That's because the person who designed it made it to be complicated. The point of the diagram is to associate House Democrats with an ugly, cacophonous bureacracy, and hopefully eliciting some negative emotional reactions from us. There is nothing in the chart analyzing the cost/benefit of the program, in terms of GDP and compared to other alternatives. Such an approach would allow a rational discourse on the matter and avoided a descent into the intellectual drudgery of labeling the program a "communist" or "socialist" program.If the purpose of the flowchart is to confuse and obfuscate the issue of health care, then it is a success. If the purpose of the flowchart is to educate facilitate a discussion of the merits of such a program, then it remains an utter failure.
You're absolutely right. Charts like this attempt to corner us into accepting a "false choice" fallacy. We are presented with two options: messy, bureaucratic house dems plan or existing system. Are these the only two choices on the table? No.What politicians on both sides of the aisle who are working for the insurance industry want us to avoid is a discussion on the basic economics of the issue. At the center of the problem is the fact that we are faced with a non-competitive market, with respect to health care. If you pick up any economics textbook it's all right there. Any time you have a few large firms that dominate a market, you will undoubtedly see constriction of supply and super-normal profits. The so called "free-market" suggests that there are so many firms competing on price, that profits approach zero. No businessman truly wants a competitive market, they just want a secure of share of a non-competitive market.With a public option for health insurance, the nature of competition in the industry changes dramatically. Insurance companies that wish to survive would have to provide a level service higher than what the government offers for a cheaper price. Since costs should already be minimized, the only place left to cut would be profits.
@oldhick The FBI, National Guard and FEMA are all paid for with your taxes and available to your community when needed.Do you consider the availability of a public option the socialization of our health system?
@oldhick Your points are valid. I was simply responding to your statement that there are no federally funded police, etc.. I agree it has nothing to do with the value of a federal health care option. I however, was not the one to bring it up, simply to respond. The statement you made is demonstrably untrue and unhelpful to the discussion. We should be able to have this discussion, as a nation, without throwing out the red herrings of socialism or a non-parallel analogue.Also, the National Guard Bureau absolutely receives federal funding.
So, to sum up he's saying essentially that a governmental health care system should not be allowed to "supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs," etc.Do you think the gubernmint is like going to force you, all big brother style, out of your current plan or something? Because I'm pretty sure, despite my humble knowledge that that is not the plan...
greenm1981Jul 16, 2009
That's because the person who designed it made it to be complicated. The point of the diagram is to associate House Democrats with an ugly, cacophonous bureacracy, and hopefully eliciting some negative emotional reactions from us. There is nothing in the chart analyzing the cost/benefit of the program, in terms of GDP and compared to other alternatives. Such an approach would allow a rational discourse on the matter and avoided a descent into the intellectual drudgery of labeling the program a "communist" or "socialist" program.If the purpose of the flowchart is to confuse and obfuscate the issue of health care, then it is a success. If the purpose of the flowchart is to educate facilitate a discussion of the merits of such a program, then it remains an utter failure.
sanandaJul 16, 2009
How about this, you exist, you get universal health care.
greenm1981Jul 16, 2009
You're absolutely right. Charts like this attempt to corner us into accepting a "false choice" fallacy. We are presented with two options: messy, bureaucratic house dems plan or existing system. Are these the only two choices on the table? No.What politicians on both sides of the aisle who are working for the insurance industry want us to avoid is a discussion on the basic economics of the issue. At the center of the problem is the fact that we are faced with a non-competitive market, with respect to health care. If you pick up any economics textbook it's all right there. Any time you have a few large firms that dominate a market, you will undoubtedly see constriction of supply and super-normal profits. The so called "free-market" suggests that there are so many firms competing on price, that profits approach zero. No businessman truly wants a competitive market, they just want a secure of share of a non-competitive market.With a public option for health insurance, the nature of competition in the industry changes dramatically. Insurance companies that wish to survive would have to provide a level service higher than what the government offers for a cheaper price. Since costs should already be minimized, the only place left to cut would be profits.
al3efromanJul 16, 2009
@oldhick The FBI, National Guard and FEMA are all paid for with your taxes and available to your community when needed.Do you consider the availability of a public option the socialization of our health system?
utopia14Jul 16, 2009
Republican Plan for Healthcare:1.) Collect high premiums2.) Deny claims3.) ProfitIt's SIMPLE and they figured out step #2!
al3efromanJul 16, 2009
@oldhick Your points are valid. I was simply responding to your statement that there are no federally funded police, etc.. I agree it has nothing to do with the value of a federal health care option. I however, was not the one to bring it up, simply to respond. The statement you made is demonstrably untrue and unhelpful to the discussion. We should be able to have this discussion, as a nation, without throwing out the red herrings of socialism or a non-parallel analogue.Also, the National Guard Bureau absolutely receives federal funding.
logponyJul 17, 2009
So, to sum up he's saying essentially that a governmental health care system should not be allowed to "supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs," etc.Do you think the gubernmint is like going to force you, all big brother style, out of your current plan or something? Because I'm pretty sure, despite my humble knowledge that that is not the plan...
phoenixtxJul 18, 2009
The costs are sustainable as long as the government stays out of it.