President Obama has made his preference for a public health coverage plan known this week as several US Senators have been hashing out a Bi-Partisan solution.What you may ask is, if the minority has shown no support for anything the Majority proposes, why dilute good legislation just to bring a few on board? They'll vote against it anyway and you'll have a law that satisfies no-one.
A plan that includes a public alternative will compete with private insurers and is opposed by nearly all Republicans. I know that's troublesome.Obama had kept his answers vague on the issue until he released a letter to Senate Democrats saying he supports a new public plan.
There are articles all over the web stating that the Republicans are furious about including the public alternative. They are saying the inclusion will not get congress any closer to a Bi-partisan Health Care plan. I'll ask, is that the end all at this point?I realize the minority is less than enthused about people having choices in many facets of living our lives, but where did having a choice between health coverage plans become a political football? Because a big chunk of profits may be diverted to healthcare facilities and service? Oh, I understand now.
This should be about competition and keeping insurance companies honest. I know, that's a stretch. Opponents say private insurers could not compete with a public plan that didn't have to make a profit. When it comes to getting your family covered and heaven forbid emergency procedures done on your kids, I don't care about some insurance company making a profit.
That's how it works in the street level marketplace. If your competition is making a better sandwich and people stop coming in, don't blame the competition...make a better sandwich.
6 comments:
Insurance and pharmaceutical companies have been in bed with so many politicians for so long, that I don't think Obama can separate them. Too much money, too much history and the scary propaganda will chip away at the public perception of universal public healthcare.
What worries me, is the push to get Republicans on board will get in the way of churning out more of the needed reforms that Obama promised in his campaign. When the opposite was true and the GOP was in control, there were no compromises. Look what we ended up with.
Your belief that the minority party is against choice is a poor attempt to link the abortion rights agrument with the idea of public health care. In many areas of our lives it is the Republicans who argue for more freedom and choices, while it is the Democrats who argue for freedom and choices in other areas.
You are being a bit short sighted, maybe purposefully so. A public health care plan will in all probability, eventually, all but do away with private health care coverage. When that happens we will have fewer choices, not more. I suspect that is the ultimate goal. Monopolies always end up limiting choices and that is true whether it is through private enterprise or the government. The only people who will have choices then are the rich, who can pay for their own health care, and the very well connected, such as the political class, who will work very hard to exempt themselves from whatever plan they impose on the rest of us.
There are many influential people in the west who believe that the USA and some other western democracies have suffered from an "excess of democracy". Please beware of those who peddle the ideas of freedom of want, freedom of need and freedom of responsibility, because what we trade away in return for those are the kinds of freedoms that made this country great.
Mike:
I have to agree with 8:35- would add the entire financial and real estate corporate mold that created our current financial crises. Although joined at the hip with Big Pharma- it will be the pharmaceuticals that bring the market back along with the financial's. The health industry has much baggage and although it might be "feely good" to watch the Michael Moores' "Sicko" there is too much that will eventually determine the direction of the country as regards to this vital area to our economic growth. Obama has made many statements that have since been rescinded or amended as related to his overrall campaignl. As you know from the local races- there are promises and there are promises.
Reform is necessary, but what will be the price. The continued use of dergulation since Regans's election have brought the nation to areas that were once considered unthinkable. Could you ever imagine GM going bankrupt. In today's Freeman, it appears that the US and Canada are major inside stock holders of GM. One of the humorous aspects of this new world is that GM Mexico is going strong and healthy.
Returning to the question of the Health Industry- remember the Hillary Plan, which caused a major drop in almost all health stocks. So at this time, we will have to wait and see as to the direcion that he actually goes forward.
take care,
Shelly Z
Shelly
I am at a loss to understand how deregulation has caused the huge pension and healthcare burdens GM faces with its unionized workers in the US and Canada. GM Mexico is doing well because its union is weak and its labor costs are low.
Shelly,
In a recent post you argued that the city must be run like a corporation. Which corporation? Enron or GM? There are some things that cannot be left to the whims of the marketplace. Decisions related to health care cannot be driven by greed, but need and compassion. Just as city services such as garbage collection and sewers are a public good. Am I arguing to throw money away, no way, but there are many public welfare items that are a shared responsibility that are better left to the government to administrate. That is why we elect them to office.
CSEA has just agreed to a new tier for the retirement system. Tier V will work like 401k and cost the City and state less money
Post a Comment