«

»

Lie of the Year: Your Healthcare

Politifact has chosen Barack Obama’s “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it” as the Lie of the Year. Prepare for the Left Wing to suddenly turn on Politifact (as they did a couple of years ago when PF picked “Republicans will end Medicare” as their lie). Prepare also for all kinds of explanations as to why Obama’s promise was actually really correct, if you make assumptions X, Y and Z, even if a hundred million people disagree.

But also remember this. As pointed out by numerous others, in 2008, Politifact rated Obama’s claim as true. This shows one of the big dangers of the fact-checkers, one I have harped on many times specifically in reference to Obamacare, but in other respects as well: You can’t fact check something that hasn’t happened yet. That’s especially true when, like Politifact, you didn’t do your homework the first time. But it’s always true. You can’t claim as a “fact” that Budget Deal X will reduce the deficit. You can claim that, in the opinion of the CBO, the OMB or the Illuminati, it will. But if someone disagrees with that prediction, they may be dishonest, pandering or flying in the face of overwhelming evidence; but they are not factually wrong until they are factually wrong.

Domestic policy, economics and healthcare projections are not like laws of physics. Let’s stop treating them like they are.

39 comments

No ping yet

  1. Thrill says:

    I’ve never particularly understood why anyone would feel compelled to suddenly treat the same old liberal journalists as somehow more truthful and authoritative than usual just because they suddenly start calling themselves “fact-checkers”.

    Things like this help undermine their entire profession even further, so I’m okay with it.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  2. AlexInCT says:

    You can’t fact check something that hasn’t happened yet.

    I sorta disagree here, Hal. Especially in this case. There where scores of people that actually took the time to read between the lines even the damned law was passed, and quickly came to understand that we were not just being lied to, but that the media was helping with the lying. So far these people, whom all were demonized back then, when they pointed out exactly how this was going to play out, have batted 1000. And I tend to think they all were rather conservative in how bad the picture they painted was, likely so they could remain credible, because things are far, far worse than the worst case scenario predictions.

    That’s especially true when, like Politifact, you didn’t do your homework the first time.

    In this case this lie was simply a question of ignoring commons sense and basic math skills. Anyone that actually paid attention, did some research and got the facts, not the propaganda peddled by the collectivist intelligentsia and their media agents, knew that they lied when they said those of us that liked what we had could keep it. Be it your plan, your prescription coverage, your doctor, or your current payment, it was all going to have to be thrown out to make the system they wanted to put in place be just borderline stable (it will never be stable or sustainable, BTW). If everyone got to keep what they had, exactly as they had, the system would simply implode under the weight of all the new people, the people with preexisting conditions, and the people that would just wait until they finally needed medical care to get healthcare, and it would do so fast. Anyone that could not see that is either such a dysfunctional moron that they cannot be trusted to do things we expect a 5 year old to have down cold, or was purposefully deluding themselves. In the case of the collectivist masses it is likely both.

    BTW, I think Politifact, like practically every democrat now feigning anger and indignation, got this wrong on purpose. They knew exactly what would happen but chose to conceal it. That’s because the law would have never gained enough popularity to pass the vote, even with the demcorats in full control, if people understood how hard it was going to screw them.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Poosh says:

    Politifact isn’t a fact checking website though, but I guess they’d lose all credibility if they didn’t do this (i.e. it’s a propaganda website)

    Note 2011 or whatever’s big lie, the Sarah Palin’s Death Panels claim is, actually, true.

    “Domestic policy, economics and healthcare projections are not like laws of physics. Let’s stop treating them like they are.”

    But, alas, it’s generally accepted that economics IS a science, and that it can be controlled and micro-managed.

    Check out the Bill Elliot/Stephen C. Tucker IRS/Obamacare story: sheer tyranny now. Obama supporters are beyond contempt at this point.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  5. Thrill says:

    “How so?”

    It begins…

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  6. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9

      
  7. AlexInCT says:

    Ok, I’ll just take it as Accepted Blog Truth then.

