Cartoon for December 26, 2009

Happy Merry.

Cartoon for December 24, 2009

Obamacare manages to turn a disastrous healthcare system into something even worse.

Cartoon for October 29, 2009

It occurred to me that the "opt out" option could leave us with a strange patchwork of healthcare zones.

Cartoon for October 5, 2009

So there's not going to be health reform. At least we still have the magic of the marketplace. Thanks, Barack--heckuva job!

Cartoon for September 17, 2009

I just had to drive 1-1/2 hours to visit the nearest doctor on my healthcare plan. But hey, what do you expect for $800 a month?

SYNDICATED COLUMN: To Trigger a Single-Payer Public Option

Why Can't Democrats Talk Right?

A poll says that 67 percent of Americans don't understand Obama's healthcare plan. I'm one of them.

It's not because I don't pay attention. I'm a news junkie. Could it be that I'm an idiot? If my insurer offered psychiatric coverage I could afford to find out.

I'm pretty sure, though, that my friends are smart. I asked my publisher, who runs the oldest publisher of graphic novels in the U.S., whether he understood what Obama's "public option" was. He didn't. I asked a teacher, who earned a masters from an Ivy League school. She didn't either. I asked a bunch of political cartoonists. Neither did they.

Obama's attempt to reform healthcare is all but dead; his polls are dropping. How did Obama turn lemonade into battery acid? Obama PR flack David Alexrod tries to explain that "to make choices is to make some unhappy." GOP strategist Charles Black counters that the president's popularity and "good will" doesn't equate to support for "liberal policies."

I think they're both wrong. The collapse of ObamaCare is rooted in the problem described by the cognitive linguist George Lakoff: liberals do a crappy job of communicating to the public.

Speaking of which: what is/was this mysterious "public option"?

On the left, The Nation magazine says it's "designed around not making people change their healthcare if they like what they have." OK, so that's what it's not. What is it? "Instead, there will be rules that insurance companies have to follow to provide better care, and a health insurance exchange, including a public option, for people who don't have employer-provided care."

A public option is a public option is a public option. How helpful.

I rely on words to make a living. I've published 14 books. Some have even sold well. "Health insurance exchange"? WTF?

You know what I think? I think this is like that fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes. I think The Nation doesn't know what the "public option" is any more than the rest of us. They're just afraid to admit it.

On the right, The National Review says it's "a government-run insurance plan that will compete with private insurers." Compete how?

For a guy reputed to have a way with words, Obama isn't adding any clarity.

Since the left is talking gibberish, let's go with the conservative definition of Obama's "public option." According to the right, Obama wants to create a U.S. government-run insurance company—call it GuvCare—that competes against private insurers in the open marketplace. Again, I may be a moron. But common sense tells me that this GuvCare only makes sense, and will only ease the crisis of out-of-control healthcare costs, if it offers cheaper coverage than private companies. If that's the case, everyone will switch to GuvCare. Goodbye, Aetna. Ciao, HIP. Right?

Wrong, says the president. "Why would it drive insurance out of business?" Obama asked in May. "If private insurers say the marketplace provides the best quality health care, why is it the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to run them out of business? That's not logical."

Because, um, GuvCare would be cheaper? And if it's not cheaper, what's the point?

I don't think Obama knows what the "public option" is either. Either that, or he's lying. And he wants us to know he's lying.

Pretty dumb.

Lakoff believes the difference between the way liberals and conservatives communicate goes back to how they equate government to the family. Conservatives see the state as a "strict father"—tough love, bear the consequences of your decisions—whereas liberals prefer the "nurturant parent model"—non-judgmental parents who help their kids out of a jam.

I think that's half the picture.

The GOP is effective despite its inherent demographic disadvantages, such as the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans. This is because conservatives know how to use complicated terms in order to obfuscate and simplistic ones to promote memes.

Consider the words and phrases used by the right to attack healthcare reform. "Death panels." "Rationing care." "Nazi." "Communist." "Socialist." Sure, they're false and nonsensical. (Nazism and Communism are diametrically opposed ideologies.) But those tag lines simple. There's no confusion. Everyone knows what they mean—or thinks they do.

Republicans deploy stripped-down phraseology to make unpopular concepts seem palatable: "Peacekeeper missile." "Shock and awe." "USA-Patriot Act." Go ahead, read my mail. Just don't call me unpatriotic!

Right-wingers use complicated terms in order to confuse. Torture becomes "enhanced interrogation techniques." Killing civilians is "collateral damage."

Democrats, on the other hand, use Republican rhetorical techniques against themselves.

It's truly baffling. Consider American liberals' preferred solution for healthcare: "single payer." It's been around for years. But what the hell is it?

"Single payer" sounds to me like "I have to pay." Which sucks. I already do that! But "single payer" actually refers to funding source—the government. But "single payer" is not socialized medicine, in which doctors become federal employees. Get it? Me neither.

Why not call it something simple, like "free healthcare"? Yeah, yeah, we'd pay through our taxes—but people understand "free." Free is easy. Free makes sense.

Alas, Democrats seem to be running a contest to be as confusing as possible. Now that the "public option" is dead (which is probably OK, given that it was non-existent), Democrats are pushing for something called a "healthcare trigger."

Huh?

