So why doesn't what Obama says on the mandate apply to the banksters?
Obama on forcing people to buy junk insurance:
"What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore," said Obama. "Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase."
Well, the banksters are forcing us to carry their burden -- two trillion in cash. And Obama's helping them.
So why is the one right, and the other wrong?
Nice why to put the boot into people who can't afford insurance, too. Lazy bums! Why can't they pay the insurance companies to get denied care like everyone else?
The worst of all -- and here Obama's cynicism approaches the saturation point -- is this:
Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping "exchange"* to tax credits.
Na ga happen. The market for health insurance/health care is broken, and comparison shopping is a FAIL. Krugman on Health Economics 101:
There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.
The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.
Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.
But that won't prevent the Dems from using "free market principles" to bail out the insurance companies!
NIOTE * Hilariously, the Health Exchanges (HEXs) will be available on the Internet -- which is great for everybody except those who will need health care the most: Those who don't have a connection, and those who aren't comfortable with the web. That is, the poor, the less educated, the older. Yay! The unterbussen.