Sunday, November 29, 2009

Heniz 57 Legislation

Shorter New York Times editorial:  
  1. The public option will be open to almost no one and may end up insuring a number equal to the 1917 population of Finland;
  2. will have none of the negotiating power, capital, or healthy beneficiaries of the large insurance companies and thus will probably cost more;
  3. should raise its premiums or go under if it can't compete with its arms tied behind its back;  and
  4. will be hobbled going into markets where the insurance companies and medical providers already have well-established systems of commerce. 
So we should have one because it offers "choice" and might slow raising health care costs.

Really? That's "choice", as in:  here are 3 bottles of ketchup on the shelf. Two cost $20, but you never knew which ones had mouse feces in them, and they were the only bottles you could get until the House and Senate created a "public" ketchup from a compromise recipe. Now you can buy public ketchup for $22, but only if you qualify for food stamps, and now the bottles with the mouse feces will be clearly labeled. And after about 10 years people not on food stamps will be able to buy it, and maybe by then the other ketchup companies will blow up or go broke and you will be able to have the public ketchup for only $43.99, because the tomato providers will have to negotiate serious savings with the Secretary of Health and Rodent Waste.

Bring it on, you daring iconoclasts.

(Edited for clarity.)

No comments: