What do those on Obama’s own side have to say?
But contrary to the Bush years, when perceived presidential deceit evoked liberal rage and a film to go with it, [Michael] Moore adoringly approves of what he now sees as a necessary “rope-a-dope strategy” to advance his side’s cause…
I take all of the things that make me nervous about the decisions that Obama has made, and I look and them through that lens – that it’s some kind of master plan. It’s like his continued support of a government-run option for health care. If a true public option is enacted – and Obama knows this – it will eventually bring about a single-payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government plan and make the profits they want to make. At some point most of them will probably have to bow out of the business.
Moore’s frankness even earns praise from the far more temperate David Gergen:
I’m glad to have someone of Michael Moore’s honesty say that the public option on health care is, in fact, designed to be a pathway to a single-payer system. Because the Democrats have essentially, “That’s not true.”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments }
The public option is mostly harmless if it actually competes on equal terms with the private options. Where it becomes a backdoor for single-payer is if the public option gets favorable treatment from the government, which it almost certainly will. In order for me to consider a plan with a public option to be acceptable, the plan needs to contain the following firm, enforcable commitments:
1. The public option will not be subsidized.
2. The government will not bail out the public option plan when it comes up short on cash.
3. The government will not give the public option favorable regulatory or tax treatment.
4. The government will not forbid private insurance providers from offering better prices or better service than the public option.
5. The government will not limit exit from the public option.
Heh, heh, heh.
Michael Moore, who thinks we went into Afghanistan just so we could build an oil pipeline to make Dick Cheney and Halliburton rich, thinks this bill is secretly about creating Single Payer. This says waaaaay way more about how Michael Moore’s warped brain works than anything else.
I am, literally, laughing. I cannot believe just how much damage this asshole is doing to his own side. But then, Michael Moore always has made Democrats look bad. It’s a shame–for them, and the country–that they embraced this evil man in ’04. It’s haunting them now, and I can’t help but be pleased, even if it’s in a context where he’s hurting a bill I’d like to see succeed.
In any case: his logic is about as solid as his logic for how we went into Iraq. To believe that a public option will inevitably lead to the destruction of private insurance, you have to believe what Michael Moore believes: that private health insurance is bad, inefficient, and overexpensive, and that therefore, consumers will choose the public option because the public option will obviously be so much better.
In other words, if you think he’s correct that the bill will lead to Single Payer, then you must, logically, believe he is correct that Single Payer itself is obviously superior.
If, on the other hand, you believe that private insurance is very good and can offer all sorts of benefits that are obvious to all sorts of people, then, clearly, he’s as full of shit on this as he always is.
Tell ya what: the actual private insurance companies? They support this bill. They’re in Washington now helping to craft it and negotiate parts of it, but they’re all basically on board. So apparently, THEY think they can compete.
Actually, one needs to do no such thing and you’ve made no compelling argument that one must other than that you’ve declared it to be so.
You do that a lot, BTW.
Dean:
When you argue that thinking this bill will lead to single payer means that it is logically superior, your logic train has jumped the tracks in a big way.
The reason it will lead to single pay is because private insurance companies which must make a profit cannot compete with government “insurance” which can spend with abandon, and which will receive regulatory and legal advantages over the private sector. That’s how government works. It’s pure power politics, nothing more, nothing less. And I KNOW that you are smart enough to understand this basic, obvious argument.
Actually, what Michael Moore was suggesting is that the Bush administration failed to take action again Al Quaeda before 9/11 because oil and gas companies were trying to negotiate a pipeline through Afghanistan and the Bush administration did not want to derail those negotiations by giving aid to the the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban and Al Quaeda.
There are examples where companies are able to compete with the government. Take for example package shipping. You can ship your package using the US Post Office, UPS, FedEx or some other shipping company. Both UPS and FedEx have been able to compete with the US Post Office. Neither has been driven out of business.
Uh, well, what Mr. Moore said was:
If a true public option is enacted – and Obama knows this – it will eventually bring about a single-payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government plan and make the profits they want to make. At some point most of them will probably have to bow out of the business.
I’m scratching my head here.
It appears you guys are saying that private insurance companies can’t compete with government, so the public will automatically choose the government plan. Because the government will offer them better than what private insurers can offer.
If I’m understanding Kev and Cosmic’s objection, what they’re saying is that the public option will only *appear* better because it’s got hidden costs that the public doesn’t see up front.
That begs one question: if it seems cheap, but the service is inferior, then most consumers will pay for better, won’t they? If they can afford it? So at minimum, to make this argument, you MUST be accepting that, on matters of quality at least, the government plan can be at least as good as a private plan. Mustn’t you?
What I think I understand of your logic is, “of course it will be just as good as private insurance, and it will SEEM cheaper, but it’ll have hidden costs that only make it seem cheaper, and so the insurance companies won’t be able to compete on price in the long run.”
I don’t see how you can simultaneously believe that the government plan will be sucky and awful because it’s government-run, and also believe that everybody will rush to buy the sucky awful government insurance because it’s so cheap.
Do people automatically buy crap because it’s cheap?
I can see the idea that the costs of the public option are hidden and therefore harder to compete with as a valid concern. However, I have several objections:
1) The private companies already get a lot of public and private subsidies. Such as their tax-deductible status. Such as deals they can make with various institutions. Their tax subsidies can’t be as great as a government agency, but they -do- get them. And in the private market they can do all sorts of deals: “Come work for Wal-Mart, we can offer you Blue Cross Premium for only 50 bucks a month!”
