FORTUNE Magazine tries to step into the health care debate

[Sauron]

The article here.

Time for a lesson.

Let's examine just the first item from the pro-business FORTUNE magazine article. After doing so, it'll be obvious why the article is pretty much the standard conservative bullshit.

The article attempts to list five freedoms that will allegedly be lost under Obama's plan, the first of which is:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

Now why is this just recycled conservative bullshit?

1. The article wants you to believe that by the govt setting a minimum package of benefits, that plans can't really compete against each other. Excuse me? The govt only prescribes the minimum that must be offered; plan providers can certainly offer more than that, along with creative packages and pricing. Setting a basement does not tell you how high the roofline can be. By FORTUNE's poorly thought out argument, there are minimum safety and mileage standards for cars as well. I guess auto manufacturers can't compete against each other in their products because the govt has set a minimum baseline that they all must meet? Duh.

2. The article admits that many states already have such minimum baseline packages. Do we see competition among health care plans today? Even with these state-mandated minimum offerings? Of course we do. So the entire premise of this objection is disproven.

3. The article tries to make it sound that this is a freedom that would be "lost" by the Obama plan. But the author of the article already painted himself into a corner when he admitted that many states already have minimum standards. If that's the case, then any "freedom to choose what's in your plan" has already been lost, and Obama's plan has nothing to do with it.

The remaining four objections in this FORTUNE magazine article likewise fall to pieces when they're examined. This is why it is absolutely imperative that people self-educate and come to this debate fully prepared. Healthcare is important, and you aren't going to be able to just skate through by reading the Fox News Cliff Notes version.

[godfry n. glad]

That's Faux Nudes' Over the Cliff Notes.