By Matt Schwartz
As the Democrats scramble to sell their misguided health care reform package, they are trying to convince Americans that a public health care option is great for Americans because it merely offers them yet another choice in health care insurance in what is now a severely limited market of suppliers. A video of Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton) is now circulating on YouTube and other social media wherein he explains simply that right now, a consumer has but a few insurance companies from which to choose for health care. By adding a public option to the mix, we are merely giving people another choice for their health care insurance provider, and if they don't like the government plan, they don't have to use it. He then goes on to explain that anyone else who opposes this ostensibly innocuous benefit is either aligned with the evil insurance and pharmaceutical companies or they simply want to obstruct the president for purely political purposes, that is to say, for no "legitimate purposes". (Understandably, Mr. Reich does not mention whether he, as a Democrat, may have a political incentive for SUPPORTING this health care bill regardless of its efficacy, like say, an interest in not having President Obama fail in his most important political pursuit to date thereby jeopardizing his bid for a second term, let alone jeopardizing a bunch of Democrat congressional seats in the next election cycle. At a minimum, Mr. Reich's argument should therefore be considered with the same level of skepticism and cynicism as those proffered by detractors of the bill).
Here is precisely what is wrong with a Pubic Option: Americans should take the Democratic leadership (President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, et al.) at their word -- As they have repeatedly reassured their Far Left constituency, these Democrats regard a public option as the best and quickest route to a "single payer system." This is why they are so keen for a public option at any cost. It is a means for obtaining their Single Payer System objective. Now, a single payer system is a euphemism for a "government monopoly over health care", which is a euphemism for "Socialized Medicine", which is a euphemism for "the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to our freedom -- forced dependence on the government for our vital needs".. Not to mention the fact that the history of socialized medicine around the world is one of tragic, moribund failures with no exceptions. But Left wing ideologues are so invested in their dystopic dreams of an omnipotent but benevolent government taking care of everyone that they experience crippling cognitive dissonance -- and they are incapable of even considering rudimentary red flags such as the absence of any Socialism success stories, the economic realities that prevent successful socialized medicine and the severe loss of liberty in totalitarian societies that implement Socialism.
So why do these Democrats believe that a public option is the best route to a single payer system? Because the government makes the rules. And the government would be making the rules while it would be "competing" simultaneously with private insurance companies. Naturally, the government would impose all kinds of onerous regulations and requirements on the insurance companies trying to compete while exempting itself from those costly rules and regulations. In short, the government will unfairly rig the game. Not only do the Democrats know this, but they are COUNTING on it. Because once they rig the game, the private insurance companies will be forced to drop out of the health care insurance market altogether, one by one, leaving only one single payer -- the government. Voila... Socialized Medicine.
So when a guy like Robert Reich tells you that the Democrats are merely trying to give the people another insurance option, he is being terribly disingenuous (or terribly naive). He says that Americans only have A, B, and C insurance plans from which to choose now, but by adding a public option, the people will also have D to choose. What he isNOT telling you is that it will only be a matter of time before A, B and C are forced out of the health care insurance industry altogether due to poor profit performance, and so this is actually a deceptive plan to ELIMINATE choices -- not expand them. Ask any Obamaphile -- if Democrats really want to expand choices, why are they feverishly pushing a "single payer" system? They are definitely not interested in choices. They are only interested in total government control. Any other spin version of their end game, Like Robert Reich's, is a complete lie.
If the Democrats wanted to truly give Americans more choices in health care insurance, they would join Republicans in seeking to eliminate the laws that prohibit interstate insurance sales. Americans have few choices in health care plans because insurance companies are currently NOT ALLOWED TO COMPETE in interstate commerce. If we remove that barrier, Americans will not just be able to choose from A through D as Mr. Reich sheepishly proposes -- they will have choices that extend well beyond Z. This much more competition would, without question, help to drive policy costs down while improving service quality. And it would comport with American values of free enterprise, independence, moral competition and limited government.
