BBE/IE: Tina Dupuy

[BlameThe1st]

http://www.cagle.com/2014/09/the-dumb-debate-big-vs-small/

This bogon emitter claims that the dumbest debate in politics is Big Government vs. Small Government. No, Tina, the real dumb debate is the one statists like yourself purport, which is Big Government vs. Big Corporations. Anyone who has been paying attention realizes that government and corporations are not diametrically opposed to one another. Corporations are "legal fictions" with state-sanctioned privileges, and they very much like government when it props them up by funding them through subsidies and crushing their competition through taxation and regulation.

But then she goes on with the typical pro-Obamacare spiel:

This is most acutely stupid in the "debate" over the health care reform law, also known as Obamacare. It was not a "massive government takeover of health care" as the right cautioned. It was a massive boon to private health insurance companies. It was the market-based way to get universal health care coverage. Market-based isn't the best when you look at other countries with higher ranked systems, but we're married to this bogus frame, so we went with market-based.

Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!

Obamacare is NOT free-market healthcare. The government putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do business with their insurance company buddies or else pay a fine--excuse me, tax--is not a free market. That is mafia-style government-backed corporate cronyism. You want market-based healthcare? Try Singapore or Switzerland! Both are fine examples of healthcare provided without government or insurance company cronyism.

But, of course, statists like Tina are going to ignore this because it doesn't fit their "dumb debate" between government Big Government vs. Big Corporations, as though the only two options are government healthcare or insurance company corporatism.

She goes on to emit the usual bogons about healthcare: How Americans pay more for healthcare per captia. (Which they don't. Those numbers were based on a flawed study.) How insurance companies deny more claims than government does (which, again, they don't. Medicare actually drops more claims.) And how politicians who oppose government-run healthcare are monsters who want people to die. (As opposed to government-run healthcare systems such as the British NHS!)

[Dallas Wildman]

I should point out that the Swiss do require community rating, and are not allowed to exclude or price based on health status.

As the article points out the Singapore govt is essentially govt mandated HSA.  Like our OASDI but strictly for health care expenses.

Also, I don't think you're Medicare article is very convincing.

Some nitpicking but the rest of the post is good.

Though I would like to point out that there's been a claim about how "doctors are leaving Medicare in droves".  If I were Politifact writer I'd give that claim "Half-True", it's no so much they're leaving.  Rather newer generations are becoming less eager to participate in the program.

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cagle.com/2014/09/the-dumb-debate-big-vs-small/

This bogon emitter claims that the dumbest debate in politics is Big Government vs. Small Government. No, Tina, the real dumb debate is the one statists like yourself purport, which is Big Government vs. Big Corporations. Anyone who has been paying attention realizes that government and corporations are not diametrically opposed to one another. Corporations are "legal fictions" with state-sanctioned privileges, and they very much like government when it props them up by funding them through subsidies and crushing their competition through taxation and regulation.

But then she goes on with the typical pro-Obamacare spiel:

Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!

Obamacare is NOT free-market healthcare. The government putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do business with their insurance company buddies or else pay a fine--excuse me, tax--is not a free market. That is mafia-style government-backed corporate cronyism. You want market-based healthcare? Try Singapore or Switzerland! Both are fine examples of healthcare provided without government or insurance company cronyism.

But, of course, statists like Tina are going to ignore this because it doesn't fit their "dumb debate" between government Big Government vs. Big Corporations, as though the only two options are government healthcare or insurance company corporatism.

She goes on to emit the usual bogons about healthcare: How Americans pay more for healthcare per captia. (Which they don't. Those numbers were based on a flawed study.) How insurance companies deny more claims than government does (which, again, they don't. Medicare actually drops more claims.) And how politicians who oppose government-run healthcare are monsters who want people to die. (As opposed to government-run healthcare systems such as the British NHS!)

So she's saying Obamacare is "free market"?  Hey, liberals, just 4 years ago, you were bitching about the "free market" in healthcare that Obamacare was supposed to be the remedy for.  Well, that and saying it will "foster competition" (yeah, competition by forcing you to buy their product...fucktards).
Liberals--all about Orwellian Revisionism and refusal to take accountability.