I have not been able to find any proof of that in all the websites I searched. I think it is purely a scare tactic.
Aunt Clela forwarded two e-mails to me and I suppose to all of you. The first made the above claim. It quoted an opinion piece (not a journalistic report) from the Investors' Business Daily that takes one sentence out of context and extrapolates onward to make the above claim. I read it on their website. The editorial itself only mentioned this at the beginning and used it as a springboard to other health care concerns. Odd.
I did find something else on the website of RMS Consultants, a right wing blog/mag type of publication that claims that one would be obliged to take a government plan if one left a company and decided to go into business for oneself. This makes perfect sense to me. I figure, but don't know, that once one can prove to the government that one has purchased private insurance elsewhere, one can drop the public option. But one must be insured if working on one's own.
In a video posted on U-Tube of Paul Ryan, a Congressman from Wisconsin (or was it Minnesota), the notion was supposed be that the above claim was proven. But it wasn't, the context of the video was too narrow to get the full meaning, it seemed to me that the Congressman was told by a witness in a congressional hearing that one would not be allowed to step out of a cooperative one had joined in order to buy private insurance. I am not sure of the entire context, but this doesn't seem to support the claim.
Conservative Blogger Cory Cramer said he had heard the claim, and promised to look into it, but I didn't find a follow-up.
I stick with my original belief: this claim is so egregious that surely, surely, those against the health care plan (R and D) would seize upon this and scream it to the heavens given all the screaming they do. But no. Nothing. Surely the insurance companies who are going through this plan with a fine tooth comb would go ballistic, TV ads, letters to those they have accepted to insure, surely they who would be utterly destroyed by it, would make it public with the greatest spin possible. But no. Nothing.
There is a great deal of fear mongering out there. The most recent has to do with scaring the aged. Medicare and Medicaid will be cut and whittled away, you will be mandatorily advised on the benefits of euthanasia, the government will step in and do your estate planning and so on.
And the e-mail-o-sphere is churning!
7 comments:
No doubt that you are right that there would be more commotion if we were all forced into the public option when insurance was lost elsewhere. It's really hard to know what is in the bill when it is far beyond 1000 pages long, and since the bill is still quite nebulous in that it is far from being finalized. That is exactly why rushing the bill to its conclusion is so bad. I have twice posted here that I have a hard time understanding why the Democrats are in such a hurry. I'm sorry. I lied. I know exactly why, but I was just hoping that someone would say it so that I wouldn't have to. So here it is: The reason that the Democrats are in such a hurry to pass this bill is that they know that the public smells a rat, and the more time that passes the worse the smell gets. It is a political stink bomb that won't pass if delayed until next year. So I predict that we will get a health care reform bill this year, regardless of the form it may take. Obama and the Democrats can't afford to come away empty handed on this issue. So they will pass something, anything, and then trumpet it as a success. The question is: how will it be perceived by the public in general (not the talking heads and the spin meisters)?
I had not heard that if one lost one's insurance that they would be required to be part of the government insurance mandated program. (GIMP for short). I just made that acronym up! Hehehe
Anyway, my biggest concern is that with the backing of the government other insurance companies won't be able to financially compete with a government subsidized program and thus will have to fold. Thus limiting the choices they have.
Go to politifact.com to see a lot of debunking of the rumors regarding a lot of things including the chain e-mails passed on by Aunt Clela. Especially the rumor I have addressed. The rumor I have addressed was assigned the most false rating:
Pants on Fire!
Snopes.com has some stuff too.
I don't think that it is a stink bomb, it has a lot of good stuff in it, but I am very happy to wait until there is more consensus.
Part of the reason that the Dems wanted it to pass by August 1st is that the chances for most any bill diminish on the 2nd and 3rd go-around. The final versions are often so watered down that they do not completely address the problems they were originally designed to take on. This is common for every administration. The Democrats and Republicans know this and this is undoubtedly part of the original time-line strategy.
Another reason that the Republicans are happy to see it delayed is that any delay will be seen as a defeat for President Obama. To weaken the political strength of this president is an objective for them. I suspect that in this age of intense partisanship, this is par for the course regardless.
Brian's concern is a valid one, but I don't worry. As I have written before, the public option will simply help establish a floor in a price index that seems to have not ceiling. Increases in health care and health care insurance are so wacky and senseless on so many levels, a floor as provided for by a public option will help the competitiveness. It won't be unfair and most of us, as we do now, are happy to pay for the most expensive options offered by our employer because we want the best!
Rather than creating yet another post about health care, I'll add a long comment instead.
In defense of our current health care system, most Americans like the health care they receive.
In fact, according to Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution, "more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services and only 6.8 percent are dissatisfied." Most Americans receive good health care services and our system produces better results than government run systems such as Canada's. For example, again according to Atlas:
Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
However, I must acknowledge that we can do better. There is a problem with insuring people with pre-existing condition, but that can be solved by passing a simple law mandating insurance companies accept all applications, regardless of pre-existing conditions. There is no need to overhaul the whole system that is actually working quite well.
We have heard that our military health insurance is going to change hand. The Military News said the Tricare has lost their bid. We shall see what the future offers.
Alan's comments are will taken. I believe that most Americans are happy with their health care programs. We are to be very sure. Just today Nick's case worker called to see how he was doing! A very nice touch.
We have been very, very well served. Yet there are some problems I will address in another post.
I think that there are pros as those all enumerated and cons that we all hear all the time. Sometimes there are contradicting claims and I don't know who to believe.
The reform doesn't seem to be a complete overhaul to me, but rather a plugging of the holes. Price, accessibility, portability, qualifying. I am for the public option because I believe it is the best way to address these four concerns. Requiring insurance companies to pander to these four concerns will not be as workable as a public option.
I'm interested to see what happens to the military contracts. If I understand Wiljac (I don't know who wrote the post!), it is just a matter of changing carriers, but I would like to know if it is more than that.
Post a Comment