Sucking on the government tit and health care reform.
This is a true story.
Last week while I was walking my dog, I ran into a neighbor. Let’s call him “Tiny Tim,” although Tim is anything but tiny. In fact, Tim and his wife, Krista, are both obese, to put it kindly. In case you think I am trying to be mean, it is a relevant observation as you will soon see.
I have had countless conversations in front of Tim’s driveway. Basically, he is a friendly, family man with three young children. He works as a fireman in a nearby town. His wife is a teacher. I like Tim, he wife seems nice enough, and his children are incredibly well behaved.
When Tim is out working in his yard, he usually has Rush Limbaugh blaring from his pickup truck, an immediate clue about his political leanings. Over the years I have known my fair share of Dittoheads and have learned how to co-exist with the enemy without losing my temper.
Until last week. . .
Tim asked for my opinion about health care reform. I told him that I thought it was a crime that in this country some 47 million people do not have health insurance, that health care is a right not a privilege, and that a public option is a core principle of reform that should not be dropped to appease the Far Right or the so-called Blue Dogs. In other words, my point of view mirrors that of most enlightened, educated people in this country. . . or so I say.
Upon hearing my thoughts, Tim puffed up like a t-shirted version of Rush Limbaugh and accused me and other liberals of creating a socialist health care system in which millions of people — including, he said, those vile illegal aliens — will be “sucking on the government tit.”
Since he is such a family man trying to be proper and respectable, I was surprised to hear Tim use the word “tit.” I think he meant to say “teat,” as if that would have made a big difference.
I tried to explain some of the nuances of the various reform bills, but Dittoheads are not to be nuanced. It was a “tit” or a “teat” no matter how you sucked it, according to Tim. And it was, worst of all, a government mammary, not one from the free market, private sector.
Our conversation continued, though it was clear that if we went too far we would no longer be friendly neighbors, but turn into those town-hall, “fight club” drones sucking all the wind out of our democracy and what used to be called intelligent debate.
Out of curiosity, I asked Tim how much he paid for his health insurance. What he told me nearly knocked me into the road. For himself, his obese wife, and three young children, Tim pays $80 a month. I think I started laughing or crying or both. I told him that my last monthly premium for just me – with a $2,000 deductible and $40 office copay — was $458.
I struggled to uncover the mystery of Tim’s obscenely low insurance premiums. I have heard of other families of four with private health insurance paying upwards of $1,ooo a month. . .or more.
Then I realized that as a town employee Tim was covered by the fire department’s insurance program. Lightening struck! It was obvious that Tim was sucking on a government tit of his own. It wasn’t the federal tit, but still — a tit is a tit is a tit.
“Are you kidding me?” I asked. “You are attacking the uninsured because they would be sucking on the government tit but you are doing the same thing yourself? Who do you think is subsidizing your health insurance premiums? The health care fairy?”
Tim protested that there was a difference between federal taxpayers and town taxpayers. I begged to differ. Here in New Hampshire where sky-high property taxes make health insurance premiums look like a flat-chested nuisance, local taxpayers have bigger boobs than the federal variety. So, I proclaimed once more that a tit is a tit is a tit.
I was too timid or kind to say this, but in fact if Tim tried to get health insurance in the free market, private sector that he so idolizes, he and his wife would either be turned down because of their weight, or be put in a high risk pool and forced to pay a five-figure or higher monthly premium. Instead, his insurance is subsidized by local taxpayers and his premium is a mere $80 a month.
Wisely, as things were starting to get testy, we changed the topic. Tim mentioned how he wanted to do more with his life than be a fireman. I applauded his ambition. He said that after he finished paying his student loans from his undergraduate days, he would consider going back for a graduate degree.
“You have student loans?” I wondered. “Yes,” said Tim.
“Are they like Stafford Loans?” I wondered again.
Tim is a smart dude and instantly knew where I was going with my line of questioning. “Yeah, but I have to pay them back.”
“I am sure you do, Tim. But you do realize that the interest rates on those loans are SUBSIDIZED by the federal government? Do you realize that banks only make those loans to deadbeat students because they are insured by a government entity. . . a tit as it were?”
Tim protested in principle, though I am not sure which one it was. He seemed confused. I think the word is “flummoxed” — yes, Tim was flummoxed. He skulked off into his house and I took myself and my dog back home. All the way I was shaking my head, crying or laughing or both, astounded by the hypocrisy of the insured. It was clear that Tim — this anti-health care reform Dittohead who rebelled at the idea of insuring the poor — was tenaciously and delireously affixed to a few massive boobs of his own choosing.
Is Tim the exception to the rule? Of course not. I have yet to meet anyone who is against health care reform who does not have health insurance. Do you know any one like that? And how many of them have subsidized premiums? Almost all, of course, by local and state governments or by their employers.
So let me shout out the word ”tit” one more time. We all want one. There are those who have, and those who have not. Ever see kittens sucking on momma cat? How they fight and claw to keep the tit they have, never caring if their siblings starve to death. Once they have a productive tit, they don’t want to give it up.
As this health care debate proves, people are like that, too.
5 Responses to “Sucking on the government tit and health care reform.”
Leave a Reply
I’ll contribute and be one that doesn’t have the tit or teat that you suggest. I am a small business owner that employees 35 people that support over 80 to include their families. Our company pays for insurance for 100% of our employees and 75% of their families. I know that our health plan is more the exception than the rule, by far. However, I can tell you with no hesitation, that it is not the governments place to take away the ability for me to provide this benefit to my employees, or for me or them to be taxed for having it in place. Government run or mandated policies would inundate our healthcare systems, create yet another area of fraud waste and abuse and leave only the ultra-wealthy with access to good health care. When the majority of the population indicates that they are happy with their benefits, that is not a call for complete overhaul. That is a place where you analyze the minority that don’t have access to a plan now and (because we all truly want to provide a solution to the problem), make adjustments to adapt for that minority. As a person who leans to the right, I would be glad to have a tax that made sense to pay for these, as long as there was true oversight. There is currently billions in fraud in the government sponsored programs that would fund large portions of these issues if the programs were properly managed.
It’s my feeling that this should be privatized and not nationalized. If you look at insurance companies in general, they know how to make money doing this. So, allow them to run the Medicare and Medicaid and/or Obama care coverage, bonus the managers (within reason) for successfully managing the programs, then with the surplus, utilize it like a electrical coop. Either carry it over for the major hits and requirement based on 10 year projections, or refund it back to the contributors based on the percentages that they have contributed when that is applicable. Privatization of this will make it better, not nationalization. It is the free enterprise that makes our society the most productive in the world. When you start taking benefits from the people, you start taking away the reasons to be that productive.
Also, I understand the notion that we’re all Americans and we want to take care of our own. But the idea that health insurance is a right and not a privilege sounds to me like you may as well move to France. I pay for it (likely about 60 times more than the average person) and don’t for one second believe it is a right. It is a privilege afforded me by the men and women who died in formation of this nation and the established free enterprise that funds the health insurance industry directly or in-directly through tax dollars.
I do believe that we have to reform health care as the current system will not be sustainable over an extended period of time and we have to figure out a way to assist those that aren’t as fortunate as we. However, when the government starts thinking that it knows what is better for its citizens than the majority population, it is the beginning of the end of that government.
You are really making my point for me, aren’t you? As a small business owner, you receive a significant tax deduction for the health care benefits that you provide to employees. That means that the real cost of insurance is being SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers — i.e. it is indeed a government tit.
And certainly your employees, who pay nothing for health insurance, have their costs subsidized entirely — another big tit to suck on.
One final thought, the oft-repeated lie that the government is going to tell you, a small business owner, what kind of insurance to buy is a complete fabrication, a scare tactic by the far right. I suggest you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck to get the truth about health care reform.
A tax deduction? No – speculation I guess. It is an expense of doing business applied against profit, but not a deduction. I fail to see how that supports your point. We bust our @$$ for what we earn so we can afford to pay for insurance expecting nothing more than to take care of the people that work within our organization. Seems to fly in the face of your point.
I have read and understand the proposals. But for anyone to assume that when the government goes into competition with the private sector (and directly or indirectly they will), that it won’t effect, if not abolish, the ability for me to purchase the plan of our choice, you are sadly mistaken. Like it or not, all programs like this run better in the private sector, not the public sector. It’s been proven time and time again. Our license bureau is even contracted out now because they can do it and make it profitable, faster and have a higher customer satisfaction level.
Call it a business expense or a tax deduction, it still serves to reduce taxable income of the business and is therefore a subsidy of your health insurance costs, i.e. a big tit for you and your employees. You also make it sound as if you are the only one who works hard. Millions of the uninsured work hard, too, but are either denied coverage or can’t afford it because of outrageous premiums.
You forget to mention that one of the reasons health insurance companies are so profitable is that they cherry-pick who they will cover, and then deny claims when they are made. The insurance industry has been rationing health care in this country for years. Their rampage of the American public will soon be over.
Finally, I don’t think you have read or understand the proposals if you can say that the government intends to dictate your insurance choices. Either that or your ideology has so clouded your judgment that it doesn’t matter how many facts are put before you — you will continue to spout the Limbaugh line.
I have to say that your perspective is one that I’ve not run into. Subsidized? Hmm… I guess “The Man” is the enemy then too?
I know that my judgment is clouded because I have evidence in the current government sponsored programs and their failures, fraud, waste and abuse. Not to mention that I know what will happen when the government gets involved with the private sector and tries to recreate the wheel – by a bunch of bureaucrats that know nothing about health system management or insurance responsibility.
No, by and large they don’t cherry pick, they align their risk with the health of the individual. Someone has to pay for health care. If it’s going to be the government, a private insurance company or the individual. That being the case, a company, as anyone would do, has to make sure that if they are responsible for the bills of an individual, and that individual is in bad health, that they based on the averages, can afford to pay the bills. If hey didn’t do that, they would let down the people that they have agreements with. As far as their profits? Most (obviously not all) are in line with what is considered a reasonable margin for business.
Biased? Yes, I am because I am paying a great deal for insurance and have lost confidence that these programs can be properly managed by our government. I’ve seen how private business succeeds over government time and time again. Short of the military, there are very few things that the private sector doesn’t do better than the government. However, I’m not spouting the Limbaugh line or any other. I’m sharing what years of business practice and history has taught me.
Someone has to pay for it. If it’s a government program, then it’s all of us via taxes and it’s also obvious through the overwhelming response, that most don’t think this method of reform is the right one. The AARP won’t even endorse this program. I think everyone agrees that something must change, but this is too drastic and too much in the hands of the government instead of the people that pay for it. The trillion dollar price tag is too great a burden for us to ask our children to bear. We’re better off to deal with the percentage that need it, rather than overhaul the entire process.
As much as that needs to happen, we also have to increase the personal responsibility of the individuals. We have some of the issues in health care costs, because we have way too many unhealthy people that don’t take the personal responsibility to do something about it.
All in all, I know we need to provide an alternative, and I want everyone to have access to good health care. However, asking one percentage of the population to pay for another percentage of the populations costs, while also threatening what they currently feel is acceptable, is not right, just or the proper way to do it. If those that have insurance are going to bear the costs, then they should be able to say no to making their own changes or to a system they don’t believe in. If you or the congress and Obama can’t see that, then we’re in for hard times ahead.