    It’s not just accepted blog truth CM: it’s a given that any system run by government, due to the inefficiencies and the problem of revenue vs. cost that they inevitably will have to deal with, will require some people with expensive procedures that are deemed not worth it to be delayed until money is available, or the situation corrects itself. In most cases that waiting period, especially when dealing with expensive procedures to treat terminal illness, doubly so amongst the elderly (but now already expanding to include other groups), will result in deaths. I know the left absolutely despises the very apropos name “death panels”, but the people making the decisions of who gets treatment and who, be it by delaying tactics or outright disqualification, doesn’t, amounts to exactly that.

    Let’s not pretend that we have infinite resources to help everyone. When insurance companies did something like this – based on the contracts and agreements in insurance policies – the left called it death panels and hated the idea. Now we are getting healthcare controlled by government, with them making sure they can’t be held liable, and they will be doing orders of magnitude more of this (without the contract to protect the consumer that can’t appeal for redress to anyone anymore) kind of culling, but we are to now suddenly pretend this is not the same. It’s schizophrenic to see the left do that doube take and pretend they have no idea what Palin was talking about.

    Death Panels is a dead on name, and Palin was 100% right to point out they are going to be part & parcel of this government healthcare takeover. But you can pretend otherwise because you hate the messenger and the message that shines a harsh light on the cesspool this giant shit sandwich really is.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Xetrov says:

    Independent Payment Advisory Board – sections 3403 and 10320 of Obamacare – http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

    Yeah, I know, the board won’t be used as a “Death Panel” or “ration” healthcare, they promise. And if you like your current plan, you can keep it.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  9. AlexInCT says:

    Yeah, I know, the board won’t be used as a “Death Panel” or “ration” healthcare, they promise. And if you like your current plan, you can keep it.

    QUICK CALL 9-1-1!

    Report a major beat down and get an ambulance to that accident site, STAT!

    That’s gonna leave a mark.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Hal_10000 says:

    Sarah Palin was full of shit and is still full of shit.

    What Palin was talking about was not IPAB. What she was talking was panels that would decree that certain Americans were not worthy of health care and would not get it.

    Here is her quote:

    [G]overnment health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil

    There is no panel that anyone will have to go in front of to beg for their life. IPAB can not address, for example, the runaway costs that severely ill patients run up in the last few weeks of life as the last full measure is carried out. IPAB will decide on a universal basis whether treatments are cost effective or not (see my earlier post on the $2000 drug doctor use in place of a $50 drug).

    That having been said, I am extremely dubious that the IPAB will do anything of note (if we’re lucky) and worried that it will tell insurance companies to stop paying for treatments that are effective (if we’re not) such as the expensive experimental chemo therapy that is keeping a relative of mine alive.

    The IPAB is bad enough. But let’s not pretend it’s going to execute Down’s Syndrome babies and old people. That’s what Palin said and it was a bunch of crap.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10

      
  11. Section8 says:

    But let’s not pretend it’s going to execute Down’s Syndrome babies and old people.

    Where did she say the government was going to execute them? What’s funny is you accuse her of being full of shit when she takes the liberty of describing rationing of care (which will happen) and uses the label Obama death panel, yet you take the liberty of using her words and interpret them as “execute” to highlight your point. Are you not full of shit then?

    Now I’m not a Palin fan and that’s not the path of discussion I’m interested in taking, although I think there are far worse politicos out there who get far less scrutiny, but let’s take this quote for what it is – an embellishment of a situation to come up with a buzzword or phrase from something that’s actually going to be accurate, which is rationing. But seriously where did she EVER say they were going to execute people? I would say your key words to make your point are more outrageous than hers.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  12. Seattle Outcast says:

    If there aren’t any death panels, then CM should sign up right now and put his money where his second asshole is.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  13. Mook says:

    There is no panel that anyone will have to go in front of to beg for their life. IPAB can not address, for example, the runaway costs that severely ill patients run up in the last few weeks of life as the last full measure is carried out. IPAB will decide on a universal basis whether treatments are cost effective or not

    Yet everything we’ve seen says different. Patients will receive certain treatments based on race, political connections, wealth, and the amount of selective media coverage applied to certain “heartfelt” cases, just like what happens now when government doles out goodies, benefits, and special privileges. Healthcare would be be applied about as “even handedly” as how the IRS selected conservative targets for audits and harassment..

