Democrats are gleeful over a recent decision pushed for by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 
to include a “public option” in their proposed government run health management and insurance reform bill. Believing that they are geniuses, Senators like Reid, Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer think they have reached a Solomon-like compromise that will please everyone and enable every man, woman and child across America to support their government run health management and insurance business plan.The plan is to allow states the opportunity to opt out of the highly controversial “public option” which creates a government run insurance industry.
Wow, imagine that, Democrats seemingly offering choices for states rather than ride roughshod over state rights and mandate them to participate in unconstitutional federal programs. But is it really a choice?
Absolutely not!
Just to be clear, taxes will pay for governmet insurance. As such, even though the “opt opt clause might sound innocent, what happens in states that do opt out of government run insurance? Do the citizens of those states that do not participate in the program have their federal taxes lowered? Since they will not be part of the government insurance program, will their taxes not be used for the program? The answer is no? So in other words, what Democrat Senators are saying is, you don’t have to be in the program but you will still pay into it. That’s like going window shopping and having the salesperson come out and tell you that you don’t have to buy the clothing that you’re looking at, but you still have to pay for it. Is that sane? Does it make any sense? It does to Democrats who are anything but democratic.
The same situation applies to the set of statements that Democrats make when they told us that no one citizen will be forced to give up their insurance and be forced to take government run insurance. Yeah, they may not have been forced to take the government program. May, not have. But they will be forced to pay into it regardless of whether they participate in it or not.
Thankfully Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican to vote the Baucus healthcare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee, has stated that by including the public option, even with an opt out clause for states, it will preclude her from supporting it when it comes before the full senate for a full vote. According to Snowe, a woman who is far from conservative and barely a Republican, she feels that the insurance funded by the mandatory flow of tax dollars will give government run insurance an “inordinate advantage” over private insurers and quite possibly put them all out of business. Such a turn of events will leave government the sole source of financial resources for healthcare. This is the same government that can operate the U.S. Postal Service without losing money every year that it operates. This is the same federal government that puts Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in charge of banks, tax cheats in charge of the U.S. Treasury and criminal tax evaders like Charlie Rangel in charge of writing the tax code.
Do you really want them deciding how and if your insurance should pay for a particular healthcare procedure that you need but they feel you could wait for ? Do you really think that they can be trusted with the money that is suppose to be used to finance your health care needs?
On this, Olympia Snowe is right.
And so is independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who caucuses with Democrats and is one of the sixty senators they were counting on to pass their nationalized healthcare bill. Lieberman states that he does not believe that this is the time for the federal government to get involved in new business ventures.
Seeing as how in just nine months, President Obama has tripled our national debt and shrunk the growth of the private sector and the private sector jobs that they create, I do not believe that President Obama and his liberal board of directors in Congress should be trusted to run a new business and certainly not to make decisions regarding our health care benefits. No bank would lend money to a crew like Obama, Pelosi and Reid. They are big spenders with absolutely no collateral who would not exactly qualify for a loan to finance a start up business and the American people don‘t either.
Do you really want higher taxes that finance a government insurance program that has a patronage filled bureaucracy determining what treatment the federal health insurance program will cover and not cover for you? Do you really want a politician like former Kansas Governor and now secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius to determine that it is too early for you to have that mammogram that you want? Do you really bureaucrats like her to decide that if you do get it, your government health insurance won’t cover it?
Thankfully some of the supporters that Senator Reid was counting on to insure smooth passage of his health reform measures are pulling away from him. Reid hoped that people like Lieberman and Snowe would help avoid a filibuster of the liberal proposal to create nationalized healthcare and government run health care and insurance. Now, with the pretend opt out clause for government insurance being placed in a final version of the bill, Senators like Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman are making it clear that they might assist Republicans in successfully filibustering the Democrat health scam to death.
If you really want to make changes that hold down the costs of healthcare and health insurance and allow more people to obtain and keep insurance, than do so. Create more competition by allowing people to take advantage of out of state insurers. Strengthen portability so that people can continue to carry the same insurer from job to job and state to state. And also get a handle on the overly litigious society which we live in by adopting tort reforms. Lawsuits for outrageously high damage claims create a climate that forces physicians to not participate in the geographical areas of the country that do not have caps on damages. Regions without such caps find themselves lacking doctors who are willing to care for high-risk patients or to conduct high-risk procedures. As for the few who are willing to take on such responsibilities, their liability insurance is so expensive that it must be passed on to all their patient regardless of their risk level or the procedures they require. In doing so, the expense becomes so great that is often to much to afford.
