.
This needs to be written, and written about, over and over again in the coming days and weeks. Yesterday Terri posted an excellent diary on the idiocy of Mitch McConnell. I posted a comment in the diary thread that amplified a comment made a couple of weeks prior. That comment becomes a diary this morning.
Because Democratic Leaders (such as they are) too often tend to be idiots when it comes to developing narratives and memes (we're talking "marketing" here), they too often overlook or don't understand GOP "gifts" when they're given. Case in point: on May 17 Mitch McConnell admitted to Chris Wallace on the May 17 FNSunday:
"The private insurance people would not be able to compete with a government option."
.
Video below the fold.
.
Let's repeat that:
"The private insurance people would not be able to compete with a government option."(1)
See and listen to the "money quote" at 8min 25-34sec in:
.
Let that sink in a minute.
Here we have Mitch McConnell admitting that the American citizenry would find that a public health insurance option:
1. Is more efficient; and/or,
2. Less expensive; and/or,
3. Offer better coverage with less hassle
. . . than private health insurance. Uh, let alone no health insurance.
.
And that this would drive private health insurance out of business. Wow. That's a bombshell.
Of course it's also bullshit that all private insurance would fold if there was a public option (the current 50 million uninsured aren't customers of the Health Insurance Robber Barons anyway). But McConnell's kind of fearmongering never troubled itself with getting facts straight. But just that he would even argue that private insurance wouldn't be able to "compete" with public insurance is -- or at least should be -- astounding and headling-making.
Note also that using McConnell's "logic", we should also do away with Medicare, Medicaid and VA benefits, given that they too are "government insurance".
So, Dems, anyone out there?
BenGoshi
_______________________
UPDATE:
h/t to all that made me think of this classic Looney Tune. You see, the Private Insurance companies just can't be satisfied with profit. They've got to have more and more and more and MORE, they've got to have it all, all of our money, all of our health, all of it. Not just the meat, they've got to have The Gravy. All of it:
.
.
UPDATE II
A handful of commentors (2? 3?) kind of do a "wee! wee! wee!" thing saying that what McConnell means is that with public revenues and buying-power in play, the poor, poor, private insurers wouldn't have a "level playing field" on which to compete and that that would be "unfair". Cry me a river.
In a comments below many people slam this bullshit argument. Here's one I like in particular from johnva (to which I give a h/t) in a colloquy below with sullivanst:
". . . Of course the private sector can't compete! The government would have more economies of scale, a more spread-out risk pool, and no massive profit-taking. AND we would lessen the administrative requirements on providers drastically if we could reduce the number of insurance plans they have to deal with.
The fact that the government can compete unfairly is the main REASON I want the government to do this! It's astounding to me how many of our elected 'representatives' give that reply [that a public option would be 'unfair'] thinking that it's somehow going to satisfy us [and make us go away]."
Bang on.
BenGoshi
___________________
(1) As previously noted, GOP Focus Groups obviously tell McConnell that the word "government" is much scarier and offensive than "public", so he uses the word "government".