About the "public option"

Just read CNN's report on the progress of the socialized medicine bills in the House and Senate.

The Democrats keep insisting that a "public option" run and subsidized by the federal government would only make the market "more competitive."

This is such a total crock. It even flies in the face of well-known and well-established principles in international trade.

For example, a couple years ago a large paper manufacturer in the USA complained to the ITC (International Trade Commission) that certain Asian nations were "dumping" paper into US markets. That is, those countries were offering their own paper products here at a cost lower than paper made in the USA.

The ITC investigated the claims and decided that since one or two of the Asian paper companies were government-owned and funded by subsidies from their governments, that they had an unfair advantage in the US marketplace. The ITC slapped a tariff on the products from those countries to create a "level playing field."

Get it? If a product is government-subsidized, it has an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Even the United Nations recognizes and accepts this idea. But suddenly, according to the Comrade and his buddies, that principle doesn't apply to health insurance. Why not? Because it doesn't work to sell socialism?

Sounds like a certain government based in Washington DC is talking out of both sides of its mouth. (Gee, what a shocker!) Or maybe the officials occupying the executive branch simply don't have a clue about real-life economics. Perhaps they've only ever heard the marxist version. And also don't even know how their own agencies make decisions. Maybe they should double-check their own established policies before they start popping off in public forums, or maybe they could look like fools.

Must admit, too, I'm worried about the Blue Dogs. I hate to think that my freedom rests in the hands of 52 Democrats, but that's just me.

Lots of video lately on YouTube.com and run on TV news, of town hall meetings at various locations across the country, and constituents really blasting their Reps about the out-of-control spending and the threat of socialized medicine. The latest was in Missouri, and apparently the Rep in question, Claire McCaskill, was afraid to show her face at the meeting. She sent secretaries or someone. And they got told off.

Did notice that all the pork projects -- parks, walking/bike trails, lighting for basketball courts, et. al. -- haven't been dropped from the socialized medicine bills, even though they add a lot of useless expense.

Want to know why? It's pretty common practice in DC that if you want a bill to pass, you bribe the legislators by including some little perk in it for each of their districts. So they can go home and say, "See, we're robbing you of all your cash and screwing up the entire health care system, but now you've got a park with my name on it! Isn't that terrific? Doesn't that make you want to vote for me again?"

It's a pay-off. And this 111th Congress just seems incapable of refusing these kinds of bribes. I mean, look at the Stimulus Package and then the Omnibus Pork Bill, and crap-and-trade, too. Something for everyone!! Pay-offs to big donors and corporations in the districts. And guess who pays for all of it?

Oh, how I hope these jerks come home and try all kinds of meet-n-greets with their once-loyal voters. Most of them have spent way too much time inside the Beltway and apparently have forgotten that they're supposed to represent the voters -- not Pazzo Pelosi and Sad-Sack Harry Reid, not even the president.

I'm starting to think someone dropped a load of LSD in Washington DC's water supply. I don't know how else to explain how else 535 people could suddenly go barking insane. Well, not all 535 of them.... but a pretty good majority. Those who voted for the Stimulus Package and crap-and-trade.

And I still can't figure out why they want to socialize medicine. Can someone please explain the advantages? There is absolutely no real-world evidence to support the idea that a socialist system would improve care or even coverage, for that matter. Why do they keep pushing this?

Nobody wants it but the Comrade and fellow-travelers.