In fact, the Democrats are not just being disingenuous about their desire to eliminate choices for the American people, they're being disingenuous about how they are framing the entire debate. They argue as if there is only one thing we can do regarding our health care insurance problems -- Accordingly, thy claim we can either socialize medicine or keep the status quo which everyone agrees is unacceptable. But they refuse to consider, let alone explore, the myriad free market-based reforms proposed for health care including real increased competition, better fraud enforcement initiatives, updating to paperless systems and tort reform. They won't even touch tort reform because the Democrats are bankrolled by the trial lawyers associations, and those folks like to sue because it makes them rich.
Americans should be extraordinarily wary about handing over an unprecedented 1/6 of the national economy to a government that cannot even run a successful "cash for clunkers" program.
Take careful note... Our current president has stated that he wants to "fundamentally transform the country", and he deliberately surrounds himself with radical advisers (including outright communists like Van Jones) who elude traditional vetting and senate confirmation. These people are completely out of touch with mainstream America and yet they are helping to shape national policies for all of us. Obama has taken over banks and nationalized one of the largest private companies in the country (GM). He aligns himself with communist dictators like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and the ousted Honduran president while rebuking the rest of the recently liberated Honduran government for abiding by its own constitutional and Supreme Court authorities. He spent 20 years in the flock of a racist, Marxist theologian (Jeremiah Wright), and he was entirely too friendly with an admitted communist terrorist (Bill Ayers) and distributed $millions of educational grants on Ayers' behalf to radical left wing causes. It appears that he is now using public money (illegally) through the National Endowment of the Arts to promote his Far Left political agenda in films and other visual media. He is partners with the radical Left Wing organization ACORN and follows the tenets of its communist godfather, Saul Alinksy. (Interestingly, the term "community organizer" was coined by Alinsky himself in his book, "Rules for Radicals." A community organizer is not some garden variety volunteer who helps folks get jobs -- a Community Organizer is a person who is trained to rile up the proletariat against the Bourgeoise and instigate class warfare. But don't take my word for it. Read "Rules for Radicals".) Obama's mother was a suspected communist, and the man she shacked up with for 8 of Obama's formative years, Frank Marshall Davis, was also a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Obama was a member of the "New Party" (an offshoot of the Democrat Socialist Party) in Chicago in the early 1990's. And now, can anyone claim to be surprised to learn that he seeks to socialize medicine?
President Obama certainly has all the trappings of a Marxist who is pretending NOT to be a Marxist as he foists Marxist initiatives on the country. But Marxism by any other name is equally pernicious, and the American people are finally recognizing what this guy is really all about.
Here is precisely what is wrong with a Pubic Option: Americans should take the Democratic leadership (President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, et al.) at their word -- As they have repeatedly reassured their Far Left constituency, these Democrats regard a public option as the best and quickest route to a "single payer system." This is why they are so keen for a public option at any cost. It is a means for obtaining their Single Payer System objective. Now, a single payer system is a euphemism for a "government monopoly over health care", which is a euphemism for "Socialized Medicine", which is a euphemism for "the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to our freedom -- forced dependence on the government for our vital needs".. Not to mention the fact that the history of socialized medicine around the world is one of tragic, moribund failures with no exceptions. But Left wing ideologues are so invested in their dystopic dreams of an omnipotent but benevolent government taking care of everyone that they experience crippling cognitive dissonance -- and they are incapable of even considering rudimentary red flags such as the absence of any Socialism success stories, the economic realities that prevent successful socialized medicine and the severe loss of liberty in totalitarian societies that implement Socialism.
So why do these Democrats believe that a public option is the best route to a single payer system? Because the government makes the rules. And the government would be making the rules while it would be "competing" simultaneously with private insurance companies. Naturally, the government would impose all kinds of onerous regulations and requirements on the insurance companies trying to compete while exempting itself from those costly rules and regulations. In short, the government will unfairly rig the game. Not only do the Democrats know this, but they are COUNTING on it. Because once they rig the game, the private insurance companies will be forced to drop out of the health care insurance market altogether, one by one, leaving only one single payer -- the government. Voila... Socialized Medicine.