2) Private insurers are far more nimble than most government agencies. I categorically reject the notion that government agencies are automatically incompetent (BS, BS, BS!) but they damn well aren’t light on their feet, and they damn well aren’t innovative (very often). If something isn’t working or making any sense, government agencies move a *lot* slower than private entities, most of the time.
3) I hate to keep mentioning this but it seems not to be sinking in: These same insurance companies that are supposedly about to be nuked into oblivion by this bill? They are all in Washington right now, helping to craft it. They are by and large saying they really want these reforms.
Corporations are very, very good at competing with government. They do it all the damned time. The examples are too numerous to count.
And, a lot of them make good money providing services TO the government, that the government can’t or doesn’t want to provide. The supposedly evil Halliburton does. The entire aerospace industry does. Even today, numerous government health agencies farm out a ton of their work to private entities.
I really, really, really do not think that America’s insurance companies are in Washington now, asking for reforms, helping craft legislation… because they’re just stupid and about to be devoured.
I suspect they already see all sorts of ways to make money. Losing some things here in exchange for some other things there.
In fact, here’s what I’d bet you dollars to donuts:
IF the bill doesn’t wind up killed (which it very well might), there is a *strong* chance that you’re going to see a “public option” that involves letting people choose what amounts to having the government pay for a cheap, low-rent policy from one of the private insurers. Probably off a list. Just like they do the S-CHIP program in most states now.
(For those who don’t know: S-CHIP is the Federal government’s health insurance program for children whose parents can’t afford insurance. George W. Bush was a huge booster of it. Obviously, it’s a government plan. Here in Michigan, the way it works is, if you qualify, you get a list of more than a dozen insurance companies. Standard ones, like Blue Cross. You pick it. Your kids are now covered under it. It’s a basic policy, no frills really, but it works pretty good. And the insurance companies seem to really like it.)
“of course it will be just as good as private insurance, and it will SEEM cheaper, but it’ll have hidden costs that only make it seem cheaper, and so the insurance companies won’t be able to compete on price in the long run.”
I think it’s more along the lines of .. having costs that are borne by the taxpayers. Subsidized, even.
I guess you guys who seem not to understand how the “public option” will inevitably lead to a single-pay government controlled system will simply have to see it happen to understand why it will happen.
Comparing this to USPS vs. UPS is laughable, of course. The government doesn’t get petitioned on a daily basis about the length of time it takes to deliver a package, so there is no great incentive for representatives to pander to their constituency by “doing something about my package being a day late.” That, of course, isn’t quite the same thing as “doing something about my grandma dying in the emergency room.”
Forget that Obama and many of his minions have explained repeatedly that this is the ONLY way to get to the single-payer system. That’s not relevant to the discussion is it? I guess if you don’t want to believe my analysis and prediction, you should at least pay attention to Dear Leader’s.
Rubes. As I’ve said before, Obama depends on people like you to be successful.
There are different levels of subsidy as well.
USPS is subsidized at a level intented to leave room for a competitive market.
In this case, supporters of single-payer (including the President) have essentially declared an intent to subsidize this at whatever level is required to drive out the competition.
Further, the House version leaves in place additional hooks for bludgeoning competitors, especially the definition of what is a “qualifying plan”.
The USPS is not subsidized – it is given a government monopoly to deliver first class mail, but has to compete against the others for packages with no help whatsoever. And delivery of first class mail is a money-loser in a lot of ways, so its actually a competitive burden not an advantage (especially since Congress capped postage rate increases).
Aziz, that depends on how you account for it. In any case, it’s incidental to my point.
The new government healthcare plan would be both heavily subsidized and granted monopoly on all new coverage (page 16).
The monopoly on new coverage would be sufficient.
Add to that the potential for arbitraty and capricious changes to “qualifying plan”, and very quickly the competitive market goes away.
Actually, the USPS does receive a federal subsidy of about $3 billion/year. Take a look at their annual report, specifically the line item for “Capital contributions of U.S. government”. It’s only about 4% of their operating budget, but it’s enough to cover their average operating losses, and it’s $3 billion a year more than FedEx or UPS gets.
After further review…
It appears to me that most private plans would be broken by simple ambiguity as to whether or not they were “qualifying”.
Would you subscribe to a plan if it were uncertain that doing so would expose you to substantial penalty come tax time?
It is because there will be a perverse incentive added in, which is the employer “fine”. Right now, a company that is paying $5K a year on headcount for your health insurance can drop that, tell you, “get gummint care” and only pay a $750 fine. So the company drops you, and at that point a lot of people will be forced to the bottom end of the market.
That provision, BTW, is why WalMart and a lot of other big employers are supporting the law. The “fine” is cheaper than compliance.
Employers are going to be dropping health insurance coverage for many of those employees if nothing is done too.
Dean, what’s cheaper — public or private education? if private, why doesn’t private education dominate the U.S.? Public funding rules.
Public education is only cheaper for those enrolling.
Even those who enroll children in private education pay for public education.
Your logic doesn’t work.
On a per pupil basis, public education is slightly more expensive than private. The difference is who pays.
I think P. Mike’s main point is still accurate despite spending levels being about the same: Private schooling produces better students than public. There’s no arguing this point. So, I think, the argument is still valid.
Comments on this entry are closed.