GOP: Obama's health care plan would be too effective
Republicans object to Obama's health care proposal on the grounds that people would like it too much:
In a letter to Mr. Obama, five senior Republican senators said they were eager to work with him. But they rejected one of Mr. Obama's campaign proposals, which called for creation of "a new public insurance program," to compete with private insurers.
"Forcing free-market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition," the letter said. "Ultimately, we would be left with a single government-run program controlling all of the market."
In other words, all that stuff about the free market being more efficient and productive than the public sector is bull, and the government-run program will be so attractive that no one will want a private insurer anymore.
That's precisely why we need a public program, not why we don't.
That's precisely why we need a public program, not why we don't.
This post originally appeared at jesselava.com.
Advertisement
Yes, basic logic. Why cannot private insurers compete?
Normally that is not the GOP argument at all. Government does not compete and government unions prevent incompetents from being fired. And under all that the gop is really saying, the government has standards for workers, workers are given livable wages, workers cannot just be thrown out on the street for no good reason, workers have benefits and health coverage.
The private sphere will not treat workers with respect, will not pay livable wages....and therefore the private sphere will always win. (And the higher ups in the private sphere can steal the corporation blind)
But here they are saying really that there are those in the private sphere who are so glaringly stealing money, that they cannot keep up with a fair health system.
THIS IS A FINE POST.
March 5, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Private insurers cannot compete because providing "coverage" is not their primary concern. They are in the business of raising investment capital - that's what insurance companies do. "Coverage" is part of their cost of doing business, and to be reduced or avoided to the greatest extent possible.
Like that old Monty Python sketch: "Your policy clearly states that no claim you make will be paid!"
March 6, 2009 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there it is. The money quote of the day.
March 6, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Every claim that they pay is called a "loss." That says it all.
March 6, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once again the GOP side with the insurer and not the folks who they represent. (or at least supposed to represent)
March 5, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don,t you believe in trickle down economics? ;)
March 6, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what will happen will be exactly a public-private plan which, in the long run will lead to single payer. Win win.
March 5, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. If the private sector works better, it will eventually win; if the public sector works better, then that will win. The fact that the Reps are scared of the public sector working tells us all we need to know.
March 6, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bing - there is still one more column.
As in 1994 when Republicans so effectively killed reform, they fear that if reform is successful (and they know it will be), it will keep them the minority party forever because: "It will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party."
From Steve Benen:
Now it's BINGO.
March 6, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love it!
March 5, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhhh... that was the secret plan all along
March 5, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
March 6, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Yup . . .
~OGD~
March 6, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jessie, I'm hoping to extend the life of your blog along with my post, which compliments yours. Your post shows how threatened repubs feel by Obama's plan. And mine shows the fallacies inherent in the repub one:
The Fallacy of republican Health Care
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/03/the-fallacy-of-republican-heal.php
March 6, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually republicans don't like competition of any kind which is why they support monopolies. Their idea of free market is one where the the market is free of any competition.
C
March 6, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So true!
Free market means to them that they are free to do as they like and number one on the list is to eliminate all competition and if they can't do that then they enter into illegal agreements where they carve up the markets, set prices and wages and screw the consumer.
March 6, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cartels. They want to preserve the fiction that there is competition. But it's rigged!
March 6, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Through out europe everyone has single payer care avilable. But there are still private plans that provide extras. Some doctors specialise in taking these clients on a priority basis (no waiting line) or doing procedures not normally covered. But of course unlike American insurers, who make more money by not providing the services that customers have payed for the european counterparts stay in business by providing more service at a premium price. Free enterprise will find a niech market no mater how small.
March 6, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And guess what? The more service at the premium price sometimes means a nicer building and more time with a doctor. But it does not necessarily mean better outcomes! (speaking from experience as the sister-in-law of a huge number of European in-laws)
March 6, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what about the republican argument that government run healthcare won't work, long waits for treatment, crappy service, etc.? If private insurance can't compete against that, what can they compete against?
March 6, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent question. And since "insurance" doesn't provide health care, how could they possibly have any affect at all? Other than to make lines longer, which would discourage their customers, and thus increase their profits. They would have a vested interest in people giving up standing in line!
No matter which way you look at it, the repubs picked a losing strategy!
March 6, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I go back and forth between a large metro area, Atlanta, and a medium metro area, Palm Beach County.
In both areas, trying to get appointments with most Doctors requires a 1-2 month wait, and that's when you're already a patient. It's much longer if you're not.
I called my mother's neuro doc today cause she's been having vague symptoms. Not enough for an emergency, but enough to want an appointment sooner than her regularly scheduled one on April 24. Turns out, April 24 was better than anything they could offer, which was the end of May, although she did make the list if someone cancels. Not at the top, but she's on the list.
She has 4 docs she sees for various body parts and each one has the same waiting times. But I've heard that the waits are much shorter in Canada and Britain.
Republicans must live in a one horse, 10 doctor town if they think we'll be worse off, that's all I can say. What is like in the rest of the country where you all live?
March 6, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Forcing free-market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition,"
In other words, all that stuff about the free market being more efficient and productive than the public sector is bull, and the government-run program will be so attractive that no one will want a private insurer anymore.
Bah. That is a ridiculous way to interpret that argument. hat the Republicans are saying is a problem is that a government-run program is inevitably going to be subsidized by taxes from people who do not participate in it, making other plans uncompetitive, because you have to pay for the government plan whether or not you participate.
Therefore, the government-run plan will have a cost advantage even if it is less efficient than the private plans, because it can charge people who don't belong to it (i.e. tax them) whereas the private plans can only rely on what people are willing to pay them.
Make a rule that the government-run plans must be paid for entirely with premiums, and not subsidized with taxes in any way, and then we can see if the government-run plans are competitive.
Look at it this way:
If every time you bought a burger at Burger King, you also had to pay 20% of what you spent to McDonald's, Burger King would be at a competitive disadvantage, which would hurt it even if it were more efficient than McDonald's, and could likely drive it out of business. Not because it is isn't as good a restaurant, but because it is forced to subsidize the competition.
March 9, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point, though the general conservative talking point that anything government-run will fall flat on its face seems to belie their fear that people will like government-run health insurance just fine.
March 9, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink