Outlawing all forms of tobacco would go a LONG way towards bringing down healthcare costs..

I am all for something like that.

Michale.....

I also think it's really interesting to compare the anti-smoking legislation and the health care legislation. One of the biggest differences between the two pieces of legislation? Lobbying firepower. R.J. Reynolds, the largest tobacco firm, and the health care industry have both supported anti-smoking legislation.

Health care reform, however, does not seem to enjoy the same level of big business lobbying support.

http://standwithdrdean.com/

Unfortunately, the health care and pharmaceutical lobbies are going to great lengths to frame this as public vs. private.

Same marketing trick they always use. They might as well be making it about freedom vs. communism. When you can't win the argument, change the conversation to one you can win.

Funny thing is, the debate in Washington is not about whether government will get involved. It's about how they will get involved.

Scenario 1:
The health care industry wants government money for the needy to go to them so that they can provide insurance. This is the so-called private option. In this scenario, the government acts as financier and the health insurance companies act as a middle man between the people and the government.

Scenario 2:
The government acts as insurer . This is the option that has the health care industry screaming. Why? Because it cuts out the middle man. The people are directly insured. Now if the government is going to be giving out my money, I would rather see it going directly to those in need rather than having insurance companies take a cut off the top for profit and overhead. I don't care how efficient an insurance company is, it's not going to be as efficient as if it weren't there.

Both options involve the government. The big difference is that the lobbyists are fighting for their industry to be the middle man. However, they call this the "private" option as if there were no government involvement.

And they appear to be winning because of the asymmetry of false information and lobbyist marketing drivel.

But to your point, Chris. Insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists are driving the debate on their terms in order to profit from the situation.

If you were to ask an average person, they have totally different concerns and don't even really seem to care about public/private. In fact, many are probably frustrated with their private insurance.

But the way the large corporate lobbies win is to leverage the media they can buy to reframe the issue in a way they feel they can win. In this case, government vs. private health care.

It's really the news media that has dropped the ball by doing little more than passing on the lobbying propaganda shoveled their way.

In Washington, it's not about what's best for the people, but about how to make large amounts of money by influencing government. And this is something that frustrates both conservatives and progressives.

- David

Like all Doctor's, he don't like it very much.. :D

Michale.....

You asked me for the cite on the "62% of bankruptcies" claim I made a week or so ago. It took me awhile to dig out the original article, my apologies for the delay.

-CW