    So Palin is full of shit on her death panel prediction even though her statement was echoed by Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Steven Rattner, Andy Stern, Howard Dean, Ezekiel Emanuel and Robert Reich. But SHE is the one full of shit, right Hal? For pointing out that a group of bureaucrats will in fact be making exactly those kinds of life or death treatment decisions as to who is eligible for what treatments and for how long because that is what rationing requires.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  14. pfluffy says:

    The “death panel” crap is keeping us from having a rational discussion about appropriate healthcare. We could start with the obvious – should a 55 year old alcoholic get a liver transplant over a healthy 25-year old just because he or she has the means to pay for it?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

      
  15. Poosh says:

    It isn’t literally killing the child (and I doubt a child’s care will be rationed but certain treatments will be withheld or priced out), it’s creating the circumstances where insurance payment for will be capped for a certain treatments (etc) that is deemed for whatever reason not malleable towards the greater good: certain treatments, one can imagine at least, for a Downs Syndrome child may be capped and therefor not offered on the insurance (at least by my understanding). This calculation will be left to the panel.

    The NHS absolutely has death panels, so when Sarah Palin said it I knew instantly what she was alluring to. No one “goes before them”, that’s just colourful language, and indeed “death panel” itself is deliberately overblown so it gains headlines – but it is a point of utility. I suspect a child is more likely to be deemed of higher utility than an elderly human: and the elderly HAVE without a doubt found their plugs pulled out, under something akin to a death panel, because they have low utility (in the UK) and the resources are better spent on the fit and healthy. There’s a lot of media accounts about the NHS and, I believe we call them ‘death pathways’ and a number floating around is some 130,000 oldies a year are prematurely killed (executed :p) to free up resources: utility. Note the NHS also withholds certain drugs which would give certain patients a fighting chance, which is why funds are often raised and patients fly to America or Europe. Palin may have a specific story in mind similar to this, I could hazard a guess (poorly) that perhaps the cost of a treatment, if absent from Obamcare due to a refusal to pay what is charged (maybe it’s too expensive), will then have the price grossly inflated outside of Obamacare (as if US healthcare needs more of that).

    I’m not saying it’s immoral to kill off old people for the sake of those of higher utility, but that’s the reality in the UK and that is more than likely the result of your IPAB panel and other factors that are so far unseen, I can imagine.

    I know Obamacare is a world away from the NHS but you have the foundations that lead to us killing off the elderly in large numbers.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  16. Section8 says:

    The “death panel” crap is keeping us from having a rational discussion about appropriate healthcare. We could start with the obvious – should a 55 year old alcoholic get a liver transplant over a healthy 25-year old just because he or she has the means to pay for it?

    What’s your answer, and are those factors alone the basis for your decision? What if the 25 year old beats his girlfriend on a regular basis? What if the 55 year old had nothing but bad shit happen in his life but is trying to get off the bottle? There are lots a variables, and how much of this should be dictated by bureaucrats who will never be held accountable? Now an argument can be made that free market rations as well, and it does when it comes to limited supply especially with situations such as organs. There really is no avoiding it. The question is as government has increased its influence over the last few decades has healthcare gotten better or worse? And how is even more of it going to fix things. So far it’s not looking good.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Poosh says:

    It’s a loaded question. If the healthcare is free-market healthcare then yes, if you have the cash you should get the liver over the person who would otherwise use it better – if that is the contractual arrangement: the doner may also make certain arrangements / or the healthcare provider may have its own moral stance – all matters of contract.

    If it’s government, state healthcare, then healthcare must be democratic and that usually ends up with the lung being given to the person who can provide the most use out of the organ.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. pfluffy says:

    What’s your answer, and are those factors alone the basis for your decision? What if the 25 year old beats his girlfriend on a regular basis? What if the 55 year old had nothing but bad shit happen in his life but is trying to get off the bottle? There are lots a variables, and how much of this should be dictated by bureaucrats who will never be held accountable? Now an argument can be made that free market rations as well, and it does when it comes to limited supply especially with situations such as organs. There really is no avoiding it. The question is as government has increased its influence over the last few decades has healthcare gotten better or worse? And how is even more of it going to fix things. So far it’s not looking good.

