This is en example of why the MSM is so dangerous

This is the Today interview this morning between Matt Lauer and Howard Dean. If you ever doubted for a moment the blatant, brazen BIAS in the media, listen to this. Specifically, the opener where Matt basically describes 'in his own words' what the public option really is.

link

"A government run insurance agency that would give people greater choice, some say break the monopoly held by the private insurers, and thus drive down costs. Is that fair?"

What we have here are three GIGANTIC lies being present as truth in the form of a 'definition.' Cleverly done, Matt, except that people are getting wise to this subtle form of manipulation. Let's address the lies one at a time:

"Give people greater choice." Those without insurance would have the public option, and those with insurance would have the public option when all private insurers were driven out of business when companies dropped their health plans in lieu of the 'government option' provided for all at no additional expense to them. This is not the textbook definition of 'greater choice.'

"Break the monopoly held by private insurers". Monopoly over what? Health insurance? You keep using that word, 'monopoly'. I do not think it means what you think it means. a government run health system with no competition would be a monopoly. Numerous private insurers competing in the free market is NOT a monopoly.

"Drive down costs." Dude, nobody believes that. Not even you. Pretty boldly played but it just cements your epic FAIL. We all know this is unaffordable by any means. Even social security, medicare, and medicaid are unaffordable by themselves.

This kind of crap is why half the people in this country think the way they do. They've been subtly programmed to have their thinking done for them in interviews like this, and they buy into this bullshit hook line and sinker. Thankfully, some of these weak minded sheep are starting to wake up and fucking pay attention to what's going on outside their front door.

Strange how these schemes are both affordable (cheaper per capita) and very popular in other countries.

The US must exist in a different space-time continuum. How outrageous that anyone might think the same outcomes would apply there.

U.S. exceptionalism leads its followers to some very bizarre conclusions, often along the lines of the U.S. being exceptionally incompetent and its people exceptionally stupid. I disagree with Marso about the U.S. being exceptional in these manners. So do you, which makes you a better American than he is.

What's truly alarming is that the craving for peer approval results in even otherwise intelligent folks like Marso succumbing to the "Main Stream Media" meme.

It's "mainstream." One word. When you start breaking concepts down into monosyllables in an effort to be kewl, you end up just being sad.

I'm not sure how one describes a competitive market as a "monopoly." The only "monopolies" in health care that I'm aware of are government imposed (e.g., I can't buy a health plan from Nevada because California forces me to pay for their regulatory schemes).

Do Coke, Pepsi, Royal Crown, and a few others have a "monopoly" on soft drink production? Do GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW, Fiat, Saab, etc. have a "monopoly" on car production?

A taxpayer-subsidized system can be run at a loss; how is a for-profit business supposed to compete with that? A "public option" gives consumers a "choice" only insomuch as it adds one player to the market that doesn't need to succeed yet can still undercut its competitors on price. Such an "option" would almost certainly doom private insurance while giving lesser performance.

The NHS of Britain blows goats and is not affordable. Remember all that ruckus about the hospital not changing sheets between patients in order to save money?

Canada's system blows goats and is not affordable. Being forced to wait months or years for an MRI shows this.

From what I remember, Spain was pretty solid.

So . . . which outcomes should we be hoping and praying for here? Perhaps we should actually pay attention to the track record of our own government. Things like USPS and Social Security. Where do you, and that increasingly stupid twat Liet, get your optimism from?

Canadians and Britains both disagree with you about it, "blowing goats." But that's neither here nor there as health reform is not seeking to put in one of those systems.

monopoly ~noun.
the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.


I detect a grammatical inaccuracy in this phrase.

One wonders why you didn't correct Rick on that point?

They are cheaper because they are rationed -there's a reason that there are gross shortages of doctors and other health care professionals in the UK.

They are "popular" with all those who's highest standard is whether or not they get something for nothing.


If we had such a system here, i would be pleased to know that X or Y was paid for since I'm so broke i couldn't buy X or Y on my own - BUT unlike the masses you point to, having X and Y given to me for nothing isn't my highest standard of "good"


This isn't true for most people.

So "popularity" isn't really the best way to define what's the best move to make.

Was it Matt Lauer or Brian Williams who virtually cupped Obama's balls and worked the shaft when the Obama gave NBC the rights to film that Obama White House Special?

Strange how you have absolutely nothing to back this up.

The same outcome would apply here if we tried UHC: A government run clusterfuck that would eventually go bankrupt.

Do you disagree with the content of the OP also, or do you simply have no rebuttal for it?

That goes double for you. There you go right to the whole grammatical splitting hairs thing instead of addressing the issue, as you are wont to do. Either discuss the issue for a change for fuck off.

Is it not the case that per capita health spending is lower in other industrialised countries, and that overall outcomes are better?
Is it also not the case that the British Conservative party leadership almost took a heart-attack last week when one of their junior representatives suggested that privatisation would be good, simply because they know they'd face electoral meltdown if they tried it?

Further, I must have missed the bit where the NHS went bankrupt. I got an operation through it last year, and I think my lucky stars that I didn't have to worry about arguing with health insurers to cover the cost.

