Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford

Public squared: Government plan gets a new name

The Oklahoman Editorial    Comments Comment on this article29
Published: October 28, 2009

Question: When is a "public option” in health care not a public option? That’s easy: When it’s a "consumer option” or a "competitive option.”

Multimedia

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rolled out the old if-you-can’t-beat-them-try-to-fool-them strategy with a new label for the government-run insurance option she wants to include in the Democrats’ pending legislation.

Hey, it’s worth a try. The more Americans heard about the notion of government-run insurance competing with private insurers this summer, the hotter they got.

Democrats said a public option would keep private carriers honest and drive down costs, but there was little evidence it would work that way. Instead, it more resembled the first incremental step toward a government takeover of the entire health care system.

Pelosi and others representing America’s most liberal districts didn’t encounter the blowback a number of their colleagues got during the August recess. They still want a public option. But how?

Simple: Repackaging.

In Florida on Monday, Pelosi referred to the public option as the "consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, from one of those safe liberal districts, appeared with Pelosi and came up with "competitive option.”

A big part of legislating is making lemonade out of lemons. But this is something more akin to collecting barnyard droppings in a sack and calling the aroma that wafts out perfume.

The true judges, as they were this summer, will be moderate Democrats who know their constituents will recognize government-run insurance for what is, no matter what Pelosi & Co. call it.

Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford


Related Topics: U.S. Government, U.S. Congressional News


Need Affordable Health Care?
Get Affordable Health Insurance Quotes Online - Plans from $30 / Month
USInsuranceOnline.com
Refinance Now at 4.25% Fixed
No hidden fees-4.4% APR! No obligation. Get 4 free quotes. No SSN req.
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com

Leave a Comment

Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online

Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.


Log in below or sign up (it's free).





Matt, I see your point. It is like the Health Insurance companies increasing your health care premium every year for the last 10 years, and now claiming the increase in your premium this year is because of the possibility of competition from a public option without discounting the amount they were going to increase your premium anyway. Thanks for the insight.
Johnny, Center City - Oct 30, 2009 at 8:35 am
johnny, if you looked at the information, they are comparing what would have been the likely number of these car transactions that would take place. Compare with the actual increased number that took place. Whereas the gov't like to claim all transactions occurred as a result of the CFC, common sense, logic knows this is false; and historical numbers impart what would likely occur as a normal course of business (standard business practice for sales projections). The difference is the imparted cost per clunker.

If the so-called jump start was worth 24K per car, no problem. If one differs with that number, that's a viewpoint too. But to assume that no transactions would have occurred without the CFC (government stance when they talk) is ludicrous.
Matt1, OKC - Oct 29, 2009 at 8:39 pm
A lot of these cars could have been purchased for less than 24 k with out the CFC money
BERT, HENRYETTA - Oct 29, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore BERT
So the 24K "Cash for Clunkers" figure is based on "actual" transactions versus "fictional" transactions? So, here is what the cost per car is without a "Cash for Clunkers" program versus what would have been with a "Cash for Clunkers" program, and the difference is $24K? Are people really claiming a figure such as this to be valid? Has the lack of critical thinking, a victim of "No Child Left Behind", really approached critical mass?
Johnny, Center City - Oct 29, 2009 at 8:16 pm
The 24K per car was had nothing to do with increased wages anywhere. It is about the actual number of car transactions made with the CFC vs if the CFC plan had never occurred. It is laid out in detail.
Matt1, OKC - Oct 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm
lanny, just Ryan's point....if it's government run, it wont be competitive.
Don, Calion - Oct 29, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Don
I was not questioning the report. It just sounds like the gov in action
BERT, HENRYETTA - Oct 29, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore BERT
Hey Ryan if a public option is not competitive then why do you sweat it so ?
lanny, Tulsa - Oct 29, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Bert this was reported on MSNBC, hardly a conservative network...You can read the report by going to www.msn.com
Don, Calion - Oct 29, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Don
Bert, I think Douglas, who first posted the $24,000 cost, should be the one who answers that question. In my mind, this is obviously a misuse of statistics to make a point, with no bearing on reality. I doubt the cost was really $24,000 per car, and I have a life, so I won't be going to Edmunds.com to see how the figure was fabricated. The fact I do know is that our fellow Oklahomans at the FAA data center in Oklahoma City were saddled with the job of bailing out the private contractor who screwed up the program in the first place. Perhaps the private industry screwup was part of the Edmunds.com cost figure. I don't know and I don't really care. As far as the misuse of statistics, I published a paper in my high school sophomore english class back in 1971 which used statistics to prove that 97% of all murderers on death row had consumed mashed potatoes within 4 weeks of the commission of their crime, and argued that we should dig up the state of Idaho, load it onto B52 bombers, and drop it on the Soviet Union so they would be inflicted with our murder rate. The title of the paper was "The Mashed Potatoe Menace" and I got an A. That is why I realize that statistics are only as reliable as the person that interprets them. The same is true of opinion polls. BTW, good to hear from you, Bert. Have a great evening!
Johnny, Center City - Oct 29, 2009 at 6:01 pm
So because of manpower the price went from 3500-4500 dollars each to 24000 dollars each. A pretty big jump just for manpower no matter where it went. 3500-4500 for the car and then 20500-19500 dollars for manpower.
BERT, HENRYETTA - Oct 29, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore BERT
Since the Edmund’s cost estimate of $24,000 per car obviously includes the cost of manpower used to process the “Cash for Clunkers” program, the public needs to know that a good chunk of the money went into the Oklahoma economy. After the initial outsourcing of the “Cash for Clunkers” administration to the private company Oracle, public complaints about the poor job private industry was doing caused the government to relocate the program to government employees in the FAA data center in Oklahoma City. A good chunk of the $24,000 went as wages to your fellow Oklahomans and supported the Oklahoma economy.
Johnny, Center City - Oct 29, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The Republicans and FOX News Channel successfully repackaged "WE DON'T TORTURE" into "TORTURE WORKS!", and the FOX News viewers and most Republicans lapped it up without question. While President Obama does not have Karl Rove or FOX News to help, what he does have is the public realization that MEDICARE IS GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE, and the public loves their medicare, especially the free medicare mobility scooters they advertise 4 times an hour on FOX News! The public wins with a public option by whatver name it happens, and the Republicans and FOX News go down in history being against the common man. It's just like when the Republicans opposed Social Security and Medicare. They were on the wrong side of history then, and they are on the wrong side of history now.
Johnny, Center City - Oct 29, 2009 at 5:17 pm
So can anyone say how this is different than changing the word 'fee' to the word 'tax' in the Baucus Finance Committee bill? (Amendment offered by Sen. John Ensign R-NV)
Concerned, Central Oklahoma - Oct 29, 2009 at 4:25 pm
oops! Sorry about that!
Douglas, Oklahoma City - Oct 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Edmunds.com is reporting that the "Cash for Clunkers" program cost taxpayers $24,000 for each car sold under the program. Government efficiency in action! Gotta love it (otherwise you'll go mad)!
Douglas, Oklahoma City - Oct 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm
It is now being reported by Edmunds.com, that each car sold under the "Cash for Clunkers" cost the government (that is, us) $24,000. Government efficiency in action, gotta love it! (Otherwise you'll go stark raving mad)
Douglas, Oklahoma City - Oct 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This is such a ridiculous editorial. Yes, public opinion was against the public option over the summer when the Republican Party was spreading lies about death panels and killing old people. Now that the president and Democrats have explained the details of health reform to the American people, the polls show that the public STONGLY supports a public option.

