Even as it sours on Obama’s management, New York Times still repeats his lies
The New York Times had an interesting editorial today, one that managed to speak slightingly of Obama’s handling of the health care issue, even as it regurgitated the false assumptions underlying the plan and the administration’s attacks on just about everybody. I thought that I’d amuse myself by fisking the editorial. Chime in with any other thoughts you might have on the subject:
For the sake of a health care deal, President Obama is hinting that he may be willing to drop the idea of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers and hold down premium costs. He should not give up without first getting a strong alternative to achieve the same goals — and so far there is nothing very strong on the political horizon. [For people who head a major newspaper, you’d think that they would be aware of myriad other proposals, some of which are quite intriguing. Just as two recent examples, the Whole Foods CEO has one; an Atlantic contributor has another. And that’s not even mentioning Republican proposals. I guess anything that relies on the market, not the government doesn’t even ping on this outlet’s radar.]
All of the current [Democratic] versions of health care reform would create insurance exchanges, where tens of millions of uninsured Americans, people who lack group coverage and workers in small businesses could buy policies from either private insurers or a new government-run program. While a public plan has been demonized by opponents as a big-government takeover of health care, the idea is to increase competition among insurers and give consumers more choices. [Lie number one. This would be true but for the fact that the bills are structured so that employers have a financial incentive to jettison insurance, driving people into the public sector. This has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with creating a government monopoly.]
One alternative would be to create nonprofit, member-owned cooperatives to compete with private insurers. They are unlikely to have the purchasing power of a government plan. And Republicans are already saying they will oppose cooperatives too. [As they should, because they recognize that cooperatives are just Trojan horses for government plans, insofar as they will inevitably fall under government control. Again, it doesn’t seem to occur to the editors that the best way to increase competition is through the market.]
While the idea of a public plan makes good sense to us, it is not indispensable. It has nothing to do with covering the uninsured. And its ability to reform the hospitals and other providers of medical care to hold down the cost of care (and premiums) is unclear. [Some common sense here. This is the moment when the courtier concedes that the Emperor’s clothes don’t look quite right, although the courtier continues to be incapable of saying that ugly word: naked.]
But, if done right, a public plan would bring real benefits. [It can’t be done right. And the editors don’t marshal any facts to prove that it can be done right. This is the typical Leftist belief: there’s nothing wrong with Communism in the abstract; it’s just that the people who put it into effect did it wrong. Leftists will never admit that Communism cannot work with human nature. That is, it cannot ever be done right, because it is inherently wrong.] It would probably be able to charge lower premiums than many private plans because it would not be profit driven and might be better able to negotiate or demand low prices from hospitals and doctors. It could provide a safe haven for those who distrust private insurers. [Bingo: the editors have just conceded that the only way in which the public option works would be to undercut — i.e., destroy — the private insurance market. In other words, the only way for the public plan to be done right is to use it to force a single-payer environment, which is just a namby-pampy euphemism for socialized medicine.]
It could also save the federal government substantial money. As part of any reform, the government would subsidize insurance purchases for low-income people. Those subsidies in the House version would be based on an average of the premiums in the three lowest-cost plans, and a lower-cost public option would help lower that average. [Lie number two: How can the editors say this with a straight face in light of three CBO reports stating that the “public plan” increases, rather than decreases costs. In addition, it shifts all the costs out of the market and onto the taxpayer. This is significant, because government can only spend money. It doesn’t create wealth. By shifting everything to the public sector, it takes wealth out of the economy and creates a closed cycle that is, inevitably, subject to economic leakage and inefficiency.]
Unfortunately, as the House legislation has progressed, the proposed public plan has steadily lost its power to impose lower payments on hospitals and doctors — as the government currently does with Medicare — which is critical to maintaining low premiums.
A bill introduced by three committees, which would have paid doctors and hospitals based on Medicare rates, was projected to save $75 billion over 10 years. An amendment forced into the bill by conservative Democrats simply allows the secretary of health and human services to negotiate prices with providers — an approach projected to save $10 billion to $20 billion at most. [I don’t have sufficient specific knowledge to comment on this statement.]
If Mr. Obama wants to jettison the now-weakened public plan to dampen overheated opposition, he should say what he will insist on instead. [Could it be that the editors are implying that Mr. Obama, that master politician and communicator, is being ineffectual? Yes, I think they are.]
At a minimum, there should be very strict regulation of all insurers, on and off the exchange, to promote competition and fair prices and substantial subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance. If competition among private plans fails to hold down insurance costs, there should be a provision to introduce a public plan. [Ah, the oxymoron: more government control to increase competition. Government control decreases competition, you doofuses (doofi?). Whenever the government gets involved, prices go up, not down. Government should certainly police fraud, coercion, market manipulation, etc. But what it really should do is get out of the way.]
We are frankly skeptical that any compromise will be enough to satisfy Republican opponents of health care reform. [And there you have both big lie number three and a complete acceptance of the Obama world view. Republicans are not in the way. Democrats own, absolutely and completely, the White House and both houses of Congress. Nothing can stop them. Republicans, Cassandra-like, can call out warnings and, as representatives of the people, can advance plans, but they can do nothing at a practical level to stop this plan. What’s in the way is the will of the American people which, having looked into the socialist abyss, is running scared. (Being called “evil” or “Nazis” or “treasonous” by the majority party doesn’t help. What’s in the way is an American Chief Executive who has never run anything in his life and has (a) no idea how to create a functional plan and (b) no idea how to create a functional political mandate.] If the White House and Democratic leaders decide to go it alone, and they may well have to, they should restore a robust public plan. It is the best way to give Americans real choice. [Big lie number four: There’s never a real choice when the government takes over.]