So when a guy like Robert Reich tells you that the Democrats are merely trying to give the people another insurance option, he is being terribly disingenuous (or terribly naive). He says that Americans only have A, B, and C insurance plans from which to choose now, but by adding a public option, the people will also have D to choose. What he isNOT telling you is that it will only be a matter of time before A, B and C are forced out of the health care insurance industry altogether due to poor profit performance, and so this is actually a deceptive plan to ELIMINATE choices -- not expand them. Ask any Obamaphile -- if Democrats really want to expand choices, why are they feverishly pushing a "single payer" system? They are definitely not interested in choices. They are only interested in total government control. Any other spin version of their end game, Like Robert Reich's, is a complete lie.
If the Democrats wanted to truly give Americans more choices in health care insurance, they would join Republicans in seeking to eliminate the laws that prohibit interstate insurance sales. Americans have few choices in health care plans because insurance companies are currently NOT ALLOWED TO COMPETE in interstate commerce. If we remove that barrier, Americans will not just be able to choose from A through D as Mr. Reich sheepishly proposes -- they will have choices that extend well beyond Z. This much more competition would, without question, help to drive policy costs down while improving service quality. And it would comport with American values of free enterprise, independence, moral competition and limited government.
In fact, the Democrats are not just being disingenuous about their desire to eliminate choices for the American people, they're being disingenuous about how they are framing the entire debate. They argue as if there is only one thing we can do regarding our health care insurance problems -- Accordingly, thy claim we can either socialize medicine or keep the status quo which everyone agrees is unacceptable. But they refuse to consider, let alone explore, the myriad free market-based reforms proposed for health care including real increased competition, better fraud enforcement initiatives, updating to paperless systems and tort reform. They won't even touch tort reform because the Democrats are bankrolled by the trial lawyers associations, and those folks like to sue because it makes them rich.
Americans should be extraordinarily wary about handing over an unprecedented 1/6 of the national economy to a government that cannot even run a successful "cash for clunkers" program.
Take careful note... Our current president has stated that he wants to "fundamentally transform the country", and he deliberately surrounds himself with radical advisers (including outright communists like Van Jones) who elude traditional vetting and senate confirmation. These people are completely out of touch with mainstream America and yet they are helping to shape national policies for all of us. Obama has taken over banks and nationalized one of the largest private companies in the country (GM). He aligns himself with communist dictators like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and the ousted Honduran president while rebuking the rest of the recently liberated Honduran government for abiding by its own constitutional and Supreme Court authorities. He spent 20 years in the flock of a racist, Marxist theologian (Jeremiah Wright), and he was entirely too friendly with an admitted communist terrorist (Bill Ayers) and distributed $millions of educational grants on Ayers' behalf to radical left wing causes. It appears that he is now using public money (illegally) through the National Endowment of the Arts to promote his Far Left political agenda in films and other visual media. He is partners with the radical Left Wing organization ACORN and follows the tenets of its communist godfather, Saul Alinksy. (Interestingly, the term "community organizer" was coined by Alinsky himself in his book, "Rules for Radicals." A community organizer is not some garden variety volunteer who helps folks get jobs -- a Community Organizer is a person who is trained to rile up the proletariat against the Bourgeoise and instigate class warfare. But don't take my word for it. Read "Rules for Radicals".) Obama's mother was a suspected communist, and the man she shacked up with for 8 of Obama's formative years, Frank Marshall Davis, was also a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Obama was a member of the "New Party" (an offshoot of the Democrat Socialist Party) in Chicago in the early 1990's. And now, can anyone claim to be surprised to learn that he seeks to socialize medicine?
President Obama certainly has all the trappings of a Marxist who is pretending NOT to be a Marxist as he foists Marxist initiatives on the country. But Marxism by any other name is equally pernicious, and the American people are finally recognizing what this guy is really all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment