Friday, June 26, 2009

The "choice" that wasn't

Politicians are used to redefining words in Orwellian ways. Obama has become a master at this, especially in his recent discussions of health care. "I just think that people should have a choice! My option is just one of many!" and other nonsense.

Silly me, I thought the whole point of "choice" was that you get to decide.

Since this is "choice," surely you can choose not to pay for the program, right? Of course not. Nobody will be given a "choice" on whether to fund this miserable boondoggle. Anyone who doesn't contribute will be incarcerated.

Since this is "choice," surely you can choose not to buy insurance, right? Think again.

Since this is "choice," you can decide to stick with your current plan, right? Well, if you have a cool employer, maybe. Maybe not. This is starting to sound like the sort of "choice" a rapist gives a limbless victim.

Since this is "choice," its supporters surely want us to have as many options as possible, right? Except that even its supporters admit the entire point is to take away (not expand) choice.

Exhibit A:

Obama says (or, more accurately, lies) that he wants true competition. But it is an interesting form of "competition" where one party depends on voluntary support and the other can rely on extorted contributions. Or where one party has to follow the rules written by the other party--which isn't subject to those same rules.

If Obama wants true competition, there's a simple offer we can make:

The government bureaucrats should be able to offer their health care plan on the free market. That is, they should be free to compete with other entrepreneurs, but on a level playing ground. First, they must depend on consumer satisfaction and private investors rather than coercive taxation. Second, they must follow all of the same rules and regulations as everyone else.

Does anyone seriously think the government would beat the competition? The question is so absurd that it's bizarre just to ask it.

The goal of the program is to obliterate choice and competition through force, not to improve health care or provide superior service.

Like "liberty," "peace," and "family values," the politicians have turned yet another word into its exact polar opposite.

1 comment:

  1. Having the option of government health insurance certainly is an added choice for people. The only reason why people being able to choose a public option would end up cutting out the insurance companies and HMOs is that public health coverage is objectively better than private.

    Europe, Canada, Australia, etc all have superior healthcare to the US. Claims to the contrary are merely fraudulent corporate propaganda comparable to claims that Iraq had WMDs in the months before the second war on that country started.


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails