The problem with the Obamacare scam:
Faced with incontrovertible evidence that he and his allies have no intention or ability to fulfill their commitment to Americans regarding their current coverage, President Obama decided today at his press conference to try to redefine the promise. What he meant, he now says, is that the government wouldn’t force people out of their health-care plan. If tens of millions of people get pushed out of their current coverage, it would be because firms chose to drop their insurance plans — never mind the fact that they would do so based on the financial incentives the government put in place.
They must think we’re stupid. Of course, based on last November’s election results, they have some basis for it.
That’s the plan.
Make us all beholden to the government for our healthcare, then they can tell us how to eat, how to live.
In a few years time, he’ll have reduced the auto companies to making 1-2 models of overpriced microcars, so he can tell the vast majority of us where we can go.
GE and its smart grid will be telling us how hot or cold our thermostats can be.
Controlling salaries and taxing the bejesus out of what you actually do bring home.
Add to that, the envirowhacko cap-and-trade, making EVERYTHING more expensive.
Bend over, here comes the O-bone.
Oh, and I forgot about Ted K’s health care database that’ll be tied in with gun control.
Ain’t change GRAND?
Up is down
Left is right
In is out
Back is front
Everything is as it should, comrade.
Shut up and obey your betters.
As much as the other couplets just seem wrong, these two worry me profoundly for some reason.
Except that what he said in the news conference is EXACTLY what was on his web page when he was a candidate. In fact, during the campaign, critics of his plan were arguing that a government option would encourage companies to drop coverage.
There’s nothing new here, nor is he redefining anything. He’s restating what he already said.
He’s restating what he already said.
After his usual zigging and zagging along the way. Any random walk process crosses over it’s initial point again sooner or later, and moving in a random pattern makes you a harder target to hit, or in this case, criticize.
He’s been using the exact same weaseling to be on both sides of the issue since forever.
“No, we aren’t going to -take- your private option away! Absolutely not! We -are- going to make it prohibitively expensive and drive everyone else ruthlessly from the field. But don’t you -dare- say we’re -taking- it from you!”
Exactly as Chris points out, this is not new. The press is still too stupid to parse standard business English.
Or, as Obama actually said:
THE PRESIDENT: Why would it drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
Farther down: So let’s assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there’s a possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they’re not going to end up having the same health care they have, because what’s going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions: We’ve got to raise premiums on our employees; in some cases, we can’t provide health insurance at all.
if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
That’s exactly the kind of sophistry that we’re talking about.
The government not being able to run anything is not inconsistent with its being able to use the infinitely deep pocket of the taxpayer to run its competition out of business, because unlike its competition, it doesn’t have to make a profit.
That is simply shameless.
Is the Public Plan going to cost more than the market price then?
Of course not. It will cost less than any private option for the beneficiary.
The words you just quoted? They’re devastating to your own case.
He’s mocking the strawman of a semi-independent government entity outperforming the private market on a total cost basis, when he knows full well the recipient will be paying a vastly lower subsidized cost.
“The press is still too stupid to parse standard business English.”
It’s not stupidity that explains it, Al.
Rand – price is not the only factor in a purchase decision, otherwise the only restaurant serving hamburgers would be McDonalds. If the private insurance sector can provide a service that people are willing to pay for, they will remain in business. Nothing in the proposals on the table eliminates that private option.
More to the point, where is it written that insurance companies are some sacred cows? This blog has argued at length that US car companies should be allowed to fail. If insurance companies can’t provide the services I want at a price I am willing to pay, why shouldn’t they fail?
Chris, are you being deliberately obtuse? I have no problem with any company going out of business, if they’re put out of business by competition in the free market. I have a big problem with a company being put out of business by competition with a taxpayer-funded and subsidized entity.
My respect for you and your intellectual integrity has plummeted in these comments. Apparently there is no depth to which you won’t sink to defend this demagogic administration.
“They must think we’re stupid. Of course, based on last November’s election results, they have some basis for it.”
Bingo.
Some might call it willing suspension of disbelief but I think that a good many Americans are simply stupid.
The government not being able to run anything is not inconsistent with its being able to use the infinitely deep pocket of the taxpayer to run its competition out of business, because unlike its competition, it doesn’t have to make a profit.
Not only does government health care not have to make a profit, but it can run an absurd deficit and still be propped up by a corrupt government on the backs of the taxpayers. Not quite something I would want to compete against were I running an insurance company.
…price is not the only factor in a purchase decision, otherwise the only restaurant serving hamburgers would be McDonalds.
Your analogy holds no water. Now if McDonalds were a government agency that dictated the rules by which other players could make and sell their hamburgers for it would more sense, but still be absurd.
drjohn, I really don’t think the American public is by and large stupid, but rather were demonstrating “cognitive dissonance” during the election. They were utterly tired of the ham-handed Bush and his crew (McCain included) and were hoping that Obama really was more smart than he was leftist. Too bad they were wrong.
