Top Ten Reasons the US Can Never Have Universal Health Coverage or a Single Payer System
In no particular order:
1. Taxing the rich to pay for the coverage of the poor will cause all capitalists to fold their tents and stop producing goods and services. This is a version of the "I'll take all my toys and go home syndrome" so common to those who are used to getting their own way. Once all those uninsured are out of a job, they'll wish they never heard of universal healthcare.
2. Being uninsured is character building. The idea of charging one portion of society, (the haves), to pay for another's, (the have-nots), runs counter to the American spirit. Those with health insurance worked hard to get their insurance, and so should everyone else. Bootstraps Baby! On the count of three!
3. Government is inefficient at everything it attempts to accomplish. One need only look at the US Postal Service to see the truth in this. The corollary to this is the efficiency of the marketplace that is so obvious in the way medical goods and services have become so much more affordable in the US compared to all the other OECD nations that already have universal health coverage.
4. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. For some insecure people of privilege, offering the same benefits to those less fortunate, detracts from their sense of self satisfaction, and entitlement. Many Americans blessed with financial security remain convinced that they deserve their advantages as a result of indefinable qualities they possess. In the words of the Church Lady: Isn't that 'special'?
5. We just can't afford universal health care. The cost of such a program, last estimated to be about $100Billion/year over the next 10 years), will bring America's economy to its knees. Especially after we spent $ trillions bailing out the investor class by funding the financial sector in their latest get rich quick schemes.
6. We just don't want to insure the poor. It somehow empowers those of us who can afford adequate health insurance to know that there are the less fortunate out there who can't help but envy us. This mantra should be repeated twice a day for 15 minutes in a quiet environment. Everyone: "I've got mine, I've got mine, I've got mine, I've got mine.". Feel better? I know I do.
7. There is no way the healthcare and insurance industries can continue to reap astronomical profits by inflating the cost of goods and services, through their own version of 'churning' the market once all those poor people have been brought onto the public tit. That public tit is there to feed Defense and other corporate sucklings. If room is made for all those poor people the corporatocracy will suffer.
8. America is the land of opportunity. It's like a great game. Each of us has the opportunity to be rich or poor, (ask Bernie Maddoff). Where's the fun in taking the worrying about our health or financial security due to escalating medical costs out of the equation?
9. There will be poor always. Jesus said it. Even though he didn't say there will be the sick always, we get his drift. Speaking of anointing with oil, I've got to get to my massage at the spa.
10. Medical goods and services are 'products' just like any other product. The fact that no one can predict his or her medical future doesn't change a thing. Those products should be subject to one of the central axioms of capitalism, and cost "what the market will bear". In this instance, where access to those products and services can be a matter of life and death, 'what the market can bear' can be quite a lot. Having the proprietary rights to these products is akin to owning the sole toll road or ferry to get to where you want to be, (as in * healthy *). Can I get a 'Ka-ching $$$$'? Anybody?
1. Taxing the rich to pay for the coverage of the poor will cause all capitalists to fold their tents and stop producing goods and services. This is a version of the "I'll take all my toys and go home syndrome" so common to those who are used to getting their own way. Once all those uninsured are out of a job, they'll wish they never heard of universal healthcare.
2. Being uninsured is character building. The idea of charging one portion of society, (the haves), to pay for another's, (the have-nots), runs counter to the American spirit. Those with health insurance worked hard to get their insurance, and so should everyone else. Bootstraps Baby! On the count of three!
3. Government is inefficient at everything it attempts to accomplish. One need only look at the US Postal Service to see the truth in this. The corollary to this is the efficiency of the marketplace that is so obvious in the way medical goods and services have become so much more affordable in the US compared to all the other OECD nations that already have universal health coverage.
4. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. For some insecure people of privilege, offering the same benefits to those less fortunate, detracts from their sense of self satisfaction, and entitlement. Many Americans blessed with financial security remain convinced that they deserve their advantages as a result of indefinable qualities they possess. In the words of the Church Lady: Isn't that 'special'?
5. We just can't afford universal health care. The cost of such a program, last estimated to be about $100Billion/year over the next 10 years), will bring America's economy to its knees. Especially after we spent $ trillions bailing out the investor class by funding the financial sector in their latest get rich quick schemes.