Unless Congress is willing to first tackle the obvious need for tort reform, portability and interstate insurers, all else that they are currently doing is meaningless. In fact it is more than meaningless, it is reckless and dangerous.
A nation that can’t run a postal service without losing money should not be running an insurance company through their bureaucracy. Next thing you know, President Obama will be selling us used cars, Charlie Rangel will be selling us tax shelters and Chris Dodd will be hawking high interest home mortgages. If we don’t trust politicians when it comes to politics, why on earth would we trust them to sell us insurance?
Wake up America! This is the government that had people wait on lines, in vain, for flu shots that never materialized, prompting Health and Human Services Secretary Sibelius to beg people to “come back” another day.
Sick people should not be dispensing health care and believe me, today's Democrats are sick people.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
Right into the ground!
Saying the "public option" will not cause any harm to your future ability to keep your current coverage is like stealthily throwing your neighbor's cat off the roof of the Empire State building and then turning to your neighbor and remarking, "That cat is fine, same as always. The last time I saw him he was the picture of health".
Private Helthcare system = FAIL
I find your obsession with "costs" to be obscene. And to answer your question... Yes, I do want my taxes to go to a government run public option. Hell I believe a single payer system would be infinitely better than any system that includes the insidious inhuman factor of profit.
You on the Right go on about how this will hurt the insurance industry. I say good riddance for ever. To me the very idea of making profit from the pain and suffering of our fellow human beings is disgusting. And I think anyone defending that industry and they way they’ve been operating needs to be doing some self evaluation.
The health insurance industry like a lot of corporate America do not believe in playing by the rules. They don’t want any competition of any kind. They’ve stacked the deck in their favor and want to keep it that way. Defending any of these criminals makes no sense to me. They have their hand as deeply into your pockets as they do mine. Logic dictates we should be on the same side. Unless of course you are one of them…
Your accussation about my obsessions are quite a great example of my assertion that liberals are hypocrites.
As for your sudden desure for competition, here again you are being a lying hypocrite. Government run insirance does not make things competeitve, it kills competition because of federal bureaucracy that will not run government insurance under the same regulations that government forces private insurance companies to operate under. Furthermore government run insurance, as is the case with everything else the government does, is innefficient and more, yes more, "costly". Those of "us on the right" want competition in insurance by doing what democraps refuse to do. We want to make it possible to buy insurance from out of state insurers. We want to make insurance portability. These things would generate competition. Since when have liberals ever supported competition? Do they support it when itr comes to education? Do tghey support Charter Schools? Nope. Do they support school vouchers? Definetley not! Liberals, competition. Don't make me gag.
As for what you consider profit from the pain and suffering of others, I guess than that you believe food should not be sold, it should be given out free. As for band aids, I guess they should be illegal to sell because the need to but one would mean that someone would make a profit. God forbid a liberal allow someone who makes band aids or grows food to make a profit and ironically, God forbid there be competition in these areas either. Give me a break. That statement was laughable and childishly unrealistic. Are you telling ,me that a berain surgeon who dedicates 15 years to learning and gaining experience in their field and spends endless months and years devoted to the medical professional, should not make a profit for his time, service aqnd dedication? Are actually saying that because someone with a brain disorder is going through pain and sufferring, the person who ends their pain and suffering should not make money for the miracle they achieve?
You are really out there.
Obviously you do want your taxes going to a single payer system. Obviously you do not understand that such a system is ultimately unsustainable because the government can generate so much revenue from taxes. Obviously you do not understand that socialism is not sustainable. It is also obvious that you do not know what competition is or what the founding principles of this nation are.
Logic does dictate that we should be on the same side and although I believe that you think you are on the side that benefits all of us, regardless color, class, faith, orientation, age or even party affiliation. However, it is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. perhaps "you on left" should pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it.
I get so sick of having to repeat myself, but... Just because I do not agree with your assesment of the effects of a public option does not mean I'm a hypocrit or that I'm ignorant. And as far as the issue of profit, I stand by my statement. Citing rediculous examples like "food should be free" or "illegal band aids" reveals a weak argument Anthony.
I do like debating you, but I wish you could leave the insults behind. Call me a liberal or say I'm weak or what ever you want. But don't tell me I don't understand.
As for the claim that mu agrhument was "weak", please tell me why the service provided by the leverage on risk that an insurer provides should not not be allowed? If you can tell me why one service which fulfills needs is any different than something else that fulfills a need? I guess ambulance drivers should not make money either. After all the "disgusting" "profit" they "make from the pain and suffering of our fellow human beings" as they shuttle to them to care must really bother you.
