Terms For Removal #1: "Too big to fail" & "Government run healthcare"
Chris Jr.Stephen Colbert has "The Word." Bill Mauer has "New Rules." Here at Ant.Lion we have "Terms For Removal." It's a fairly simple concept. The English lexicon is fraught with useless, idiotic, and self-contradictory terms. If such words had mass, they'd fill every basin of every toilet in this linguistically bloated country of ours. Every term has a job -- a service it provides. And when we no longer require a term's services, it should be removed. This is "Terms For Removal."
Congratulations. Your job just got a hell-of-a-lot simpler.1) "Too big to fail"
It's been a little over a year since the big Wall Street bailout passed through Congress under then President Bush. Politicians fed the American people some unfamiliar rhetoric. Here was the gist of it: Such-and-such company's power and influence is so tied to the U.S. economy that, if the company failed, it would spell certain doom for the financial system. Corporations like Citigroup and Bank of America were "too big to fail," so the American taxpayer bailed them out. In doing so, we were assured the country's cumulative wealth and assets wouldn't vanish overnight. I'm not against the bailout. I think it was necessary -- a tough pill to swallow. But now it's time to remove this term, and thus any opportunity for another bailout, forever.
We've seen the danger in having companies so vast that they're unequivocally tied to the well-being of the U.S. economy. So, like the great Teddy Roosevelt prescribed, it's time to trust-bust. That's right -- a good ol' fashioned trust-bustin'. If these companies are "too big to fail" then they're too big to exist as a single entity.
Senator Bernie Sanders had it right. They need to be trust-busted into smaller, less influential companies. We have no use for a silly term like "too big to fail" since we should consider companies with that moniker as paramount economic threats pending dismemberment. So, henceforth, "too big to fail" is no longer a part of the English lexicon and is to be replaced with "too big to exist." Companies bearing this new title should immediately, and without fail, be forced to join Southwestern Bell and Standard Oil in hell.
"Ner gub'ment herfcare, ger-derb surcialist-ber-derba... [nonsensical blathering]."2) "Government run healthcare"
We can all remember the great town hall assault perpetrated by conservatives last August. Most liberals consider those days to be the "dark times." By way of ignorance, hostility, and idiocy, conservatives gained a foothold in the healthcare reform debate. I prefer to consider those times as "television at its greatest." Everyday I had the privilege of tuning-in to CNN to watch the greatest reality show on since Joe Millionaire -- Disgruntled Whitey: Townhall Edition. I thought I'd had some pretty good laughs in my 22 years in this world. Then old, irritable, boisterous morons began yelling in otherwise calm, orderly gatherings.
What the "took 'er jerbs" buffoons began, these new even more hostile conservatives took to a whole nother level. These bloated bags of hot air ranted at conservatives and liberals alike. The tirades were the same: "No gub'ment run healthcare." Of course, government run healthcare wasn't on the table, and still isn't. Healthcare reform dissenters often cited Canada and the UK as examples of the despicable government run healthcare that America was in-danger of adopting. And, of course, government doesn't run healthcare over there either. As a matter of fact, "government run healthcare" doesn't exist outside of communist countries like Cuba, where the government owns everything, and the Veterans Healthcare Administration in the U.S. and similar organizations in other countries. What politicians are voting on is "government run healthcare insurance" and there's quite a big difference between the two.
In government run healthcare, the government pulls all of the administrative strings. They hire doctors, decide pay-rate, board decisions, and the administration of care. That's a lot. You might have an argument against such intrusive government, that is, if patients at VHA hospitals didn't consistently rate their level of care above private institutions. Also, studies rate VHA care over private care in 294 measures of quality. Either way, imposing a national VHA isn't on the table. Congress is just trying to create a government run healthcare insurance alternative, but I can see how you could confuse the two. Second grade english exists in a faraway place when you're angry, seventy and senile.
So, it's time to hang up the term "government run healthcare." It's just too difficult for most people to differentiate it from "government run healthcare insurance" and now the confusion is costing us some overdue healthcare reform. I hate to cater to idiots but this is the only pragmatic choice. President Obama along with politicians like Barney Frank have tried reasoning with (the latter insulting) the misinformed, but with opposition like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly, the truth doesn't stand a chance. It's time to count our losses and walk away -- defunct vocabulary in hand.
Thanks for reading. This has been, "Terms For Removal."
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
Let us not forget the Larouche folks, they were behind lots of the town hall rabble. The nazi-crying girl Barney yelled at was one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
So true. God I miss August. CNN better release a DVD box set of the must ignorant town hall jesters.
First of all, YOU do not define the difference between "government-run healthcare" and "government-run healthcare Insurance." If the government gets in the business of providing healthcare insurance - think Medicare - it is in the business of controlling healthcare, i.e. dictating reimbursements to healthcare providers. So, let's hear your distinction between the two terms. Second, yoohoo, in case you haven't heard, Medicare is BROKE, not to mention, and, perhaps, because it is riddled with fraud. The other government-run entitlement program, Social Security, is BROKE! You, at your young age will not see one dime you have confiscated, er, "deducted" from your paycheck if this program is not reformed forthwith. Old news. Yawn. I don't care - I'll be dead after having gotten mine. The other business the feds have stuck their noses in with your $$ - BILLIONS - is education. "No Child Left Behind" should be renamed "Everyone's Child Left Behind Except Mine" (all the congressmen's kids and the President's who attend private schools). Did you know that when I was growing up, there was no such thing as The Dept. of Education? How did we manage?? Name ONE thing the creation of this huge, bureaucratic agency, with all its mandates, has done to improve education. Dare you. And now you want the feds to essentially take over healthcare, oh, excuse me, healtcare insurance?? Like I said, I don't really care, cuz I'll be dead by the time the impact of this massive and massively flawed bill, if enacted, is felt. You're a history buff and a smart guy, so I'll just leave you with this: Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty." Study up on this 30-some-year "experiment," mercifully curtailed by Clinton, finally. Know who this ridiculous piece of legislation harmed the most?? Won't keep you guessing - YOU - a black man. And with the current 70% of black families lacking a father in the home, more than double that of any other race in this country, YOU are still feeling its impact. (Before its passage, the % of absent fathers for all races was about the same, and it was LOW). Blah, blah, "The Sixties," blah, blah, birth control, blah, blah, "The Women's Movement." NOTHING contributed more to the demise of the black family unit as did this single piece of entitlement legislation. BTW - will Congress partake of this government-run "Insurance?" $1,000.00 I bet you not. Ante up.
Alright.
*rubs hands together*
I'm game.
I do define the difference between "government-run healthcare" and "government-run healthcare insurance." It was the entire point of the second half of the piece. You just don't believe there is a significant difference between the two. That's where you're wrong.
Government run healthcare is the administration of healthcare by government employees. This means the government administrates the hospital, hires doctors, decides treatment, manages the budget, etc. Dictating reimbursements is not government running healthcare. By your definition Aetna is running healthcare. Aetna decides whether or not to fund your treatment, but they do not administer care. That is the difference I'm making. Those who protest government run healthcare are yelling in a room alone. They think the government will start making decisions about their health (when to get checked, where, and by whom) -- "getting in between you and your doctor." Remember that line? Remember when FactCheck.org debunked it? The closest thing to government run healthcare outside of communism and the VHA is the single-payer system which is not in the bill.
I know. That's why we're trying to fix it.
Ehh, I don't know... Sure, the Department of Education was creating in 1979, but before that it was compartmentalized in the Department of Health and Human Services (aptly named the "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" prior to 1979). The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was founded in 1953 as part of the Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1953. That's 56 years ago. Let's say you graduated high school when you were 18. That would mean you would have to be 74 in order to have not gone to school while there was a cabinet level education bureau. All of this is pointless, of course, because public schools in the U.S. started in the early 1800s.
1) financial aid
A public healthcare option is hardly taking over healthcare and it's only sufficient that the government plan runs the private industry out of business, not necessary. In other words, you're employing the slippery slope logical fallacy. Prove to me, without a doubt, that the government run option will run all other health insurance providers out of business. Your own argument works against this claim. If the government is only capable of providing shitty programs and services, then why would everyone jump ship and enroll in the new plan?
You seem displeased with the way government handles its bureaucracy. Guess what? I am too. But instead of dismissing it as lost, I'm looking for ways to fix. And although the American education system is far from perfect, I shiver at the thought of corporations administering all education in the country. By the way, Finland's primary and secondary education system is acclaimed as the best in the world and they're system is more socialized than ours. Do I want to eliminate private schools? No. Private enterprise is why we have the best university system in the world. Government is also why we have the best university system in the world as well. Tuition at public universities like OU and OSU is largely subsidized, thus granting more people access. It's the combination of both a public and private sector that makes America strong.
I don't want socialism. I don't want laissez-faire capitalism. I want a mix. Why? Because there are certain industries that contain an inherent conflict of interest. Healthcare insurance is one of them. Blue Cross Blue Shield is trying to make a profit. To do that, they must cut costs. This means finding out ways to weasel out of paying for claims. This is a large problem that can be solved by introducing a competitor that doesn't seek profits. There are other ways, but this is the best way to insure insurance companies operate ethically. Their survival depends on it.
I'll have to research the "War on Poverty" at a later time. This response post is too long as it is.