6. We just don't want to insure the poor. It somehow empowers those of us who can afford adequate health insurance to know that there are the less fortunate out there who can't help but envy us. This mantra should be repeated twice a day for 15 minutes in a quiet environment. Everyone: "I've got mine, I've got mine, I've got mine, I've got mine.". Feel better? I know I do.
7. There is no way the healthcare and insurance industries can continue to reap astronomical profits by inflating the cost of goods and services, through their own version of 'churning' the market once all those poor people have been brought onto the public tit. That public tit is there to feed Defense and other corporate sucklings. If room is made for all those poor people the corporatocracy will suffer.
8. America is the land of opportunity. It's like a great game. Each of us has the opportunity to be rich or poor, (ask Bernie Maddoff). Where's the fun in taking the worrying about our health or financial security due to escalating medical costs out of the equation?
9. There will be poor always. Jesus said it. Even though he didn't say there will be the sick always, we get his drift. Speaking of anointing with oil, I've got to get to my massage at the spa.
10. Medical goods and services are 'products' just like any other product. The fact that no one can predict his or her medical future doesn't change a thing. Those products should be subject to one of the central axioms of capitalism, and cost "what the market will bear". In this instance, where access to those products and services can be a matter of life and death, 'what the market can bear' can be quite a lot. Having the proprietary rights to these products is akin to owning the sole toll road or ferry to get to where you want to be, (as in * healthy *). Can I get a 'Ka-ching $$$$'? Anybody?
Advertisement
KA-CHING!!!!!
It is the American Way. We can't have socialism. The uber-wealthy worked hard getting their wealth from other people's toils. It is hard work counting and keeping track of all that money ya know.
July 16, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguel I hereby award you the Dayly Blog of the DAy Award for this here TPMCafe site given to all of you from all of me.
I am saving this. When you break down all the fascistic arguments, they do tend to fall within the categories you have provided.
AND SOME OF THE CATEGORIES ARE OUTRIGHT SINISTER.
July 16, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD. I'll put the award on my shelf with the others. ;)
July 16, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
KaCHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well done and sadly very true!
July 16, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
KA-CHIIING!!!
Higher costs are good for the economy! When we measure those top companies and many of those companies are insureres, the only way to stay at the top is to take more from teh bottom, and that's good for the economy! Now why don;t people see this obvious, beneficial side-=effect?!?
SNARK!!!
July 16, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, it's not trickle down. It's Old Faithful. The money just bursts up from down below!
July 16, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
IOW, the myth of the Rational Market is a myth. The market is Rational, the market is Rational. Rinse, repeat?
/snark
July 16, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There must be a way Miguelito. Some small particle of decency will out.
July 16, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
NNN recently interviewed a senior health care executive at one of the smallest new health care mismanagement companies in the world. Recruited from a Las Vegas Mathematical Improbability Redistribution location, the source commented that the US health care system is perfect for Peter Pan patients and politicans:
Don't grow up. Never get sick.
And we'll give you free drinks if you lose a lot of cash...
July 16, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Universal Health Care would cost -at least- the curent 16% of GDP we spend on health care.
You can claim cost savings, but you'll never see them. Even if you did acheive an (outlandish) 30% reduction in overall costs, you're still talking about note $100 Billion, but a total (government) expenditure of about one and one half trillion dollars per year. (70% of 16% of 14.xxxx Trillion).
And that is assuming a massive 30% overall cost reduction, and that none of the newly insured actually consume any services.
You results may vary. But saying that "universal coverage" can be acheived for less than we're paying for health care now is simply dishonest.
July 16, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
BULLSHIT!
July 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
July 16, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It only costs more if we keep the rotten for profit system going.
So, the solution is not to allow them to continue robbing everyone blind and redirect the massive amount of money wasted on insurance companies and their profits along with the portion they actually put toward healthcare and suddenly there's plenty of money to cover everyone in America. Some form of Single Payer is the only rational, economical, and equitable solution to the healthcare crisis.
July 16, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm serious.
Why does anyone think that we can provide more care to more people for less money than we're spending now?
