When I see particularly deceptive or puerile arguments I feel compelled to illustrate it in Paintbrush (generally using Comic Sans). This is particularly true when I hear that a public option will lead to “rationing” healthcare. Here’s the argument (patched slightly to make it moderately coherent):
If we decrease or remove the cost barrier to healthcare access, we still won’t have enough doctors. Or perhaps the plan will simply become unaffordable. Either way, a public program will have to make some tough decisions about what it will and will not pay for. In sort, a public option probably won’t pay for everything. This will be “healthcare rationing”. If you want more than your ration, the government isn’t going to pay for it.
I’ve drawn a picture of how healthcare would be distributed under these two systems. In the public option plan (if it goes as the conservatives allege it will go), you get your ration—and it doesn’t have everything you want. It’s enough to get by on—but many people will want to supplement it somehow. Under the status quo, you don’t even get that much. Apparently it’s not rationing if nobody distributes the rations.
… Uh, what squashed said.
