Commercial Manipulation Campaigns

Is there a major election happening? I thought smear campaigns and negative commercials on TV only showed up during major election season. Apparently, that is no longer true.

It's instructive, I think, to analyze the tactics of these lobbyist commercials. Now, I'm going to take on an anti-public option ad, but to be fair, I have to admit that there exists the possibility that some pro-public option ads might be doing the same thing. I haven't looked as deeply into them, because they are stating what purport to be facts I find important, like the salaries paid to CEOs of insurance companies, the rates at which premiums advanced in comparison to average household income, etc.

The ad I have in mind is by the group "Conservatives for Patients' Rights". It's the NO GUARANTEE ad. You know, lists things that are not explicitly guaranteed by any of the pending legislation in congress that include the so-called public option, implying that the intentions of the president and those democrats who favor a public option are trying to deceive us, with respect to this subject.

Ok, let's examine the 'public option' pending legislation vs. the status quo.

1. We are not guaranteed that we will be able to keep the doctors we have now, in any pending legislation. It might be noted that under the status quo, none of us is currently guaranteed that we can keep our current doctor. Any number of things could change that would require us to change our current doctors, like the death or retirement of said doctors, or relocation. The implication is that it will be due to no. 4, because somehow it would be worse to have to change for that reason, as opposed to any other reason.
2. Pending legislation does not guarantee that we won't wait longer for medical care. That's right. In fact, nothing could make such a guarantee. We've all heard stories of the insurance companies that make up the status quo denying coverage or delaying pre-approval to the point that the medical care becomes passe, given the progression of disease in the mean-time.
3. Pending legislation doesn't guarantee that there won't be rationing of healthcare. It's called triage. It only comes into play in extreme situations, anyway, and nothing can guarantee that such a rationing will not be needed someday. My understanding is that pending legislation also does not include provision for rationing healthcare, so we have, surprise, surprise, a red-herring here.
4. PL doesn't guarantee that you won't lose your current insurance. Neither does my benefits package at work. In any given year, my HR department might contract with another insurance company because they give a more affordable deal. That could mean lots of things, including an overall decrease in benefits or, sometimes far worse, a decline in the quality of service. So, the status quo doesn't guarantee it any better.

Overall, what we see here is that pending legislation does not guarantee 4 things that are also not guaranteed by the current status of our nation's healthcare situation. However, we are to believe, according to the commercial that a PUBLIC OPTION could lead to GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE. They want us to hear 'equals' instead of 'could lead to,' which words are, by the way, spoken about quite as quickly as the words in all caps. This way we don't examine the tenuousness of their claim. Yes, a public option could lead to government-run healthcare, but it doesn't have to. My purchasing a mainly orange plaid shirt could also lead to government-run healthcare, but it isn't very likely. This is not to say the two possibilities are equally as likely, but you have to remember, the people who support big insurance paid for the 'no guarantees' ad., so they're not really concerned for your guarantees. They're concerned about their profits, which is not, in itself, a bad thing. When you try to manipulate public opinion to favor your own profitability, however, that is a bad thing.

I am not unaware that an equal mischaracterization could be at play in the 'how to get rich in the healthcare insurance business' commercial could be at play, engineered this time by those who favor a public option. My question is, how would these people gain from there being a public, non-profit option, except through the provision of healthcare coverage at more affordable prices, and increased competitive pressure upon medical insurance companies to trim their costs, so as to be able to offer more affordable rates and continue to make a profit for the owners of the companies. It doesn't make sense that these folks would gain much else.

Ultimately, I bet that the 'public option' debate is a bit of political misdirection engineered by the insurance industry (the largest single industry lobby in America, by the way) to avoid the other aspects of pending legislation, namely those provisions that will force them to pay the benefits they supposedly offer to those who pay premiums. That's going to put a dent in some CEO's multi-million dollar salaries, not to mention other corporate executives.

Will a public option ruin medical insurance? I doubt it.

Do I really know? No.

Does anyone?