Someone recently asked me what the objections to single-payer are from those opposed. I’m glad they didn’t specify that it had to be rational objections. That would leave me searching for another topic.
My job was made somewhat easier by a column in the New York Times by Randy Cohen, former writer for David Letterman. Mr. Cohen suggests that Congress needs a Debate Umpire. He likens that position to a judge in a courtroom. The judge can rule and overrule to require participants to maintain certain standards as to logic, honesty and ethics. He assures that anyone using disingenuous arguments is called to task.
When it comes to trying to maintain the present system, or leach even more from us, the opponents of real reform have been most industrious in creating confusion, distortions, distractions and lies. I will paraphrase and take slight liberties in adapting his efforts to this post.
He addresses their objections to a public option. They say it would be unfair or destroy private options. That is not so with education. Private and parochial schools exist despite a public school option. The University of Tennessee has not driven Vanderbilt out of business.
FedEx, as he puts it, tolerates the U.S. Postal Service. He observes that no one is calling for closing down Yosemite because Six Flags is in bankruptcy court. Public libraries have not chased Barnes & Noble out of the mall.
Here I will simply quote Mr. Cohen, “In his critique of the public option, Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, invoked the inability of his 7-year-old daughter’s lemonade stand to compete with McDonald’s. (You’d think she’d thrive, incidentally, what with lemonade not being on the McDonald’s menu.) “It’s impossible to have a level playing field with a public plan,” Ryan said, asserting that private insurers could be driven out of business by the unfair competitive advantages enjoyed by a government-sponsored insurer.”
Further down, he writes, “In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove concluded: “If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state.” This is a slippery-slope argument, the sort of thing that should set off warning bells. If we impose a 65 miles-per-hour speed limit, we’re on the way to a 55 m.p.h. limit, then down to 5 m.p.h., and ultimately to mandatory driving in reverse.”
You shouldn’t be too surprised if a Congressman couldn’t come up with an appropriate analogy. Nor should it be a shock that the former political genius finds it more convenient to avoid logical arguments. The purpose of both was not to enlighten. Actually, neither were they seeking to debate. They were falling back on their mainstay – fear-mongering.
Some object to single-payer because it would mean the end of bribes. The government isn’t supposed to grease the palms of Congressmen. Others object because it would cause a major spill from their gravy train.
Then there are the true believers. They believe that government forced all those working for the Wall Street Casino to destroy the global economy. They believe that Halliburton-built showers in Iraq that electrocuted several of our troops were absolutely necessary to accomplishing the mission. They believe that Lockheed’s F-22 could fly in the rain if they were only allowed to sell us more of them. They believe that PhARMA, the AHA and the AHIP are being patriotic by forcing people into bankruptcy court and canceling 14,000 policies every day.
They believe that there is such a thing as a “free market.” They believe that a plutocracy is a democracy. They believe that the collusion of a few corporations is capitalism. They believe their simpleminded economic theology is more important than the lives and welfare of you and me and millions of others. Are you ready to die for their ignorance?
They claim that the government will ration healthcare. Unless lots more people start donating organs there will continue to be rationing of transplants regardless of who pays. I hope rationing means I don’t get a prescription for Nexium. I hope someone saves me from taking an ineffective, expensive, dangerous drug when Pepto-Bismol works better. I hope I don’t have some clerk in an insurance company rationing my healthcare because he wants to impress his boss or meet a quota. We have rationing. We will have rationing. The government is not going to ration care to increase profits or impress Wall Street.
Look at all of the lost jobs if we eliminate the health insurance companies. Two things. There will still be health insurance companies. They will be much smaller but people on Medicare buy medigap policies to cover the 20% that Medicare doesn’t. Those with enough money will be able to buy concierge service. They have that in the UK. It doesn’t improve the outcomes vis-a-vis the National Health Service but some people with money are willing to pay extra to feel that they are special.
Healthcare reform that provides universal coverage, or nearly so, will create far more jobs. These jobs will mostly be involved in caring for people rather than just taking their money. Not a single insurance company treats a single malady.
Whether public option, co-op, Aetna or any other plan, if it isn’t single-payer, it is not economically or fiscally viable. Each is a sham. Each is a diversion.
As I implied earlier, there are no real, honest, logical arguments in favor of any other option. Therefore, the opponents have put forth their efforts to attack single-payer and create fantasies about the plan that makes them wealthy, keeps them in office or assures them their 72 virginal Ayn Rand look-alikes in paradise.
email2friend
