This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Heather Graham on Health Care Policy

Econophile's picture


By Jeff Harding

The Daily Capitalist

Npt a link

I confess to being an e-mail subscriber to Yes, it's for all the reasons you suspect: spying on the enemy. There maybe some issue somewhere that I would agree with them, but I can't really remember. So, I'll just say that I'm against everything they and George Soros stand for. What they stand for is ignorance, mainly of economics. They also stand for increasing the power of the state to impose their objectives on us by force. But, I choose to mainly focus on economic issues here.

That said, they have no idea what they are talking about, they are a big propaganda mill financed by Soros, they lie, and there are a lot of eager young faces who believe in their lies and ignorance. Based on this, I believe Soros is a sinister, evil force in the world.

I just received this giddy, breathless announcement that just bubbled over with fun:

We just finished a great new ad starring actress Heather the public option. (Really!) It could be the funniest and most memorable ad we've ever produced. But with the health care debate moving fast, we want to get it on the air immediately. Can you check out the ad and if you like it, chip in? We're calling out conservatives, who say they love free enterprise but are afraid of real competition, with a new ad starring actress Heather Graham as the Public Option. (Really!)

This is a stunning piece of news. First, Heather (I've-seen-you-naked) Graham is probably a very articulate spokesperson for this subject, well versed in the topic, and has studied all sides of the argument. I'm sure of it. Then they really make a critical point here by challenging we "conservatives" to stand up for competition. I mean, who isn't for competition. If MoveOn is for it, then gosh, it must be good.

Watch Heather first, then I've got more stuff to talk about:

Bloated, lazy, profits, apple pie, competition, public option are some of the words used in this propaganda piece. It's classic agitprop from the Soros propaganda machine.

These people are using the classic Big Lie technique. They create a falsehood and sell it with value-laden, emotional words. They demonize and stereotype the enemy (semi-free enterprise) in ways seen in the crude manner seen during the 20thC from unsophisticated agitators seeking government control over their fellow human beings.

If this piece was reversed somehow where a "conservative" group was ridiculing advocates of national health care, I am sure the public response would be one of outrage.

No one in their right mind could believe that the government could effectively compete against private enterprise. You all know this almost instinctively without having to understand any economic theory. Without the element of profit driving a business enterprise, it will be inefficient, lose money, not serve its customers well, and eventually will go broke. US Postal Service, Amtrack, Massachussetts's health care system, Britain's national health service. If you can come up with an example where a government-operated system was efficient and effective, please let me know. So, you have to suspect that there is some other motive behind the public option other than "healthy competition" and the American Way.

What are the motives of the people behind the public option? I propose that, (i) they are ignorant of economics, (ii) even if they aren't, they will sacrifice principle for power, and (iii) they ignore anything that disagrees with them. It is all about power folks.

See this Wolf Blitzer interview with David Axelrod, and you will see what I mean. You might not want to watch this on a full stomach.

Use small link at bottom left

He's uttering the Big Lie and ignoring the obvious. I rest my case.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 11/05/2009 - 07:37 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 06:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 19:47 | Link to Comment Econophile
Econophile's picture

Good post!

Fri, 10/23/2009 - 02:47 | Link to Comment Econophile
Econophile's picture

Thank you all for the comments.

One of reasons I write is to try to educate people about economics. I can see that, except for a few perceptive commenters, there are vast misconceptions about basic economics and the economics of health care. This post was written to illustrate how politics enters into the decision making process that will impact a substantial part of the economy.

Many of you are outraged by what you perceive as my idiocy because you see nothing wrong with the government essentially running an industry. I believe that the proposals from Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans will eventually lead to the inefficient delivery of health care, skyrocketing costs, vastly higher taxes, and the decline of the best system of health care in the world (someone mentioned how other countries are piggybacking off of our technology).

Because the topic is so complicated I will write several articles about this topic, and you can decide if I am still an idiot, or perhaps I have something to say. I usually write about the economics of the current economy, economic policy, and investment risk, but I believe this topic is so important that it deserves to be presented on Zero Hedge.


Fri, 10/23/2009 - 01:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 00:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 23:29 | Link to Comment Moe Speeks
Moe Speeks's picture

I will ask you to never speak ill of Rollergirl again,,,

thank you very much,

Fri, 10/23/2009 - 01:14 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 22:23 | Link to Comment Harbourcity
Harbourcity's picture

Idiotic article is idiotic.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 22:12 | Link to Comment Spiro
Spiro's picture

Who gives a fuck what Heather Graham thinks? Entertainment for the useful idiots.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 22:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 01:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:57 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:45 | Link to Comment Blues for Dante
Blues for Dante's picture

The healthcare industry, much like the human body, is a wildly complex system that nobody on this earth can completely understand, or even comes close to understanding. Therefore, such statements as "the public option will kill healthcare in America" lead me to ask... how do YOU know? 