I understand there are insurance overhead issues, but even if you -delete- those costs, rather than merely reducing them, you're talking about a significant but not overwhelming percentage. I used 30% above because that was a figure another TPM commenter used as his ballpark for overhead and underwriting costs (I suspect even that is too much).
July 16, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, read the report I linked to. It puts the value of switching to a single payer system at about $700B/year, and conservatively adjusted down to $480B/year. Now compare that number to the $100B/year over 10 years being touted as the cost of implementing the latest proposal coming out of the House.
July 16, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This short article in DealBook on Craigslist has nothing to do with healthcare, but it is instructive on the mindset of capitalism.
When Jim Buckmaster, the CEO of Craigslist, tried to explain their business model to a bunch of Wall Streeters, the result was “a culture clash of near-epic proportions,” according to an observer.
One UBS analyst, Ben Schachter, apparently never could wrap his head around Craigslist's concept:
July 16, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
* Beauty* If only some of those in the healthcare revenue streams were as benevolent as Buckmaster.
July 16, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that that report, like many others, misses or understates the real reasons American health care is so expensive: Malpractice Insurance and high technology.
Switching to a single payer system makes both things -more- expensive, not less, since it increases the volume of care (meaning training more personnel, accepting more marginal medical students, etc.)
Everyone uses the current services as a baseline for their estimate. This is utter nonsense when we're talking about spending money to insure a sizeable proportion of the population for the first time. A proportion which has more, and more serious, medical problems than any represntative sample measured thus far. I'm not opposing single payer because I like social stratification; I'm opposing it because I like fiscal solvency.
No country has ever tried to give U.S. quality medical care to everyone. Single payer here is not going to be like Canada. We're going to be substantially better than Canada. And that's expensive.
July 16, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey prez, had you taken the time to actually read the synopsis of the report, they account for malpractice costs in the US system, and put it's value at $20B above what it could be in a single payer system. So yes, it accounts for about 4% of our inflated costs. I'm all in favor of reforming medical malpractice insurance while we're addressing this stuff too. I agree that the insurers have grossly inflated their rates to cover contingencies. Coupled with tort reform, these would be excellent additions to the healthcare puzzle. I also agree with you that we need to train more physicians, nurses, etc. That could happen by funding to existing and new medical schools, and opening our system to foreign trained MDs. Right now our average physician compensation is about 6.4 times the national average of salaries, while other OECD nations pay their physicians about 4.2 times their baseline salaries. A lot of this can be accomplished by circumventing the stranglehold of the AMA on the medical establishment. The AMA has every incentive to maintain the status quo at the public's expense.
July 16, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care is expensive because we eat shit and don't exercise. Two-thirds of the country is either overweight or obese. That is not a recipe for lower costs, no matter what else is wrong with the system.
Malpractice is a red herring, a myth. Always has been. It is a talking point that accounts very little of the overall health care system costs in the United States. What people fail to note when using malpractice as an excuse for rising health care costs is that actual cost of medical malpractice is born by the patient since most cases are never litigated.
Medical advancements in a number of areas were initially financed by the federal government, public universities or public research facilities, sometimes all three. Most medical technology (as with most technology in general) should drive costs down through increased productivity. The way the system runs, however, distorts the cost of the care for reasons that have nothing to do with the cost of machines, which can be amortized over a number of years and usually end up paying for themselves.
The reason hospitals overcharge for a number of procedures is because both public and private insurance companies negotiate every single charge. Further, there is a scarcity of resources due to the aforementioned dietary issues. We eat shit. Shit makes you sick. The US is getting sicker so health care costs are going up. Not sure what is so hard to get about that simple, common sense correlation, but no one is talking about it.
There are certainly complex issues involved with a public plan, its place in the overall medical system, and what the plan might look like, but malpractice and technological innovation are not among them as far as I can see through reading the literature
July 17, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Health care is expensive because we eat shit and don't exercise."
- I haven't seen that effect quantified. I have my doubts it makes a huge difference. I saw a post (Matt Yglesias or Ezra Klein I think) a while ago on a study comparing the US and UK. The US health care spending is double the UK spending. But Americans are also twice as sick as the Brits, which plays in. And it's not because there's a huge difference between the two on obesity and/or activity. Maybe preventive care...