Why would the DOK editors ignore current poll numbers and cite poll numbers that are months old? This editorial is just another demonstration of the DOK Editor's lack of journalistic integrity. Good job!!

By the way, nobody “repackaged” better than Dubya’s administration.

S - Oct 29, 2009 at 11:57 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore S
Only in Pelosi's mind could a government run, tax-payer funded bureaucracy be called a "competitive option".
Ryan, Oklahoma City - Oct 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Ryan
A few weeks ago Obama said there doesn't have to be a public option to reform health care. Pelosi is going to force the option down everyones throat, even Obama's. Pelosi is not the president.
UnSub, Yukon - Oct 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Isn't this pretty much like amending a bill to change every occurance of the word 'fee' with the word 'tax'? Who did that? Let's see... oh yes, it was Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) on the Senate Finance Committee back in September 2009.

Click the Report "Summary list of amendments related to reforming the health care delivery system" on this website:
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm
Concerned, Central Oklahoma - Oct 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm
We (the democrats) really believe that if we just rename the government health care debaucle, Americans will never figure out they are being scammed. There are some dumb enough to believe, but only if there is ANY chance for a handout!
BILLY, MUSTANG - Oct 28, 2009 at 11:56 am
The Oklahoman directly wants more poor people to go without medical care so their publishers can stay richer. That is the only outcome of the stance this editorial takes.
stinkerpants, Oklahoma City - Oct 28, 2009 at 11:37 am
typical democrat bull5hit. oh, and they're not liberal - they're "progressive". and now it's not global warming but "climate change". what? the climate changes? all this time i thought it was static! morons.
Buzz Lightyear, OKC - Oct 28, 2009 at 9:21 am
Another comment from Brock(Glenn Beck). But, of course, Obama wants to overthrow the health industry. What would that bring him? More headaches. He needs more headaches. I would imagine he is so ready to move on from this health care nightmare to something else. The right wing hacks want to drag it out as long as possible.

--
Milkman, Oklahoma City - Oct 28, 2009 at 9:10 am
Bipartisanship exists! Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike are voicing their opinion against this out of control governments attempt to overthrow the health industry. Even with a new deceptive name(why do they always have to hide their true intentions?), the majority of Americans aren't buying the socialists "make believe" crap.
Brock, Beaver - Oct 28, 2009 at 9:07 am
public option, co-ops, consumer option. Apparently rebranding the idiocy isn't working. Perhaps we should try some of the Republican/Conservative ideas such as tort reform or deregulation across state lines. It's interesting that the only option that Democrats have been interested in is one that involves more government intervention, not less. In a nutshell, their plan involves taking money from you by force, pooling that money together, and then redistributing that money to pay healthcare costs for both you and those who can't afford it. Sounds an awful lot like a tax to me. I'd prefer to have my freedom of choice.
c, Noble - Oct 28, 2009 at 8:05 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore c
It's still a duck!!!
BILLY, MUSTANG - Oct 28, 2009 at 7:42 am
dok, you're equating a handful of mentally deranged delusional dupes shouting really stupid stuff about a new red scare or something with a concensus on the public option. In fact a competing option favored by 75% of Americanms, including 9 of 10 doctors who are as tired as comsumers dealing with the insurance sharks. Come on dok, it's the ole invisible hand of the free market you all are always bleating about, enterprise square and all.
David, Norman - Oct 28, 2009 at 7:27 am

News Photo Galleriesview all