Dems say the "trigger" isn't a death panel. Instead, private insurance companies would have to make their services cheaper within a certain number of years (say, five). If costs stayed high, the U.S. government would then create a...public option. (Unless Congress, feeding at the trough of insurance company lobbyist money, was persuaded to amend the law between now and then.)

"This is the best shot we've got for getting a public option," a House Democratic adviser told UPI. "It's better than nothing."

Actually, it's exactly the same as nothing. Except that nothing sounds better.

I understand "nothing."

(Ted Rall, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, is author of the books "To Afghanistan and Back" and "Silk Road to Ruin.")

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Cartoon for September 3, 2009

Some expert scientists say that half of the U.S. population could be infected with swine flu this winter. But there's good news: Since the only way the government will treat you for free is when there's a newsworthy epidemic, this might work out to a form of de facto health insurance! We certainly won't be getting anything out of the Obama Administration.

NEW ANIMATION: E Stultus Unum

Finally, my take on the town hall meetings. Far from being appalled at the stupidity, I'm impressed at the power of stupid people. What if the left were able to rouse this sleeping giant of American moronitude?

Cartoon for August 20, 2009

If you ever needed proof that incrementalism can't work, Obama's healthcare proposals weren't the victims of the vast right-wing attack machine, but rather of the Democrats' own prediliction for arguing against themselves. "If we ask for too much, they won't give it to us, so we'll ask for less. Wait, now they want us to compromise from our fall-back position. OK, we can do that." And so it goes, as the Republicans smell the stink of weakness and exploit it for all its worth. And who can blame them, except the families of the dead?

THIS WEEK'S SYNDICATED COLUMN: Half Healthcare, 100% Dead

Time for Obama to Get Serious

Half measures are boring.

That political reality derailed Bill Clinton's 1993 healthcare reform plan. And it will likely unravel that of Barack Obama.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that Obama's plan, sponsored by Senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy, "would reduce the number of uninsured only by a net 16 million people. Even if the bill became law, the budget office said, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017," reported The New York Times. Yet it would cost at least $1 trillion over ten years.

Americans like Obama's basic idea: "Seventy-two percent of those questioned [in the latest Times/CBS News poll] supported a government-administered insurance plan--something like Medicare for those under 65--that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed." The support is broad. But it isn't deep.

"Pay higher taxes for a healthcare plan that probably won't help you personally, even if you're uninsured" isn't much of a sales pitch. No one is going to call their Congressman, much less march in the streets, to demand action for a half-measure--or, in this case, a quarter-measure. Without public pressure to push back against drug and insurance company lobbyists, nothing will change.

Like every mainstream Democrat since Jimmy Carter, Obama is a militant moderate, elevating triangulation and compromise-for-its-own-sake to the status of Holy Writ. But radical problems--and the state of healthcare in America surely qualifies--require radical solutions.

More than that, simplicity sells. French- or U.K.-style socialized medicine--everyone covered, every doctor's visit free, every pill free, every doctor a government employee--might indeed cost three times more than Obama's incomprehensibly vague, vaguely incomprehensible proposal. But it's easy to understand. Moreover, as James D. Miller notes in his book "Game Theory at Work," people crave certainty:

"What would you rather have: 1) $100,000 or 2) a 50 percent chance of getting $200,000 and a 50 percent chance of getting nothing? Both choices give you on average $100,000. The majority...would prefer the first choice: the sure thing. Most people dislike risk, which is why so many of us buy insurance."

When we can afford it.

When citizens evaluate a political proposal, the first thing they ask themselves is: what's in it for me? Thus the appeal of a gimmick like George W. Bush's $300 tax rebate checks. No one seriously believed they would stimulate the economy. But hey, three hundred bucks is three hundred bucks.

Right out of the gate, Obama's "public option" plan tells the public that there's probably only one thing in it for them: higher taxes. Most Americans do have insurance. They don't like their deny-deny-deny insurance companies, but there's nothing for them in the Obama-Dodd-Kennedy proposal. Some Democrats have even floated the idea of taxing health benefits!

At least 47 million Americans have no insurance. And that number is going up fast. But the CBO says only one of out of four of people without insurance would be helped by Obama's "public option." The rest would pay higher taxes--and still remain uninsured. Why should they get excited about The Return of Hillarycare?

As president-elect, Obama said he planned to "keep [his] finger on the pulse" of the American people. "One of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day," he said. But it is painfully clear that "the bubble that exists around the president" has already enveloped him.

There is no true middle ground on healthcare. The most civilized and efficient approach, tried and tested by the rest of the industrialized world, is fully socialized medicine. Put the insurance vampires out of business. Cutting out the health profiteers and encouraging preventative care will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Failing a comprehensive solution, let the free market reign. True, 20,000 Americans will continue to die each year due to lack of insurance. But private healthcare corporations will continue to invest in innovative treatments and medications. The city of Hartford will keep adding shiny new skyscrapers to its skyline--and our taxes won't go even higher over this issue.

Obamacare offers the worst of both worlds--it would be expensive and inadequate.

COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL

Cartoon for June 22, 2009

The Congressional Budget Office finds that only 16 million out of the 47 million Americans who are uninsured would be insured under Obama's overpriced healthcare plan. Typical Obama: It's expensive, complicated, and doesn't even promise to work for many people. Awe-some.

Cartoon for March 20

Obama's healthcare plan would only require that parents purchase insurance coverage for their children. In the future, therefore, adults will need fake IDs to pass as kids.

Click on the cartoon to make it bigger.