Earlier I wrote about the Obama administration's possible
backing off of the inclusion of a so-called "public option"
in health care legislation. But what's important to emphasize is
that even without the creation of a new government plan, we could
still be stuck with a government-run health care system. First
off, at this point, we don't know how this idea of a non-profit
co-op would work -- under some versions, it could easily become a
de facto government plan. Even setting that aside, however, the
reality is still troubling. The remaining parts of the proposals
in Congress would leave us with a system in which government
mandates that individuals buy insurance or pay a tax and that
employers offer insurance or pay a tax. Then government would
have to define what constitutes insurance. Medicaid would be
expanded dramatically. The government would be providing
subsidies to individuals to purchase insurance, but even if
individuals don't qualify for subsidies, at least under the House
bill, they would be forced to purchase their insurance from a
government-run exchange. And though the policies offered at this
exchange would be nominally "private" they would be designed by
government bureaucrats. In the Senate Health Education Labor and
Pensions bill, a new Medical Advisory Council would be tasked
with defining “qualifying” coverage; in the House bill, all
Americans are required to have coverage that is deemed
“acceptable” by a Health Choices Commissioner. No doubt, the
creation of a new government-run plan is the easiest way for the
country to evolve into a pure single-payer system, but even
without one, the proposals being considered would give us a
system in which individuals would be forced to purchase
government-designed insurance polices from a government store.
A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute
cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option”
should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that
these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already
classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance
companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already
have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a
number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate
under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?
Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of
letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen.
Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the
co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the
president and Congress. He insists that there be a single
national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it
operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written
in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If
a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by
the federal government with funding provided by the federal
government, that is government-run health insurance by another
name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels
already installed and in place"" End run around OUR
Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE
PEOPLE are "TUPID"
bobdog| 8.17.09 @ 3:32PM
Of COURSE I'll respect you in the morning.
It's time we reined these big government politicians in. They're
going to do whatever they think they can get away with and call
it something else.
bensalemite| 8.17.09 @ 4:03PM
Somehting has to be done. My family doctor quit because the
practice he was forced to join does not allow patients to see him
without an appointment- and you cannot get one for at least two
weeks. In other words, see the doc after aren't sick.
tj| 8.17.09 @ 1:48PM
A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option” should not be fooled by this “compromise.” It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit” companies–including “mutual” insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops” are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother? Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.” If a “co-op” is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name. Also check the so called "" Stimulous Bill" death panels already installed and in place"" End run around OUR Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE PEOPLE are "TUPID"
bobdog| 8.17.09 @ 3:32PM
Of COURSE I'll respect you in the morning.
It's time we reined these big government politicians in. They're going to do whatever they think they can get away with and call it something else.
bensalemite| 8.17.09 @ 4:03PM
Somehting has to be done. My family doctor quit because the practice he was forced to join does not allow patients to see him without an appointment- and you cannot get one for at least two weeks. In other words, see the doc after aren't sick.
nbnv| 5.10.10 @ 5:25AM
M2TS Converter,
M2TS to MPEG Converter