Operation how to downsize medicare
The health care debacle is a stark and continual reminder that the government of the United States does not represent the people of the United States. In an article written by the AP in The Saratogian today, President Obama is paraphrased:
Obama on Tuesday dismissed as “not logical” the insurance lobby’s assertion that a new government health plan he backs would dismantle the employer-sponsored coverage most Americans now have.
Of course it is logical Mr. President. If the government plan is worth its salt, it would serve to undermine the private insurance and pharma interests. Otherwise of what benefit would it be to the people of the United States?
The article goes on with a quote from North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad:
“At the end of the day, you’ve got to have an alternative that gets votes,” Conrad said.
And he is not talking by the way about your vote. They could care a less about that. He is talking about Senate votes. Which is exactly the real problem in a nutshell. Put another way, the US Senate will not vote for a health care plan that favors the people of the United States if it serves to undermine the private insurance and big pharma financial interests. It just will not happen. Now who is working for whom?
And then this dictum from the health care industry itself:
“We do not believe that it is possible to create a government plan that could operate on a level playing field,” said the insurers’ letter, signed by AHIP head Karen Ignagni and Blue Cross CEO Scott Serota. “Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market.”
In other words, “You cannot legislate a public option because it would mean that we could no longer continue to rip off people.”
And of course we have the “it will cost too much” obfuscation:
Cost continued to be a big issue. Officials disclosed Tuesday that key Senate Democrats had whittled more than $400 billion off the cost of a health care plan that carried a $1.6 trillion price tag last week.
If a public program will drive the private interests out of business as they contend, how is it possible a public option will cost more than what we have now? It seems rather illogical to argue that a public plan will undermine private interests if the former will cost more.
So what is it going to be Senators? Will you stand up for 72% of your constituency and “bite the hand that feeds you” or will you continue to work for your de facto employers, the private insurance and pharma interests?
And to the people of the United States: Will you continue to support Senators that go against your interests or will you stop contributing to these scoundrels, work to vote them out of office and promote public financing of campaigns?
Current Comments