Lions and tigers and bears oh my! Nationalized medicine, socialized medicine, no choices for us, oh my!
The drum beat from the right pounding out these wild and false accusations are deceitful.
Contrary to what the right wing radio attack dogs are claiming, contrary to what Mitch McConnell, Michael Steele, Orin Hatch and most any Republican is saying, the health care reform bill will only add a vitally needed choice (public option) all the while preserving health care options via private insurance companies, work plans, and other government health care programs. Contrary to a pass-on e-mail that I received from a loved family member, you will not be forced to give up private insurance once you leave the job that currently provides it to you. That is a lie. Socialized medicine? No worries! Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability are all social programs that I doubt any sane Republican or Democrat would advocate abolishing. Public Option would only add a program, and yes, we will have to pay a premium to the government and yes taxes will go up: I am totally willing to pay my premiums should I ever need it. I am also willing to pay higher taxes so that the unfortunate (unemployed, disabled, veterans, orphans etc) can have dignity and health care insurance. (If you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me.) Nationalized medicine? Nope. The meaning of that is that the government runs all issues of the delivery of health care or owns all providers and that will not be the case, the government will only administer premiums/funding of the public options, not the affairs of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser Permenante, or IHC.
Let's not panic. We all pay into the social programs that already exist and I hope we are all happy to do so. After all, these programs were vital to the support of our grandparents as they grew old and I, for one, was very grateful for the support they received. They will be vital to every one of us as we grow old.
One may think that Obama is rushing this too fast. That is a very valid argument.
One may think that it is a pie-in-the-sky financial boondoggle. That is a very valid worry.
But it is not a leap into socialized health care or nationalized medicine. The private sector, if it is worth anything at all and I believe that it is worth a great deal, will not only survive but prosper in an only slightly altered market place for the very good reason that the public option is not intended (despite the lies) to replace the private sector, but only to give an option to those the private sector refuses to serve or to those who cannot afford the outrageous (there is not other word) premium rate schedudles!
Would any of you choose the public option over an option with the private sector even if you had to pay a little to moderately more? I wouldn't. But I would be (will be) delighted to know that I will never be turned away from being insured, and that is what the public option guarantees!
6 comments:
I am a supporter of the idea of coverages for all. I think a national insurance plan for those who can't get it through private means is necessary. I don't have the fear that it will change what I already have. I want it to happen and I want it to work, but I am with Alan about wondering how the government can afford it. I would like to see them take their time enough to really take a good, hard look at how to finance this with out significantly burdoning the already over taxed public and without adding so heavily to the budget deficit. I am also weary of the government trying to run an insurance business and would be hopeful they can outsource that to people who are in the know. And that is where it could get expensive...but the cheaper alturnative is to let the government run it...but quality could suffer for those who are covered by the national plan. I don't really know! I don't think this plan will get everyone covered, as I don't beleive that the people who don't already have coverage will want to pay their share of the premium that they will have to pay even on the nationalized plan. I am guessing they'll do the math and say..."it's still cheaper for me to just use the emergancy room for my occasional health care needs, I'm not going to pay monthly premiums even for the nationalized plan." Because as I understand it...the plan won't be free to them...they'll also have monthly premiums to pay to have it, and I have heard that the premiums won't be significantly less than what many pay with private companies...so who knows! We still may have many out there that will go uninsured.
First of all, I am quite amused to see the Dems still blame the Republicans for holding things up. The Dems run everything with absolute majorities, and they have a fawning press to boot. So it's the Republicans fault that things are not going well? I have rolled my eyes so often I think I am going cross-eyed.
I think the goal of health care for all is absolutely wonderful, but it is too expensive. Yes, it is true that one can keep ones current coverage, but it is clearly stated on page 15 or 16 (the last I heard at least), that once you change jobs or even change the co-pay, you have to go on the government insurance. So everyone will wind up on the government plan via attrition.
Lastly, I think the falling poll numbers have little to do with what conservatives are saying. Based on the last election, it appears no one is listening to conservatives anyway. The problem is the cost. I think the public has seen the price tag and they have sticker shock. It is as obvious as the sun on a summer day. WE CAN"T AFFORD IT! 'Revenue neutral' is a wonderful concept, but everyone knows that isn't going to happen. When has the government ever, EVER! been revenue neutral.
We already have National Healthcare for those who can't get coverage. It is called Medi-care and Medicaide! Debbie and I don't have medical insurance because we are both basically self-employed but the kids have healthcare coverage...it is CHIP and Medicaide! Anyone who doesn't have ANY healthcare coverage CAN already purchase some as independant insurance policies. YES, it is more expensive but it is available if people really want it. We do NOT need government REQUIRING medical insurance. Just my opinion.
I really appreciated Teresa's comments because I think that they reflect how kind we all are. We want people to be well cared for when ill and in prevention regardless. People would be required to buy it, it would not be an option not to buy it unless you are below the poverty level. The enforcement of such requirements would come through tax returns, tax penalties etc.
Of Alan's comments, I am very concerned by his claim that on page 15 or 16 it stipulates that once on leaves one's current insurance program, one has no longer has any choice but to take the public option. If this is true then I am dead against the entire package. If this is true, then by attrition as Alan says, it would just be a matter of time before we have a single payer system. And I have already stated that I am against a single payer system.
I am puzzled that this claim is not ballyhooed by all interested. I have not heard it when I have listened to G. Beck, R. Limbaugh, M. Steele, M. McConnell, on Fox News. It would seem that this claim would be the linchpin of their argument against the plan. I don't listen 24/7 but plenty often enough that I am surprised that I haven't heard it. I will look into it. In the meantime check out my most recent post that I wrote before reading responses to this one concerning funding.
What Deric says is not true. Not just anyone can get insurance anytime they want it. Pre-existing conditions prohibit many Americans from finding private insurance, they are rejected by all companies. Even if they can find private insurance outside of a group plan, because of their pre-existing conditions they are considered such a high risk that their premiums are not at all affordable.
Deric's plight is exactly why I am for an affordable government option. Deric and Debbie need insurance to protect the financial stability of their family (if either Deric or Debbie blow out a knee, as I have done, they must be prepared for a $20,000 minimum bill without insurance, and that is just knee surgery) and so that if they do fall ill, they will not fall into the public doll trough which costs everyone.
Here's the link to the problems with the health care bills. It appears that what is actually in the bill (which is yet to be finalized) is vastly different that what Obama is claiming.
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107408/5-freedoms-you-would-lose-in-health-care-reform.html?mod=insurance-health
Thanks for the reference Alan. I too am concerned by what you said, that we could all be on Nationalized insurance by attrition. I don't agree with that all. If I move from one private company to another, I would want the option to purchase my health insurance from my new employer. That doesn't sound right. Are you sure about that? I agree with Doug...I haven't heard that from any one in the media and I would think they would be making a big deal over that. That is very confusing to me. T
Post a Comment