July 17, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is making the link because no wants to believe that the US food system is toxic.
Think of what that realization will do a number of power players. We just spent the last forty years or so creating a food production system that is nutritiously bankrupt when compared to the food we used to eat. If our diet is making us sicker (people who are overweight tend to have more health issues) then rising health care costs would be a given in any world ruled by common sense.
Just because no one seems to have noticed or made the correlation doesn't mean there isn't one to be made. I don't have the time to delve into all the specific data and pull together a research paper, but I am happy with the logic of such a position independent of additional verification.
July 17, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't want to deny it was a factor, Jason. Here's a complex version of an argument in your favor...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/obesity_and_health_care_costs.html
July 17, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great link. That illustrates my thinking on the subject. I just wish more politicians would make the link, realizing that fixing the food supply could have a cascading effect across the entire system. Sorry I misunderstood the gist of your comment.
July 17, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW The same report that I linked the Prez to above states that the high costs in the US are not due to our population being sicker than any other country.
July 17, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find that sort of conclusion to be totally bogus and intellectually dishonest, no matter whatever else they may get right. It is not possible that the rising rates of obesity, which almost perfectly mirror the rise in costs in health care, is unrelated to larger trends.
July 17, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lot of great stuff here (a usual effect of JEM weighing in). All I'm trying to get across is that all of the real reasons that health care in the United States is expensive are meaningful differences between the United States and other countries... not differences between our health care system and theirs.
Better technology and more utilization of that technology, more specialist doctors (that is, better educated doctors), markedly worse lifestyle choices, malpractice insurance, etc.
These are all things that make health care in our country more expensive... and none of them can be solved by changing the laws related to payment for health care. Single payer, universal mandate, bupkis. It simply doesn't address the real problems.
July 17, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it addresses quite a lot of them, plus brings the whole system under one awning which streamlines implementation of those and future changes. I know I'll never convince you, so I'll just have to content myself with the knowledge that the majority of economists have known for 45 years that the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care.
July 17, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly. Fixing health care long-term requires a more holistic approach than is currently being pursued.
If we don't address the additional underlying causes of a less healthy population - diet, lack of exercise, pollution, stress, depression, lack of opportunity - no amount of reform will be affective beyond the current horizon.
Thanks for adding a different focus to the discussion and for the kind words as well.
July 17, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why does anyone think that we can provide more care to more people for less money than we're spending now?"
Because ALL the other developed nations are doing it magnificently.
July 16, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're not.
Being the largest insurer by many orders of magnitude will allow the government program to set healthcare costs at whatever level is economically sustainable. If you're a doctor or a hospital and you don't want to take the government's payouts, good luck finding patients with other insurance, and good luck with your new profession, whatever it ends up being.
Power of the marketplace, baby. Only with single-payer, the consumers control the marketplace.
And that eventuality, once a public option becomes available, is what scares the bejeesus out of all of them - insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and drug companies.
July 16, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is to say, there will be a massive shortage of doctors to staff the single payer system? Because that is exactly what you're saying. To get enough doctors to provide medical care to every American regardless of ability to pay, we'd need many -more- doctors. That means attracting and educating more medical students, at new and expensive medical schools, and paying them more money or accepting less qualified applicants.
Consumers may control the market (although I would mention that "consumers" and "the Government" are not identical), but they can't control the career choices of the nest generation. At least, dear God I hope they can't.
July 16, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said above, loosen the death grip the AMA has on the medical training system in the US, open our doors to foreign trained MDs. At the inflated rates we pay our MDs: Problem solved.
July 16, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats nonsense. We have plenty of doctors. The problem is that we have way too many specialists who want to charge big $$$. (See the excellent
I personally am waiting for someone to finally figure out that if we stopped charging students 200,000+ dollars to become doctors they might not all try to become expensive specialists in order to live a decent life after years of skulduggery. But that would require leaders (or even journalists) who can connect the dots.
July 16, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
opps. sorry I forgot the close carrot. :(
also I think that would be reason #12
does anyone know of a computer with html keys?
