Reframing the debate.

[alexandraerin]

Here's the question we should be asking all public figures who are against a public option or other form of national health insurance:

"[Senator/Congressman/Pundit], how long have you believed that France is better than America?"

It's fairly easy to point to the failings in the Canadian health care system... a system, incidentally, that neither President Obama nor the Democrats in the legislature are looking to as an example... but France, which has a system closely resembling the much-denigrated "public option", has the top-rated healthcare system in the world.

France can manage to provide quality health care to their entire population and we can't? And it would be too expensive for us to match the feat, when they do it while spending less money per person than we do?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

I'm sure the reason that the supporters of the public option have been pointing to France is... well... as I've said before, liberals have a real problem with sitting back and allowing their opponents to frame debates. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" worked fine for Teddy Roosevelt, but it wouldn't have worked so well for his cousin Frank, who had to speak loudly and often just to make himself heard. If we pointed to France and said "We want our country to be more like that.", the right would jump on it in an instant... I mean, we're talking about people whose response to half of the things our president does is to say "arugula" like they've made some great and telling point about policy.

But with France using the public option and not just making it work but making it work so well that they have the best medical care in the world, consider the implication being made any time somebody says that the public option wouldn't work in America or that it would result in worse care for most people:

America is less capable than France.

In my previous post on the subject, I framed things in terms of goodness vs. greatness. Well, let's talk about greatness. As I said, we put a man on the moon. Is there any reason we couldn't take the number one spot away from France if we wanted to?

A lot of our political representatives and media figures seem to think so. Let's put them on the spot and ask them why that is.

Comments

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

Dude.

What's the profit margin on the USAF?

What kind of shareholder value does your local police department give you?

When's the last time you got a decent dividend check from your fire department?

What are the 3rd quarter earning reports like on your state department of roads?

These things are alllll giant money holes. We throw tax payer dollars at them and never see a penny back. And why should we? We don't keep these things around because they're sound business investments. We support them because they're necessary parts of a modern 21st century society that stretches from sea to shining sea.

The USPS's only problem is that we let the Republicans turn them from a pure public service organization into a sort of public-private hybrid (when they went from being the United States Post Office to the United States Postal Service) that was designed to fail so that the anarchists oligarchs free market enthusiasts could claim that the government runs things into the grounds. The post office should never have been in the business of business. It's a public service. The revenue it takes in are offsets to its expenses that lower the tax burden of it.

If you don't think a post office (or an army, or a health care access agency) is a necessary public service, that's a whole separate issue... I think there's room to debate some of those things... but arguing that it's unprofitable--the crux of what you're saying here--is missing the point.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, likewise, embody that kind of stupid public-private partnerships that manages to combine the worst of government with the worst of business.

Medicare, meanwhile, has an 80% customer approval rating and only spends 3 cents out of every dollar on overhead, as cited by someone elsewhere in this discussion. It's only "in trouble" because the Republicans keep looking for ways to hamstring it and then claim that government intervention has failed again.

Every business out there has its hand stretched out, all the time. Jesus H. Christ, I just gave Wal-Mart a hundred dollars a week ago in exchange for the goods I needed from them, and tonight when I went in there they wanted more of my money? Talk about a failed business model. Hey, I got paid by readers last month and this month I got paid by them again. If you're shocked that government institutions require ongoing taxpayer support, these revelations ought to just about send you to the emergency room, but that's how it goes. A taxpayer supported institution will always be supported by taxpayers. A business will always be supported by customers. An artist will always be supported by patrons.

Let's make a deal: you quit eating for a month and then I will entertain your argument that requiring ongoing taxpayer support is a weakness for a government program.

I'm sure that the party in power will screw it up with its own personal agenda, when that party happens to be the party whose agenda is to torpedo any collective action by We The People in order to "prove" the point that collectivization doesn't work. This is a reason to keep the conservatives out of power, not a reason to stick with the "predictable course" of the insurance companies that FYI is literally killing... literally killing... that is not hyperbole... your fellow Americans.

I am more worried about some of my friends with medical problems than I am about my friends who are serving overseas, because every day that passes the folks serving overseas are closer to safety, while each that day that passes my friends with serious medical problems are closer to the point of no fucking return.