance for healthcare. Which of these arguments are the socialized medicine supporters arguing for? Quality of outcomes or access to care? For me, I would rather my doctor and I support the type of care I need to influence the outcome, and I would rather the government get out of providing payments for healthcare to providers so I don't have to make up the difference via my rising healthcare premiums.
Once they government took over 25% of the healthcare pool of consumers, the game has never been fair, equal or efficient. Now that the pool of consumers is growing due to the baby boomers, the politicians want us to let them off the hook through smoke and mirrors of providing "free" care to everyone and reducing the costs to the government by "rationing" or oops, "determining desired outcomes."
The only outflow you will see is your monthly premiums going to the government in the form of "taxes" and the outcome is "your getting screwed"and the difference this time will be life or death for your choices.
LandoftheFree/HomeoftheBrave| 7.27.09 @ 11:36PM
Bite me, Jack!