(UPDATE!: The original numbers were way off (I trusted AP, my bad). The same Hot Air link as below has the correction. It’s all still inefficient, just not as egregiously inefficient as the AP article made it seem. If you desperately need egregious examples, I’m sure I can spend some time tomorrow finding them.)
Yes, I have my lunatic moments but you people really should be paying more attention to the lucid ones when they pop up.
My entire political philosophy is based upon skepticism that a federal bureaucracy can’t do much, if anything, well. The genesis of my opposition to President Obama has been the same since he became the front-runner in the campaign last year: most of what he proposes in the way of policy is predicated upon an efficient implementation and administration of programs by the federal government. This, in my less-than-humble opinion, is sheer fantasy. Tolkien couldn’t have imagined a bureaucracy that was efficient.
This belief has been the bedrock of my distaste for progressive programs all along. My most recent mentions of it are here and here. This isn’t an opinion formed in an ideological vacuum, it’s based on observing the federal government as it is and not as many wish it would be.
Last night, President Obama said that one way the government-run public insurance option would pay for itself (I did stop laughing at the idea long enough to listen) had to do with avoiding “excess administrative costs”.
And the winger nut-job comedian replied:
How many head injuries do you have to suffer to believe that a government run agency will avoid “excessive administrative costs”?
I really do enjoy quoting myself.
The beauty of this is that you don’t have to take my word for it. Just look at the most recent “efficiently run” federal bit of “help”, Cash For Clunkers.
Fifty-freakin’-eight percent pissed away on overhead.
To recap:
The public option is an essential component of what President Obama, The Botox Hag, et al want to accomplish with health care reform. This option is supposed to achieve self-sufficiency by being administratively efficient.
And I’m getting in tip-top shape for my next marathon by going on an ice cream and beer diet.
Because all things are possible with Hope and Pretend.
Check again, bro — turns out the overhead was much lower than the AP figured. Their numbers were wrong, or something.
4% overhead. Still, if it costs ya 4% to administer a literal give-away of money, how much will it cost to administer the entire freakin’ healthcare system?
Even if the numbers are wrong I can pull enough historical data from other notable examples of federal “efficiency” to make my case. There is no incentive to be efficient when all that’s necessary to continue operating is legislative appropriation of taxpayer money. They idea that the public option will be paid for by “premiums” is perhaps the foulest pile of horseshit the president has contributed to this debate. It’s going to be taxpayer funded.