Since we have never had a public option for the general public (not just the elderly)... it is pretty tough to determine exactly what its effects would be. Would it cost some money? Yeah. Would it bring down certain costs? Possibly. Would it kill healthcare? Doubt it. Some (probably older) doctors may be happy to take a pay cut in order to help out lower income patients under a government plan, much like some teachers take less money to work at public universities. 

The public school system isn't great, but it serves its purpose and helps millions of people get a degree who cannot afford a private education. Also, like healthcare, it depends a whole lot on the individual. If one drinks a 5th every night and never goes to class, one will likely will not learn anything and will also likely incur higher health bills in the future (near or far). 

Finally, something that gets lost in this debate is that America is by far the fattest / least healthy country in the world. If everyone got off their asses, exercised, played sports and/or ate (reasonably) well, the cost to society as a whole would be greatly reduced. I don't want some slob literally eating up my tax dollars, but I would be happy to pay a little more in order to provide a safety net for those that truly get dicked.

Or maybe we could withdraw from Afghanistan, cut military bases in certain regions, and downsize the army/navy/air force to reasonable/non-imperial levels, putting the extra money towards a better healthcare system.  

Of course, its never that simple... 

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:31 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

+ $1,000,000,000,000 (or the equivalent cost of the program itself)


A good friend of mine is completing her residency as a general surgeon.  She began as the sweetest and most innocent person you'd ever meet.  Now, she's callous and bitter, in large part because of all the people who come into the ER sporting Gucci handbags; Rolex, Tag Heuer and Cartier watches (because they never wear Baume & Mercier); and driving $50,000 cars; and WITHOUT insurance.

Not only do so many people have the money to carry insurance and choose not to, but in the process they literally have raped, pillaged, and bled the system to where costs are through the roof.  Plus, those f%<kers are the most rude, obnoxious, entitled and ungrateful pieces of $h!t that she operates on. 

Let the bodies pile up in the streets.

Besides, Heather Graham has seen better days.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:25 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 10:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 20:41 | Link to Comment Tomified
Tomified's picture

I think the most urgent part of this "urgent" health reform is taxing employee health benefits. It'll be a huge windfall for the government and quite a burden for most people. That might even make the public option more attractive, resulting in millions of people paying into a social security like fund that the government can empty in return for the promise of future payment.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 20:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 19:34 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 19:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 21:26 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 19:31 | Link to Comment snorkeler
snorkeler's picture

I have been looking around today but have been unsuccessful in finding the names of the 9 representatives on the Judiciary Committee that voted against H.R. 3596 which seeks to repeal the anti-trust exemption that health  and malpractice insurers have enjoyed since 1945. 

These names need to be all over the web and these 9 scum bags should not be re-elected.

Any help that can be offered is much appreciated.

Power of the web! While we can still enjoy it. 

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:40 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:37 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:30 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 19:03 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 20:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:23 | Link to Comment Rollerball
Rollerball's picture

Amazing how many buyers fear (and ignorance) hath made.  Dr. Kevorkian sells peace.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 19:14 | Link to Comment nhsadika
nhsadika's picture

Totally disagree. Even if you are a "Austrian" schooler the argument is quite weak. The central premise is:

No one in their right mind could believe that the government could effectively compete against private enterprise. You all know this almost instinctively without having to understand any economic theory

Economic theory does not say nor can it prove that public vs private is better. Running to examples such as the US Postal Service or Amtrack or NHS is ridiculous argument by example. Most importantly it ignores that fact that part of the goal of government is to create cheap public infrastructure that benefits all which leads to generalized wealth. Think about this when the vultures try to privatize public held commodities - like water - for profit in the name of efficiency.

To understand healthcare you have to realize how vastly inefficient it already is in the US. And how on a price/value basis it is doing worse than many many countries. Some of the factors are defensive medicine ($100K malpractice insurance policies for some physicians - where that would pay for ANOTHER physician in Canada), the profit motive which rewards doing procedures versus preventative care (lots of $ in placing stents in your arteries vs being the physician who delivers on getting you to exercise and take your meds), tons of mini fiefdoms...anyone on the inside can tell you many more including tales about insurance companies going against patients best interests over and over and over in the name of profit.   How about lack of transparency? Public systems can be vastly more transparent - a C-section pays a physician in the US roughly $3000-4000 (not easy to find that), in Ontario it is $514.85 - all the fees are online, just take a look.