    I have not yet formed an answer, so I am asking the question. You have good questions to address. The only social factors that can really be adequately addressed are those that affect cost. An alcoholic that drinks will destroy any liver put into his or her body. The 25 year old beating his wife is the wife’s problem.

    I don’t really distinguish between government bureaucrats and private sector bureaucrats. Both are run by people and are equally impersonal when it comes to the cost of procedures.

    Is healthcare better or worse than it used to be? I can’t really say I am fairly healthy for my age and I have always had good insurance. I do know that my primary care physician has been overly cautious at times and has sent me on for weird tests “just in case” like a bone scan for osteoporosis when I was 35 and hurt the fleshy part below my thumb but had no broken bone. I have no idea how much that costed, but there were no signs of bone loss. I think that kind of ass covering makes healthcare costs high.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  19. Section8 says:

    I don’t really distinguish between government bureaucrats and private sector bureaucrats. Both are run by people and are equally impersonal when it comes to the cost of procedures.

    Yeah I can’t argue that. I’ve been in the corporate world long enough. From my view more barriers should be taken down though to promote competition. People seem to get friendlier when they know you can go elsewhere. When you’re the only game in town though then it is the screw you attitude, and that’s just the result of power whether it’s through the means of government or a corporation. I don’t care for consolidated power to be honest, whether it’s in the hands of government or a couple of corporations.

    The 25 year old beating his wife is the wife’s problem.

    Come on pfluffy someone like this is an asshole.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  20. pfluffy says:

    It isn’t a loaded question, really Poosh, but I can see the point. The problem, of course, is that organs are pretty rare and fragile. A rich self indulgent alcoholic could conceivably burn up a few livers in a lifetime of hard drinking. If we are going to go the good vs. evil route then he should be told to fuck off straight away. If we go the rational route then we should do the old opportunity cost analysis, which is how the “death panel” stuff got started. We can’t have it both ways.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  21. pfluffy says:

    I confess that I laughed, Section8. Yes, he is an asshole. Should we keep assholes alive to continue to beat their wives or should we allow them to die so she can collect any life insurance that might exist?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  22. Section8 says:

    option 2

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Seattle Outcast says:

    Not a couple of months ago I was reading an article (Salon or HuffPo) that said not only were there “death panels” but it was a “good thing”. That way they wouldn’t waste any money on grandma when she needed a new hip at 75 and instead could cough up money for your sex change operation, aromatherapy, and meditation classes.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  24. Seattle Outcast says:

    Alcoholic vs child for organ donation:

    Making value judgements on other people’s lifestyle and if you approve of them or not in making medical decisions isn’t just a slippery slope, it’s a fucking cliff the size of the Grand Canyon.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  25. pfluffy says:

    SO, it isn’t about approving of the lifestyle at all (hint: I drink quite a bit). It is about the alcoholic destroying the valuable liver that was given him by continuing to drink. Transplanted livers are pretty fragile. You can’t even be around sick people because of the drugs required to keep them functioning in your body. It isn’t about value judgement at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  26. Poosh says:

    Yeah pfluffy, it’s a toughy really. I think the perimeters we can discuss are a bit narrow.

    I guess it *can* be handled by contracts (in a free-market) but you’d have to hope human morality prevails. For example, doners can simply (doesn’t this actually happen anyway?) state who can and cannot get their organs, or hospitals can decide (seeing as you freely chose to use their establishment). If you want to sell your organ to the highest bidder then fair enough, it’s your organ? Then I guess there is the question of what is so “immoral” about the alcoholic? He has the cash, earned it probably, so he earned his lifestyle (the liver).

    With socialised or mixed healthcare it is democratic, so anything could go really. If I recall you can get sex-change ops on the NHS. And there is heavy demand for smokers to be denied treatment (despite the fact that they paid their National Insurance just as much as any other). Look at the NHS which, (I think thanks to the evil Daily Mail they are trying to stop this) killed off the elderly because they were gonna die soon anyway. Why is 2 weeks from, say, a WW2 veteran, not considered good when put next to the life of a criminal or young thug? Surely the veteran gets priority? etc. Even 2 weeks.