July 16, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the National Coalition on Health Care, total spending on health care in 2007 was $2.4 trillion. If one assumes that approximately 30% of health care spending goes for overhead, that would amount to about $720 billion. Medicare is reported to operate with only 3% (or less) going for overhead. Assuming the same amount of total spending, the difference between a 30% overhead rate and a 3% overhead rate would enable an additional $648 billion to be spent on actually providing medical services. Even the difference between a 25% overhead rate and a 5% overhead rate would free up $480 billion to be used to pay for additional medical services. Although it certainly wouldn't be good for the insurance companies that would no longer be able to collect premiums and add their overhead to the cost of medical services, that should make a lot of health care providers and patients happy.
July 16, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true. But it would mean a $1.9 Billion yearly government expenditure, rather than the $1.4 I calculated.
July 16, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that wouldn't all be government expenditure, that is the total cost of the system.
The tab for the government plan in that whole scenario would be much less than that. Even if you combine Medicare, Medicaid and the uninsured into a single plan, that is still only about 25% of the total cost of the total system with regards to number of patients.
There would also be huge cost savings despite the increased number of people insured because we are doing just about everything wrong right now. Hell, a kick-ass medical IT system alone will lower costs tremendously and lead to fewer mistakes by overworked medical professionals.
We can't focus on cost or even projected costs right now because no one really knows how those equations will change as we institute changes to the system on a number of fronts. There are too many variables right now to account for everything, but that certainly doesn't mean we do nothing.
Gestalt is a situation that is created through active participation with reality.
July 17, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct in your correction of prez/taiken, Jason. And also correct that savings derive from multiple adjustments that could be made such as IT.
July 17, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three reasons off the top of my head:
1. Reduction of unnecessary overhead -- especially duplicative paperwork -- Medicare already spends much less on this.
2. Reduction in excess profits and high salaries.
3. Stitch in time: "more services for more people" isn't necessarily what will happen. More early cheap preventive services rather than expensive emergency care later.
If we provide the insulin we don't have to pay for the amputations which we are paying for now. Providing preventive care avoids paying higher costs later.
This may be why the other OECD countries HAVE been able to get better health results for less money.
Further, we could make a major change and move to a capitation system where health is sold rather than services.
July 17, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the homeless person I pass on the freeway onramp will have the same coverage that I have?!?
Outrageous! Egregious!
Socialism! Emotionalism!
If I can't drive by these poor people, accidentally dump my hot $4.50 latte on their heads, and chuckle to myself that their burns will have to heal themselves, then I'm moving to someplace that values extreme social-stratification and how to treat the poor like the third estate that they are!
That's IT! I'm moving to Canada.
I mean, England!
No, I mean France!
No, I mean Sweden!
No, I mean Germany!
No, I mean.......................
Ok, I give up. What first world country has what I want?
July 16, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there are even any third world countries where they're not gonna kick yer ass if ye drop yer latte on the local's heads. ;)
July 16, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Matyra, I mean
EVERYBODY HAS TO BE SOMEWHERE
July 16, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot "It would stifle innovation". The government has never made science progress (if you forget NIH, the moon landing, manhattan project... well just forget all of it).
July 16, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget all the financial innovations that the market devised ... CDOs, CDSs ... that worked so well!
July 16, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the DVD's idea.
July 16, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
good pts
July 16, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Pugsley, I wrote this blog while I was waking up in bed this morning, so I missed a lot. Another reason is that we don't want the gumint standing between us and our healthcare with a set of outcome based protocols. We'd prefer to have an insurance adjuster standing between us and treatment with his company's quarterly report as his guideline to effective treatment.
July 16, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously Miguel, this blog's awesome. Bookmarked!!
July 17, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention all those creative commercials! I don't want a government bureaucrat in my way if I ever come down with coxafloppin and need some Viagra. And what about my Restless Leg Syndrome. It NOT the same thing, ya know!
July 16, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A piece of advice Gregor - quit the viagra and your restless leg'll calm down...
LOL!
July 17, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean science isn't one of the things -- for example, the state of Alaska and "responsible resource development" that Sarah Palin is "progressing"?
July 17, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
your rockin on this one miguelitoh2o.