I am not saying that the US doesn't have hi-end medical care. If you need a quintuple bypass you probably want to be treated by a world class leader at MassGen. However, ensuring that everyone gets a quintuple bypass at MassGen-like institution is not the goal. THAT IS NOT the problem at hand. If extending coverage, moving beyond profit, and moving towards HEALTHcare vs SICKfix then governments can be more efficient in achieving those outcomes.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 17:24 | Link to Comment Ducky
Ducky's picture

The whole debate seems to center around the idea that we are going to magically decrease price by increasing demand. Be wary.

Most people want cheaper health care but have never price shopped for health care services unless they are looking for something that is not covered by their plan.

They'd better put a decent up front deductible on this plan to get people shopping or this will not be cheap to the taxpayer.


Thu, 10/22/2009 - 17:20 | Link to Comment crzyhun
crzyhun's picture

There are three parts to this issue.

1. Health care

2. Insurance

3. Providers.

These three constantly are conflated. I have an HSA. IT has been going up, as I age this is normal. I also am very healthy. I have never had anything but a minor hernia opo, second due soon. BTW these are not always due to strain, mine are due to heredity. Dad had two too.

The system since 1930 has been devolving. Add the medicare/caid 1965 travesty, the gov't has interefered more and more into the insurance and provider part consistenty. Also, the fed's, the states and local gov't all interfere in some way in all three above already!!

There are quasi public options already, the blues, some are not totally not for profit. This is your closest example of how bad/good things will get. The gov't fed/state already have their hands in and on so much its not funny.

The issue that irks most on the left is the for profit part. Very much like the puzt czar over the Zombie 7, Z-7, there is a question of - gee how much should you be making. Now I know that there are many issues around testing and retesting, due mostly to CYA, suits from lawyers vs Md's- two of the highest paid professions on the planet, you have to agree that some savvy health care user can say, "whoa "to the test, what gives?" Not enough do.

Solutions are many- for those who care to educate themselves, Innvators Prescriptions give a bookful. One easy step is to make insurance companies offer plans accross state lines. Second address the chronically uninsured with local clinics. And third, drop the employer offered HC model, so folks out there get what they are really doing. Give a bigger tax exemption on Shcd A instead of 7.5% off set drop it to zero =immediately deductible.

Finally, go fast- have fun- and be safe!!

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 17:06 | Link to Comment Econophile
Econophile's picture

I haven't written about health care for a while and this is my first post on ZH about this topic. But, I would ask you to think about our system and why it is so screwed up. Since the free market is pretty good at furnishing every kind of service and good necessary to sustain life, what is different about health care that makes it so bad? I mean, we get plenty of food, shelter, and media, the three basic necessities to a good life ;), why can't the market provide good medical care? The answer is, first, that we have pretty good medical care already, and second, the "dysfunctional" aspects of it are directly related to government interference with the free market.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 20:17 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 18:00 | Link to Comment kevinearick
kevinearick's picture

Ah, healthcare:

On the demand side, the doctors are artificially increasing demand by providing drugs / treatments (like the arms dealers) that superficially address symptoms identified, and create additional symptoms in the process, a vicious cycle.

On the cost side, the doctors wear many hats, on all sides of the transaction, except the patient’s. They control access to education, regulation, hospital equipment, laboratories, and serve as special interests in the semi-closed holding company pyramid schemes.

By artificially controlling supply and demand (like the oil & physical property industries), they increase their own salaries, especially at medical schools, resulting in exponential downstream costs, in another vicious cycle.

And they often marry someone who also collects multiple salaries from the trough, usually as a hospital administrator, public administration professor, consultant, and charity administrator (corporate inbreeding).

And the healthcare bill addresses these problems how?

Obviously, the output gap between reality and mythology has grown so large that many are finding it impossible to get back from la-la land.

In symbiotic systems, if you find cancer in one area, you may expect to find it in others shortly.

If we just employ more computers; that will solve everything. Human beings are awfully inconvenient, useless eaters. So goes the logic.

What were they doing in Auschwitz again? Oh yea, never again.

If we would just get out of the way of the doctor-patient relationship. Let the experiments begin (if we could just find the genes for thinking …).

it’s basic economics/physics,

the jig is up, the Titanic is sinking, and everyone is asserting that they need yet another subsidy to correct for the misapplication of the last subsidy.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 17:30 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 02:22 | Link to Comment Econophile
Econophile's picture

There's an argument.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 17:03 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 16:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 20:13 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

"Free" is always "wildly popular".

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 21:18 | Link to Comment torabora
torabora's picture

Free isn't so popular with those who have to pay for 'free'.

Thu, 10/22/2009 - 16:56 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 16:46 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/22/2009 - 20:11 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

The "why" is easy.  Because it is politically expedient and people will aways trade "free stuff" for votes. 

See.  Easy.


Just don't get cancer in any of these places. -


Because who really cares about individual rights and limited government?  That's so 1776.  It all about the hive mind now.  Long live the collective!!!

Fri, 10/23/2009 - 03:35 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!