No More Pretense for Health Reform-"Guaranteed Health Care" Is Just Another Empty Marketing Phrase

[Orwellian_Ghost]

No More Pretense for Health Reform

Guaranteed health care is just another empty marketing phrase by the eloquent, teleprompter wordsmiths in the Obama administration. Despite the new rhetoric there is no guarantee of health care in any of the proposals being considered.

The “universal coverage” phrase was always used by Democrats who opposed single payer as a phrase to confuse the voters. Universal coverage sure sounds like it achieves the goal of single payer — providing health care for all. But, it was always merely a marketing tool. Now that the Democrats and Obama have kept single payer boxed up and removed from consideration they can abandon this PR phrase for fear of looking too “socialist.”

As to cost, the CBO reports $10 trillion in new expenses over ten years. Yes, some will get lower premiums, but that is just a shifting of costs from premiums to taxes. We will still be paying for wasteful and over-priced health care — still paying more per person than any country in the world — just out of a different pocket.

The failure to confront the waste of the multi-payer, profit-oriented insurance-based system ensures that costs will not be controlled. Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times that, “The entire discussion has to be centered on controlling or reducing costs.” In fact, if the real goal were to reduce costs, single payer would have been the model they used.

But, the goal is not to control costs; it is to preserve the profits of their donors.

Health professionals gave Obama $11,532,962 and the insurance industry donors gave the Obama campaign $2,211,348.

The Obama administration’s approach puts their interests ahead of the necessities of the American people and of the American economy.

<snip>

http://www.countercurrents.org/zeese170609.htm

[Cleita]

1. Don't forget Nancy Pelosi saying everyone will be on a level playing field.

Translation is that the government is not going to challenge the insurance companies' profits by providing comprehensive, cost effective health insurance for everyone with no strings attached.

[kenny blankenship]

6. She also said, when asked to define public option, that public option won't be called public option

A politician never makes a statement like that idly. It's a warning for anyone paying attention that something is going to happen to the public option, and what comes out at the end will be the "public option" ie, something standing in place of, something that took over the function of, a real public option. It will serve as the public option, but it won't be a public program. It won't be a public program in the way that we would expect those 2 words to mean (Medicare), and it won't be a public program in the way that the public would expect, either.

In giving her definition of a public option, Pelosi described something "alongside of the private insurance". Somehow in describing public option health insurance she managed to never use the words "government" or "federal" or "agency" in her response. Very telling, IMO.

[truedelphi]

2. Can I point out that even among the 35 per cent who have

The adequate coverage, many remained tied for a long time to jobs they would leave for better ones or to start their own companies etc.

But since they have so many worries about getting excellent health coverage if they leave, they stay put.

[Oregone]

3. “universal coverage” phrase was always used by Democrats who opposed single payer as a phrase to con

Aint that the truth! Gets under my skin. We had an entire Democratic primary full of people opposed to true universal healthcare (cept Kucinich) throwing the word around everywhere. No wonder people saw so much in that crop

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. AM bump

[WeDidIt]

5. This is THE defining issue

Eiterh Obama meant what he said, or he's just another lying politician.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. K&R

x(