Thge only compliment I can offer to someone who "obviouslly" has an opinion but no understanding of the issue they develope an opinion, is to admit that I do believe you mean well. That is something that I pointred out, but I can not offer a compliment beyond that for an opinion devoid of facts and laced with insulting charges of cold bloodedness, gullibility and greedy obsessions.
Like a typical liberal, you dedicate negative labels to me and try to define my opinion negatively but take offense to such actions when they are applied to you and your opinion. That is hypocritical. That is typical liberal conduct.
Bottom line here Anthony is that it is you that doesn't understand the reality of what's going on. You defend the Republican Party that has brought this great nation to it's economic knees and destroyed our international reputation. I think it is the Right that doesn't understand facts or the truth for that matter.
Simply because you do not have the cognitive ability to extrapolate the lines of your logic to its end is not my failing. It is yours. I can't help if you refuse to see the facts and deny the unsustainability of your "single payer" system. Suggesting that I do not understand the situation even though I lay out the facts quite clearly, something which you yourself admit to, is utterly ridiculous. This is especially the case since you have failed to articulate any facts that refutes anything I have presented. Not one. Nada! When you have a fact that you can discuss, perhaps than your little opinions can be considered seriously.
But that remains to seem highly unlikely in regards to a person who in one instance refers to "you on the right" and then in the next instance claim you made no reference to Republicans. Are you just truly as stupid as you are coming across or are you so use to lying that you can not distinguish between your lies
and the truth or reality from fiction.
Each comment you try to spit out has simply proven every assertion I ever make about "you on the left". You are hypocrisy based charlatans with double standards, a steady stream of lies and absolutely no facts to support your opinions. But hey, keep on trying, you foolish little liar. I do so appreciate the Gather points that your lies and denials give me.
Out of state insurance: By whose state laws do we settled disputes. the buyers or the sellers?
Tort reform: Look at Michigan law and tell me if it lowered premiuns for DRs.
You dont actually want do away with our constitutional sacred jury system do U?
Blame the victims, is the best way to save money for corporate America.
The issue is that we've willingly and for most, unknowingly ceded power to the banks and the corporations.
No, the countries that Americans (up to half a million a year, according to the AMA) are travelling to for treatment are those where such treatments are considerably cheaper than in the U.S.
My understanding is that India and Thailand are particularly popular. According to a report in The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, a heart valve replacement that costs $160,000 in the U.S. will cost you $9000 in India or $10,000 in Thailand. A spinal fusion that goes for $62,000 in the U.S. is $5500 in India and $7000 in Thailand.
But I'm guessing that a lot of people in the U.S. who don't have the money for even basic medical care also don't have the money for international travel.
So again, what makes you think that the government in the U.S. is so inferior that it can't manage a universal public health care system as well as the governments of other countries, many of whom have been doing so for decades?
//Democrats... ride roughshod over state rights and mandate them to participate in unconstitutional federal programs// Unconstitutional? Oh, you mean Article 10 of th eBill of Rights. But taking that into consideration, the DEA is unconstitutional. So you wouldn't mind disbanding that agency.... would you? Or the National Park Service? Or the Forest Service? Or the Federal Reserve? Oops, guess you would want to see that one disbanded.
//...you don’t have to be in the program but you will still pay into it.// It's the state that has the power to opt out. If their citizens are unhappy that their taxes are going to help other Americans but not themselves, let them take it up with the lawmakers in their state.
Using your analogy, it would be more like the store manager telling you that he won't allow you to shop at his store, but you'll have to help pay for the purchases of those who can.
//Do you really want them deciding how and if your insurance should pay for a particular healthcare procedure that you need but they feel you could wait for ? Do you really think that they can be trusted with the money that is suppose to be used to finance your health care needs?// As if we could trust the insurance companies to treat us fairly or approve needed treatments. What part of "45,000 people die each day due to lack of insurance" or "most bankruptcies in America are caused by medical debts" don't you understand?
//President Obama has tripled our national debt and shrunk the growth of the private sector and the private sector jobs that they create// Your argument would carry more weight if it contained factual information. Obama isn't the president responsible for tripling the national debt; he just put the deficit on the books where it belongs. It was the previous administration that is responsible for both of these issues.