    With a death panel why exactly does it have the authority it does, and surely you will always have people upset or angry at the decisions ? You have no choice in the matter even though you’ve paid in and are forced to pay in: it’s meant to be democratic. At least where markets are involved there is *supposed* to be more choice, and inadequacies are more likely to be dealt with if there is money to be made.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  27. pfluffy says:

    Not a couple of months ago I was reading an article (Salon or HuffPo) that said not only were there “death panels” but it was a “good thing”. That way they wouldn’t waste any money on grandma when she needed a new hip at 75 and instead could cough up money for your sex change operation, aromatherapy, and meditation classes.

    Ok, this is either horseshit or The Onion. Cough up a link or something, damn. See, the alcohol is taking effect; I’m getting testy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  28. Poosh says:

    ^ yeah basically, what SO said. Slippery cliff.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Poosh says:

    parameters * no edit function. wtf has happened to this site :(

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. pfluffy says:

    Well, organs are typically handed out on waiting lists and they have to be type matched. I don’t think you can always designate who can get them unless you are a family member donating a kidney where you give them one and still have another. Hearts and livers are harvested at death and meted out pretty quickly to the first match.

    Yea, if I sell a kidney, I certainly would want the person who bought it to get it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. pfluffy says:

    Poosh/SO, I agree that there are unintended consequences and slippery slopes waiting to reveal themselves. All in good time. There are actual consequences the way things are now. I just don’t see much difference between government and corporate (insurance) rationing. The end result is denial of care either way.

    I am still neutral on Obamacare. I am not a big fan of mandated anything or nanny stating, but I do like it that my 16 year old niece will be insurable even though she had ovarian cancer at 13. Starting out life uninsurable is the suck.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. Hal_10000 says:

    Yet everything we’ve seen says different. Patients will receive certain treatments based on race, political connections, wealth, and the amount of selective media coverage applied to certain “heartfelt” cases, just like what happens now when government doles out goodies, benefits, and special privileges. Healthcare would be be applied about as “even handedly” as how the IRS selected conservative targets for audits and harassment..

    Where does it say this? You clearly have no idea what the IPAB is or does. The IPAB advises Medicare, not the private insurance companies (although they are likely to follow Medicare’s lead). It does not make decisions on a case-by-case basis. It will decide how Medicare will cut costs if it exceeds its budget. It will decide this on a universal basis (i.e., no hip replacements for anyone). That’s likely to work out poorly and its decisions will be influenced by politics. But the IPAB does not have the power to go in and say Person X will not get treatment Y.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  33. CM says:

    If there aren’t any death panels, then CM should sign up right now and put his money where his second asshole is.

    I already have – we have a public health system. But no panels to decide who lives or dies, as described by Palin, and as determined to be inevitable by Alex.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  34. Xetrov says:

    But the IPAB does not have the power to go in and say Person X will not get treatment Y.

    And if you like your plan, you can keep it!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Mook says:

    Sarah Palin:

    “The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.”

    “We’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

    Oh wait… that wasn’t that Sarah Palin, it was Howard Dean and Robert Reich

    Given the special privileges bestowed upon certain politically connected groups in handing out Obamacare exemptions, it’s clear that healthcare treatment will likewise not be given out even handedly. The treatment of that 10 yr old girl who needed a lung transplant is a window to our future under Obamacare, and it takes a seriously gullible fool and/or true believer to claim otherwise.

    Is it really any stretch at all to imagine relatively disproportionate amounts of govt. mandated spending for sickle cell anemia and breast cancer treatment at the expense of say, prostate treatments? When govt. and politicians are in control as they are with Obamacare, life or death decisions will be politicized. The same or likeminded corrupt and dishonest as hell bureaucrats who targeted conservative groups for selective IRS harassment will be the same ones running Obamacare. What could go wrong?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Mook says:

    I just don’t see much difference between government and corporate (insurance) rationing. The end result is denial of care either way.

