The Public Option, Revisited

I think too much has been made of the public option on both sides of the debate. It might be a good idea or not, government might be able to do some things right or not. Everything that could be said about that has been, from Roosevelt to Reagan. It's tired.

To be sure, according to the CBO, a public option would be better for the deficit than otherwise. It would be funded by premiums and subsidies, just like the private plans. The idea is that it would reduce costs through negotiated rates and market clout.

The problem with the legislation now under consideration is that the rates aren't all that negotiated, and the clout just isn't there.

Even if the "robust" version of the public option had made it in, at 5% over Medicare rates, how much of an impact would that have on health care costs if 90% of everyone aren't even eligible for it? How would it have any impact if it's mandated to just "negotiate" without having any leverage, marketshare, or regulatory largess?

Maybe a government program could outcompete the private sector. Even without the 5% over Medicare rates, a public plan might have lower overhead, and it certainly wouldn't have profits or shareholders to please, but private insurers would surely adapt over the longer run. All of that would lower costs, even premiums, but by how much? A public plan might help the process along with a bit of competitive pressure, but that's all.

In my thinking, the real action is with the "exchanges." If everyone could buy plans, public or private, on a regulated market that's open to all, we might see insurance companies having some stake in lowering costs so they could pass it on in lower premiums. Right now, I get a once-a-year window to choose from two or three plans, likely from the same company. That's about the same level of timing and choice I'd have if I were shopping for cars in East Germany, circa 1982. Imagine an open market with 20 plans. A public plan would only add to that sort of arrangement.

Myself, I like the idea of a public plan giving the boys in Hartford a run for their money. I'd certainly buy into a public plan if it were cheaper and without significant caveats, disclaimers, clauses and exemptions beyond the standard hassle of private coverage. But working for a business with more than 50 employees, I can't.

The debate over the public option has served the underhanded political purpose of keeping the real cost-reducing measures in the shadows, where they could be bound and gagged according to the wishes of everyone who makes a dime in health care. The American public has had an academic debate about the role of the state in the public welfare, while the backroom deals were signed and delivered long ago.

My prediction is that they'll pass a bill, and within 5 years of its going into effect, people will demand to be allowed into the exchanges, where the rates are lower and the service is better, public or private.

I say good.

The Humor Gap

I have a vivid memory of being a kid, and going into a surplus store with my dad to get something cool, like Vietnam-era BDUs, or an Israeli gas mask, or a grenade that's been hollowed out.

On the wall behind the register, behind the pepper spray and bumper stickers there was a t-shirt pinned up with thumb tacks. The shirt had a picture of a skull half-buried in the sand wearing a pair of RayBan aviators and a burnoose. The caption underneath said, "NUKE THEIR ASS AND TAKE THE GAS!"

Even as a third-grade boy who was into squashing bugs and GI JOE, I looked at that shirt with a measure of fear and disgust. It was deeply unsettling to think of people who believed the shirt's message enough to buy it and wear it around town. Sure, I liked dummy grenades and camouflage, but nuclear holocaust for oil just seemed a step too far.

That image came back to me today as I trawled the internet looking at borderline acts of sedition, vague threats of assassination, and slogans on signboards that say things like, "we came unarmed, this time." I read a blog entry of someone who worked at a call center and spoke to someone who said they "hang liberals," and went on to conduct the call's business as if it were lighthearted conversation. Most of the responses were incredulous gasps of horror and disbelief-- things like, "I assume he means 'hanging in effigy'..." or "I voted 'report him' on the off chance he wasn't kidding..." But will that guy do anything? Can that guy really do anything? No. And treating it as if he could only gives him (and others) ideas.

Humor often takes the form of something you wish was true, or know not to be true, that is said anyway. This kind of stuff passes for humor among belligerent paranoids.

Most liberals don't find threats on theirs' or their leaders' lives to be very funny. They don't even find threats on their enemies to be funny. I share that aesthetic, but I question the reaction. Too often the reaction of liberals to a politically incorrect statement that, say, denigrates women, is something like, "I'm very offended by that..." or something sober but vaguely witty like, "What he said is an offense to 51% of the world."

Of course there's the issue of proportionality. Were the vision to become true-- as humor suggests it might or should-- 'middle eastern nuclear warfare' is several orders of magnitude more dire than 'barefoot and pregnant.' But do either idea, when touted by idiots, deserve to be taken seriously?

When people take brain-dead ideas, demagoguery, or jokes that are in bad taste seriously, the only thing that happens is that a legitimate position in an argument is created. You're setting up the argument that reads something like:

While on one hand, nuclear anihilation would solve our dire energy problems, on the other it's morally abhorrent and dangerous.

But this is not the LSATs, people.

The real choice isn't whether or not to be offended by tasteless humor. It's whether you're laughing with the offending person or at them. Statements like 'I hang liberals,' or 'NUKE THEIR ASS AND TAKE THE GAS!" should not be given the solemn respect of true offense, nor should they even be allowed near the scales of merit.

I say laugh them out of the room. Call them a bunch of retarded neanderthals. And then (if you still need to) say why, but not before they are thoroughly ridiculed. Not only will you come off as a confident authority on whatever subject is in question, you'll also begin to shape reality according to your beliefs.

Mortal threats on people are not funny, but when the average guy takes them seriously, it makes them a serious viewpoint. Shame and embarassment work. Laugh them off in public and create a more just reality.

And don't worry. The FBI is trawling the internet too, and they take it seriously enough for all of us. I hope.