//Do you really want higher taxes that finance a government insurance program that has a patronage filled bureaucracy determining what treatment the federal health insurance program will cover and not cover for you?// No, I want the government to stop private insurers to stop deciding such things based only on their bottom line!! I was the victim of an insurance company who dropped my coverage (after the fact) when I became seriously ill! That magnanimous decision was the beginning of a cascade of problems that my family faced that year; most of them caused, or made worse, by the insurance company's decision. But hey, at least with the status quo, it isn't government bureaucrats calling the shots! I guess you have no problem with private-industry bureaucrats -- who have no accountability or oversight -- continuing to make life-and-death decisions about you or your loved ones.
//...Senators like Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman are making it clear that they might assist Republicans in successfully filibustering the Democrat health scam to death.// And 45,000+ Americans will continue to die daily because they were successful in stopping true healthcare reform. But hey, they will have scored a political victory! That's all that's important to them.
//... obvious need for tort reform...// Tort reform is a red herring. It will do little or nothing to decrease patient cost. My mental image is of a person who had to have a leg amputated, but the doctor cut off the wrong leg. So after a second surgery to remove the affected limb, the patient would have to face the rest of their lives as a double amputee -- solely due to the doctor's error. The Republican solution to this tragedy is to prevent the patient from collecting more than a token payment, thereby freeing the doctor to make more life-altering (and possibly life-ending) errors.
The Republic Senators (along with Leiberman the turncoat) want the status to remain quo. At most, they'd approve a change that was only cosmetic, like mandating coverage for all Americans, maybe with a tax cut to "help" them purchase it. And 45,000+ Americans will continue to die. That's the Republic party in action -- do as much as possible for American corporations and absolutely nothing for the American people.
What's troubling is how folks like the author of this article continue to act as if the shift to the Left isn't happening. Hell they seem surprised and shocked that the American people are not still swallowing their lies and bullshit hook, line, and sinker like they did during the Reagan era.
It's over Anthony... The days of unsustainable low taxes for the wealthy and cowboy shoot first and ask questions later foreign policy is over my slow friend. But you should rant away Anthony. I wouldn't want anyone to forget how close to complete ruin the ideology your defend took us.
They should dissolve the health insurance companies for not living up to the needs of their customers (us citizens) and become the only insurance option with every employed person paying in something. That way the wealthy can still have whatever level of health care treatment they can afford (or want to pay for) and everyone else can at least get life sustaining basics.
This "mandate" that EVERYONE has to buy some kind of coverage from a private company is CRAP! Why should I be forced to subsidize a Lear jet for Humana's executives?
How would you conservatives like it if the government decided to make it illegal not to shop at Wal-Mart?
We don't need insurance. NO ONE DOES. We need health care that's accessible to all, not just those with money.
ANY plan originating in Washington, ANYTHING they enact will pander to those with the money to access care. The issue has been insuring the public, NOT providing health care.
No matter what the discussion, no matter where the discussion takes place, no matter who is involved in the discussion, we will not be provided with affordable health care for all. Quite the opposite, but people still believe in Democrats and Republicans and can't see that they're different sides of the same coin.
People even still believe that voting works. It doesn't. It can't work when we're provided with two choices foisted by the same interests.
This health care/insurance debate sickens me and it's designed, just like abortion and illegal immigration, to pit us all against one another.
Why can't Americans see that?
Because they are poorly educated and propagandized by the mainstream media.
Turn off your television. Stop accessing the mainstream media. Seek alternatives on the internet. Or die poor.
Just because a system has developed and is making money does not mean that it is the right system. Insurance, by its very nature, has no place in the arena of healthCARE. Period. Insurance is risk-based paradigm which offers a bit of hedge against something that has a small chance of happening, or in the case of life insurance, a definite occurence where the time period is the gamble. It hedges against a catastrophic event.
Healthcare is not a catastrophic event. Everybody should have it from even before they enter this world (pre-natal) to when they leave this world. It should be focused on prevention and maintenance, not on catastrophic treatments. It should be a private system, decided upon by an individual and a medical professional. It should not be decided upon by an intermediary, and certainly not by a profit-driven intermediary only out to increase their bottom line by cutting expenses and raising premiums.
The entire paradigm is false and based on some perverse out-of-control capitalistic model that excludes any form of morality or social value of either the individual or the group.
Healthcare insurance companies average 30% or more in overhead; IMHO because they spend so much in the search for excuses to deny or drop coverage. Any dollar used to pay for actual care takes away from the "bottom line" and from multi-million dollar CEO salaries.
Mike- http://www.onedollarglobeinsurance.com