Not really. It's popular with people in general, including those who make a net positive contribution.

My computer having crashed last week and not liking much else on TV, I decided to check out a few news outlets to get some more information on this health care news (since I'd been too pre-occupied with other things to pair attention sooner). The way Fox News and MSNBC report on this is as different as night and day.

In any event, universal health care is nothing I want to be subjected to, especially if I were a senior citizen or had some terminal illness and the gov't decided I wasn't worth the cost of some basic comforts like pain killers. Because that's exactly where this is headed when our national debt explodes and TIIc need to cut cost somewhere, and where else to start but with the elderly (most of which wouldn't be able to afford to pay out of pocket for some treatments, in spite of Democrats insisting they'd be allowed to do so)? Or those that are physically or mentally disabled and can't contribute anything to society*?

*According to how the government may see things. Not my view.

Your first and third claim is simply false, and can be demonstrated as false when looking at countries that have a public option.

The second claim is basically a semantic issue. There are several definitions of monopoly, depending on what you count as a "seller". Some people will say that stockholder-owned companies can only be effectively distinguished from one another if they offer markedly different services, which private health insurers arguably do not. A Marxist view, for instance, would uphold this definition, and if you disagree with it beyond arguing about labels, you'd have to show how choosing between different private insurers currently makes an essential difference, and how real competition happens among them in spite of current government regulation.

Thank goodness when the government gets involved and drives the insurance companies out of business there won't be any more monopolies.

Oh wait!

O RLY?

Sorry, but that is not true. I've seen it for myself. I had family living there for 10 years. The bitching about the NHS is non-stop. I realize that the Brits like to bitch about pretty much everything non-stop, but I have personally witnessed enough incompetence from the NHS to be wary of it. All of the other European expats were horrified by it as well.

Also, my comment was exactly here and exactly there because it was a direct response to Henry. That is why I used the quote function.

That would be those buffaloed into the emotional choice of "giving back" and helping the "poor neglected underclass"

Nevermind if the facts support it, they feel guilty when they are emotionally manipulated to do so and then they get the emotional "head pat" of having "done something for the poor"

In exactly the same way that 4 out of 5 Americans say they are happy with their own health care, yet almost half thing the system needs reform.

why?

Because they are being emotionally manipulated to feel sorry for the mythological class of folks out there somewhere who are getting shafted.

You have quote of one person. What's that supposed to mean exactly? Polls on the subject amongst people in Canada and Britain find them very satisfied with their systems and where there are problems the answers not being more American.

Anecdotal evidence can prove almost anything, just ask birthers. Scientific polls tell a different story from what you just said.

Americans dont trust the Government.

The fire dept is the one folks you can count on, they work hard and will step up and save yor ass.

If there is a pothole in the road 3 truck loads of men show up to watck one man work.

The cops try but in slow times they read huster till the radar tells them to get a speeder. If you are in danger or hurt they like that chance to haul ass and come in with guns drawn to look like badasses.

The unemployment office will do everything in thier power to not pay you what you paid in. They are like" we dont have any jobs for an engineer but the slaughter house needs people cut assholes out of cows for $8.00, if you turn that down we will cut you off"

If you are hurt on the job they will do everything to not pay you, send you to government owned doctors to say" you are fine, go back to work"

so you fight them for two years and they dont pay you nothing.

later you do get a good doctor and they start paying. you can have back surgery.

It dont work it took 2 years and your back is fucked.

so you go to social security for permanent disability and a government doctor says," you aint dead get to work ya bum"

they deny your claim once, then they do it twice, then the see a judge 3 and a half years later.

now you are fucked with tons of bills and some nice Judge says you are diabled. then you wait 6 monthes for about 25% of what they owe you. and the other takes 2 more years to get your money.

Heathcare is not the problem, government is the problem.

I WANT GOVERNMENT REFORM.

Obama is way off base and thats what Americans understand first and formost.


I do know what im talking bout..

I admit this made me laugh, but I don't have a problem with it. You're not entitled to your ideal job. If you can find what you want, great, but if you can't it's no excuse for not "settling" for what's available. No job is beneath you, and nobody is above getting their hands dirty to earn a living.

And if you want to talk about unemployment benefits and "what you put in," you should be arguing for abolishing the practice entirely and starting your own "unemployment savings account," because I sure as fuck don't need the government forcing my participation.

So you deny people are getting shafted?

Seriously?

Fuck off, comrade. I'm sick of this shit. All wealth is not villainy, and all poverty is not "victimhood."

Or they prefer a system that will have them covered even if they fall on hard times economically or medically themselves.

Scientific polls can give you an idea of a populations opinion. My assertion, that the NHS blows goats, is not contradicted by what a sample of Brits tell the polls. It is perfectly reasonable that a population could be satisfied with goat blowing especially if goats are the only things they've ever blown. This would explain why you might be happy with the NHS and yet every expat I've met (even those who come frome countries with UHC) find it atrocious. Also, not that I don't believe you but you actually didn't cite any polls in your response to me.

It really isn't anything to do with that. I'd say they simply lack the rigorous indoctrination that you possess against the evils of "big government". A national service is simply seen as a better way of doing things.