By the way public insurance has no incentives like the private stuff does,you know cost sharing perks like good ole co-insurance, co-payments, and deductibles. They save me from deep moral hazard by jacking up my out-of-pocket expense and that gives me the financial incentive to avoid making a claim. Why without these financial incentives I would probably go to the doctor every time I was sick or hurt!
July 16, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you're on target here. Check this out as regards copays on prescription drugs. Between the copays, deductibles, and US congress initiated restrictions on buying drugs from Canada & Mexico, the whole system comes down like the smoke and mirrors that it is.
July 16, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
El Prez and all the others never even go near the fact that we are behind all similar countries that have universal health care in outcome, but we are far ahead of them in cost,
A healthy populace, like a populace with a good educational level is good governance, and is the only way we can continue to be a superpower. [We guarantee Iraqi's universal health care -- and we are paying for it BTW!] Why? Because they expect it!
As pandemics become a global threat, do we really want our public health to be delivered at our local CVS drug store?
I heard an ass of a doctor from "Wellpoint" interviewed on NPR yesterday -- Nussbaum, if I remember correctly. He was SO WORRIED about patients not getting what they need from a government-sponsored health plan.
THE INSURANCE SPECIALIST IN OUR OFFICE HAD JUST SPENT 45 MINUTES GETTING A PRE-AUTHORIZATION FROM WELLPOINT THE DAY BEFORE -- FOR ONE PATIENT! This was for a lab test that we order all the time, and for every patient she has to spend at LEAST 45 minutes on the phone -- unable to do anything else during that time because that is the way it works. Today she had to do it twice! And this ass-hole is pretending to care about patients!
But I have to comment on your #1 reason. Since all these uber-riche people are investing in jobs like crazy right at the moment, and if they have to give up a tiny percentage, then they will stop -- well -- I guess I'd like to see where they are investing right now. I mean, I thought we were stagnant with jobs, and since the rich are creating one after the other right now, I guess I'd like a link so I can just look at it.
I mean, I really believe John Boner when he tearfully talks about how republicans love small-business-owners, and Democrats hate them.
OOOOH! I found the link: republicanslovetolieabouteverydamnthingtheycanthinkof.com
Nice try, Miguel, but the repubs obviously love amerika more than you do.
July 16, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL CVille. I heard that NPR podcast thanks to AMike's blog yesterday, and wrote a comment on their website that began, "I hope NPR got a big donation from WellPoint for the infomercial you ran for them today". They never published it. Guess it cut a little close to the bone. Anyone who wants to track down such things should check NPR's donation list next time it's published.
July 16, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic post. But man, your point one... you underestimate the vast and universal powers of Ayn Rand's followers! They might all... like... quit creating genius things for us little ones to work on and such. The horror!
July 16, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shakin' in me boots destor. I'm kind of waiting for the barter system of payments to come back into style. What do you think the uber-rich will produce of value in such a scenario?
July 16, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
11. The for profit 'health insurance industry' and their Wall Street financiers must be allowed to suck the country dry until the cost of medical care bankrupts the country. Only then will Congress do something to pick up the pieces.
July 16, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, you suave little piggy! When my father and I were discussing the public option he said that all we would have is mediocre health care and I said, being without health insurance for the past 7 years, that I would be thrilled with an average doctor because that was better than no doctor. He has never mentioned it again.
July 16, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Chrysler, where’s our Healthcare?
July 16, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a Hummer?
July 17, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great, great post, Miguelito. Sorry to get to this so late, but my answer to the naysayers who say it'll cost us is: So what?
It's time to spend our money on useful things like jobs and health care. The more the better, if that's what it takes. No more money to those who have. We might as well be bonfiring it, since their history is to beg for it, pocket it, and spend it on themselves.
If the government can't afford health care for all, they can't afford to keep those rich bastards in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.
Jeez, all the arguments FOR Universal Health Care are there. We need it, we have to pay for it, but we can keep the rich from using it as an extremely profitable industry by REGULATING expenses. How hard is that to figure out?
So can we please get with the program already??
July 17, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh ...
I'm a day late and a dolla... uh wait.. 40 cents short... But in answer to:
Number one should be:
We can't be too humane because al-Qaeda hates us for those types of freedoms...
Great post pig-O . . .
~OGD~
July 17, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink