“Adding an 800-pound governmental gorilla into the healthcare marketplace, under any name, is still a net, enormous loss of your healthcare freedom and choice—not a gain,” avers Robert Bidinotto. “We need to stop this fraud in its tracks.”

Bidinotto is talking about the “Co-ops,” of which I have written: they “will offer a good deal of co-optation and not many options. Those who’re smitten by B.O.’s Svengali-style hypnotism will welcome the news that he and the secretary of Health and Human Services will be running their cozy ‘co-op.”

Writes Robert:

The Sunday papers are announcing that the White House is going to “retreat” on the so-called “public option” — i.e., a government healthcare option to compete with the private insurers. Instead, they are getting bipartisan support for establishing a publicly funded healthcare “co-op.”

See here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRqy6w7DFAB0

But this is no “retreat.” The co-op arrangement is simply the public option by another name, and by a more circuitous, stealthy route — with the same ultimate objective: nationalized healthcare.

Understand that the “co-op” would be funded by the government (i.e., the taxpayers). More importantly, to get admission into the co-op, insurers would have to abide by the new governmental regulations regarding coverage, treatments, premiums, etc.

Ah, but this still would be “private,” right? Not according to Health and Human Services Sec. Nancy Sebelius. See this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Here is her “money quote” from that article about the co-ops, which gives away the White House’s game:

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Make no mistake, then: This is no liberal “retreat” from governmental healthcare. The new “co-op” is explicitly intended to be “a competitor to private insurers.” While ObamaCare would inject this new government entity into the healthcare marketplace, it simultaneously would

* impose onerous, costly new mandates on private insurers,

* mandate participation by unwilling individuals and small businesses, under penalty of whopping fines,

* outlaw any private insurers that refused to adopt the new government-imposed rules, and

* compel taxpayers to fund the arrangement.

Eventually, inevitably, the only private insurers that could survive this arrangement would have to operate like branch offices of the Medicare program — simply administering government “mandated” coverage, services, treatments, medicines, etc.

Rather than “single payer” socialized medicine, then, this would be more like fascist medicine: a merely nominal “private” system, in which a handful of big healthcare insurers and providers took their marching orders from the federal government.

Robert has compiled a comprehensive list of links on the healthcare Obamination:

THE PENDING BILLS:

Text of HR 3200, the main House bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200
(Note that each section listed is a link to the text in that section)

Text of the initial Senate bill:
http://help.senate.go/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

COSTS OF OBAMACARE:

Here is Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) June 15 letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy analyzing his Senate committee version of the healthcare legislation, which proposes “health insurance exchanges.” It concludes that this would add one trillion dollars to existing federal deficits over a decade, with a net decrease in the number of uninsured of only 16 million out of the 47 million currently claimed to be uninsured:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

Here is the CBO’s more recent letter, demolishing the argument that “preventive medicine” and “wellness” options will lower the overall costs of Obamacare. In fact, says the CBO, these measures will raise costs:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

Here is the CBO’s July 17 assessment of H.R. 3200, one of the House bills, projecting a net deficit increase of $239 billion over ten years, with far greater costs after 2019. This analysis, of course, is limited solely to financial cost considerations; it says nothing of the other onerous, coercive provisions of the bill, including skyrocketing taxes on “the rich,” and “employer mandates” on small businesses. Nor does it discuss the inevitable negative impact of the legislation on the supply of healthcare (e.g., doctors, hospitals, etc.):

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Here is the CBO’s June 16 letter to two senators, which outlines more generally the budget impact of an expanding federal role in healthcare, after factoring in increased subsidies and universal coverage. Pages 2-3 of the supporting document say this would lead to a “permanent increase of roughly 10 percent in the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare,” and actually “cause national spending on healthcare to increase.” The CBO then assesses an array of potential cost-saving mechanisms. However, some of the most fruitful of these—i.e., changing the tax-exempt status of employer-provided health insurance, and tort reform—have already been taken off the table by congressional Democrats. Nor will the current rush to pass legislation give Congress enough time to properly weigh and assess these options and determine their likely unintended consequences. The potential for real long-term savings is thus bleak, and the CBO projections of budget-busting long-term cost increases remain:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10311/06-16-HealthReformAndFederalBudget.pdf

OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT OBAMACARE:

A section-by-section analysis and critique of major provisions in House bill 3200:

http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

“Five Freedoms You’d Lose Under ObamaCare,” from Fortune magazine

dex.htm”>http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

A concise presentation, in Time magazine, of basic internal contradictions in ObamaCare claims:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973-1,00.html

Two important articles offering everything you need to know about government healthcare rationing:

1. “The Road to Rationing” — showing how the idea of “a right to healthcare” leads inexorably to socialized medicine. Outstanding!
http://atlassociety.org/cth-43-2217-road_to_rationing.aspx

2. “Rationing by Any Other Name” — showing the difference between market “rationing” of goods and services, and political rationing of goods and services.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/rationing_by_any_other_name.php

A systematic refutation of numerous claims made by President Obama during his New Hampshire “town meeting” on healthcare:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/hennessey-memo-debating-portsmouth.pdf

An article explaining that what Democrats are advocating is not insurance, but the elimination of the basic principles of insurance, as such — and the substitution of a new governmental welfare entitlement for insurance:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/05/obamas_war_on_health_insurance_97767.html

A brief compilation of comparative medical care statistics from the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain, demolishing many myths about the alleged superiority of nationalized healthcare:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html

Links to statements by leading Democrats and prominent Obamacare supporters, all acknowledging that various “public option” proposals, including the “co-op” and “insurance exchanges,” are mere stepping stones toward the eventual implementation of “single-payer” nationalized healthcare, and the elimination of private healthcare insurance:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/you_want_context_drudge_will_g.asp> — President Obama

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/30/barney_frank_admits_public_option_would_lead_to_single-payer_system.html — Barney Frank

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk> — Obama, Frank, and Cong. Jan Shakowsky

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheri-and-allan-rivlin/5-steps-to-major-health-c_b_249516.html — writers in the liberal Huffington Post

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5cb3998e-3ee2-494a-ac7d-763a37a6643c – a senior editor of The New Republic

A top Atlanta eye doctor weighs in on government medicine, speaking from experience:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamacare_and_me.html

A Washington Post editorial staff member raises serious, non-exaggerated concerns about the “end-of-life counseling” provision in the House bill:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

20 Questions to Ask Your Congressman on Healthcare:

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1126>

OBAMACARE vs. FREE-MARKET REFORMS AND PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES:

A Washington Post report quantifying the huge impact of “defensive medicine” in increasing healthcare costs, yet noting the refusal of Democrats and the lawyer lobby to any efforts at tort reform, which could dramatically reduce these unnecessary healthcare costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002816.html

Links to comprehensive information about the various government proposals, and also to a host of free-market alternative plans that Obamacare proponents refuse to consider:

http://healthcare.cato.org/obama-congressional-plans

http://www.heartland.org/suites/health%20care/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html?mod=djemEditorialPage (what to do about people with pre-existing conditions)

FROM THE MERCER VAULT:

The Authentic Ass-troturfers
8/14/2009
Destroying Healthcare For The Few Uninsured
8/7/2009
Code Blue! How Canada Care Nearly Killed My Kid
7/31/2009
Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists

Update (August 18): I’m indulging Robert Bidinotto and posting this: “How American Health Care Killed My Father.” Robert dubs this long, drawn-out essay the best he’s read in the topic. I completely disagree; it’s boring, discursive, takes ages to buildup to a point, and is full of linguistic redundancies (“cements in place”). I could read no more when the writer left off the dead grandpa and picked-up with the wisdom of his grandma, having still not made a material point.

In any case, you be the judge, and do distill any worthwhile, “new” insights for us. As someone who’s able to make crucial points in 850 words, I think prolixity ought to be punished, not lauded.