“I have a big problem with a company being put out of business by competition with a taxpayer-funded and subsidized entity.”
Especially after how the G treated anyone taking bailout money. Anyone who thinks your lifestyle choices won’t be made by the government if you are on its plan better stop hitting that pipe before they make you stop.
“Welcome to the camp! I guess you all know why we’re here.”
Some songs stand the test of time amazingly well.
Rand – no I’m not being deliberately obtuse. if the government can provide equivalent services at a cost lower than the private market, why shouldn’t we let them? The key here is equivalent, of course.
The market doesn’t care where it gets products from, as long as the product meets specifications. That’s the basis for a commodities market, like the Chicago Board of Trade.
You state that there will be massive taxpayer subsidies. So far, not so much. The vaunted “1 trillion dollars” is over ten years, and is 4% of our annual $2.5 trillion spend on health care.
The bottom line for me is that, if private insurers can offer services that people will pay extra for, they will survive. Since even Canada has private health insurance (it functions similarly to Medicare supplements), I suspect that the companies will adapt and survive.
Rand – no I’m not being deliberately obtuse. if the government can provide equivalent services at a cost lower than the private market, why shouldn’t we let them?
Because they cannot, and they will not. They will provide equivalent, or better services at a lower price, but a higher cost. If you don’t understand this, you are either hopelessly naive about how government agencies work, or you are being as duplicitous as the Democrats in Washington. And if you really believe that the government, in defiance of all known human history, can provide a service at a lower cost than the private sector, prove it with Medicare first, because it’s not coming close. Then, we’ll talk.
Since even Canada has private health insurance (it functions similarly to Medicare supplements), I suspect that the companies will adapt and survive.
They adapt so well that Canadians have to come across the border.
If government buys bottled water for $5/L and sells it for $0.50/L, would we call it “provid[ing] equivalent services at a cost lower than the private market, “?
Or would we call it completely insane?
Rand – price is not the only factor in a purchase decision, otherwise the only restaurant serving hamburgers would be McDonalds. If the private insurance sector can provide a service that people are willing to pay for, they will remain in business. Nothing in the proposals on the table eliminates that private option.
This assumes Doctors, Nurses, and Hospitals can totally opt out of supporting the government plan. It has to assume that, because those people and facilities are the limited resource being sold in the market. Currently, these entities can and do opt out of supporting all sorts of insurance plans.
So lets get this on the table now, Gerrib is ok with this.
Rand – since we don’t even have a bill out of committee yet, arguing about the details of the health care plan can get a bit challenging. But I’ll give it a go:
1) You assume massive subsidies, which so far are a matter for debate. I do understand cost vs. price, and when we get a bill, I’ll look at that. Frankly, I may be willing to pay higher taxes so as to not be tied to my employer’s health care plan.
2) All sorts of governments are providing services at a lower cost than the private sector – see the health care costs of just about any industrialized country in the world. (Hint – ours are about the highest per capita).
3) Google “medical tourism.” You will find all kinds of Americans going overseas for health care. If the sign of a broken system is going to another country for medical care, ours is broke too.
Leland – yes, I am okay with doctors opting out of Medicare. Just for the record, Canadian doctors can opt out of the Canadian system as well. And if the government plan is lousy, causing providers to opt out, people won’t adopt it and/or the plan will get changed.
It’s called “competition” and “responding to market forces.” In this case, the market forces would be people complaining to politicians, but the force would still work.
Your definition of “market forces” is not only non-standard, it’s freakishly stupid.
Rand – since we don’t even have a bill out of committee yet, arguing about the details of the health care plan can get a bit challenging.
Having a “public option” (which is what we are talking about here) is not a “detail.”
Frankly, I may be willing to pay higher taxes so as to not be tied to my employer’s health care plan.
There are ways to not be tied to your employer’s health care plan that don’t involve a “public option,” or paying higher taxes. But the Democrats refuse to consider them, because they are politically incorrect.
If the sign of a broken system is going to another country for medical care, ours is broke too.
We haven’t claimed that our system “isn’t broke” (another disingenuous straw man). We claim that the Democrats’ proposed cure is worse, and much more so, than the disease, and that they are (as are you, in this very comment) being misleading and duplicitous in selling it. So far, your pathetic attempts to argue otherwise reinforce our case, not yours.
It’s called “competition” and “responding to market forces.” In this case, the market forces would be people complaining to politicians, but the force would still work.
You have no sense of what liberty is.
I guess Mr. Gerrib still has that cleared space in his garage for the unicorn he’s expecting from Obama.
Not a unicorn, a pony. A lame pony, with a heart problem, and a half-wit to boot. But still a pony.