    The difference, and it’s a huge one, is that government control of healthcare is a monopoly and insurance companies in a free/semi-free market have to compete for business… competition among insurance companies can be limited, usually by govt. regulations. Govt. faces no negative consequences when they make shitty decisions and waste money. Anyone in the Obama admin fired over the Obamacare website fiasco? No? Instead Obamacare federal workers are demanding bonuses and undoubtedly many will receive them one way or another. It’s perverse incentives to the extreme.

    If an insurer unjustly denies claims, word gets out and they would be punished with financial losses with individuals and companies choosing other companies to buy insurance from. Not everyone can change insurance companies, but most individuals and companies do have that choice. With govt. in control, there is no choice to keep bad behavior in check. THAT is the difference.

    Insurance companies are far from perfect and they have disputed and delayed payment for what I thought should be slam dunk payments. But they also pay out a ton of money for needed medical care while operating on a 2% – 4% profit margin. Medicare, in contrast, recklessly squanders over $60 billion in fraud every year. Obamacare will amplify the amount of fraud in healthcare.

    Private insurance companies would go bankrupt if they had to deal with even a tiny fraction of that kind of fraud and waste that Medicare and other govt. healthcare agencies carelessly tolerate each year.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. ilovecress says:

    MOOK ****If an insurer unjustly denies claims, word gets out and they would be punished with financial losses with individuals and companies choosing other companies to buy insurance from. ****

    This may be taking things on a massive tangent, but I’d be interested in the responses. Given the above – how do you account for people like me – people whose job it is to manipulate the message and market and make sure that any company (insurance or otherwise) can get away with it. If you can afford the right talent you can make sure that a scenario when ‘word gets out’ never happens.

    The counterpoint to your view is that a govt version of any private company (insurance or otherwise) will have regulators and transparency built into the system (To be honest, having worked in the public sector too I don’t think this actually works)

    By the way- you’d be surprised how far down the list ‘I trust them to pay claims’ is on the customer research data.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  38. Mook says:

    Given the above – how do you account for people like me – people whose job it is to manipulate the message and market and make sure that any company (insurance or otherwise) can get away with it. If you can afford the right talent you can make sure that a scenario when ‘word gets out’ never happens.

    Aside from brushing aside the problems with a government monopoly deciding what procedures, treatments, and doctor you are allowed to have, please do tell how you are able to “silence” those who were unjustly denied claims any more than you could suppress neighbors, friends, family, and the media all from telling each other or reporting about a poor restaurant experience, a bad contractor, or a lousy auto mechanic. Not to mention the legal remedies (most legal remedies go away when govt. is the sole provider) numerous consumer groups who are often anti-business and who are more than willing to push the ‘wronged consumer’ story no matter what.

    Govt. healthcare leaves little or no choice. In the case of Obamacare, millions (100+ million) don’t have the choice to keep their plan or their doctor even if their plan was perfectly fine. With single payer, govt. is more in control. Govt. claims of transparency are almost always a joke and tend to be more opaque than transparent. The oversight committees are often politically appointed hacks. And with govt. in control, you have no choice. What REALLY works is not govt oversight committees overseeing a relatively unaccountable wasteful govt. monopoly, but free people making their own free choices

    Sec. 8 said it best on this thread:

    People seem to get friendlier when they know you can go elsewhere. When you’re the only game in town though then it is the screw you attitude

    Is there any part of that statement which you disagree with?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  39. ilovecress says:

    Mook – I wasn’t trying to brush those things aside – I was talking to a different point – hence the ‘tangent’ comment.

    You can’t ‘silence’ people from talking to their neighbour, but you can drown them out with alternative messaging in the market. Find the positives to balance out the negatives. In fact in the insurance market, the ‘negatives’ are pretty useful;, as they prompt a whole lot of people to check their cover and sign up for more – because they don’t want to be in the same situation.

    As for the media – much easier. A journo can either turn John Smith’s sob story into something compelling that will make people pick up his paper. Or he could use my article ‘top ten tips to reduce your phone bill’ with photographs included and a quote from Chuck Norris about how Verizon used to suck, but it’s much better now.

    Again, this isn’t to say single payer would be better – just saying that this isn’t really something where private healthcare wins. Competition over price, product, innovation, value add, education – absolutely.

    SO quote – I don’t disagree. I just don’t think it contributes to churn as much as you think.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      

Comments have been disabled.