The fix is in. I think this is where we're going, folks - a health insurance cartel...

[FormerDittoHead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfZfgkX6uEk

It's about 3 minutes so it won't tax your brain too much.

When I watched it, I almost thought this was some kind of homemade video, but toward the end it points to its corporate sponsorship. ( http://www.humana.com )

Look at the video and read between the lines. This is what they want, this is what they're going to get.

First it outlines "the problem".

You'll notice the 'problems' it lists. It fails to address in why our health care costs so much is because a full 25% of our health care dollars are being siphoned off by insurance companies. Wow. What an OBVIOUS thing to OMIT...

Of course, there are seeds of truth woven into the following narrative, else it look like obvious propaganda...

Notice too, to show a government option, look at what branches of government they choose to outline a government run option, and see how quickly it's whisked away, without mentioning all the other countries which seem to do better than us doing exactly that.

Note there's no direct fear of the "public option" because they know damn well it's not going to be worth a damn.

But it gets to the point quickly - A HEALTH INSURANCE "EXCHANGE". Wow. Isn't that GREAT. So what the stock market did to our retirement savings, they're going to do with our health insurance.

An exchange MEANS a cartel. An "easy to use, central place (ie: COMPANY) where you can easily pick the coverage you want" (OR ONE WILL BE ASSIGNED YOU, OF COURSE).

Then electronic record keeping. Of course, this is a good idea, but they need the government to impose it onto doctors, hospitals, etc. Check.

So, this is clearly what we're going to get:

Mandatory insurance for everyone who can possibly afford it (ie: you have a job).

You won't be dropped or rejected for pre-existing conditions, and more people will be covered. This is good, but the bottom line is that more money will be pumping through the insurance cartel than ever.

reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090727/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_4

I think the SADDEST thing is they WANT to you call / write your congress persons. They want EVERYONE to. So the Washington Journal right wing kooks will mix in with those of us who understand history and economics. One big loud noise so that everyone drowns everyone else out. Then we'll be able to say we helped!

We're supposed to create some giant noise machine and when the shouting stops the "thing that will make sense" will be that thing they're going to do anyway.

Folks, the final bill's already been written. The rest is just supposed to add to the drama. I'm not buying any of it anymore.

Hoping for a miracle, but expecting the worst...

[MichiganVote]

1. I couldn't agree w/you more. Sickens me........

[Faygo Kid]

2. You got it. Fix is in. Freepers will scream; that will give the Right cover. But . . .

This is a bill of the insurance companies, by the insurance companies and for the insurance companies.

And big PhRMA, of course, but we knew that going in.

I had hoped for shared sacrifice. What a laugh - this will gut Medicare.

[Horse with no Name]

4. It guts employer sponsored insurance as well

and I really hate to point this out...but we will lose in a landslide if this happens.
People will honestly take to the streets and the Dems will take the fall for this--as they should.
We have enough votes to do the right thing.
If we don't, there is nobody to blame but ourselves.

[roamer65]

3. The legalized extortion (aka insurance) companies want "Romneycare".

They want it just like "no-fault" car extortion. If you don't pay them their "protection" money, then you should be in jail.:sarcasm:

I fucking hate insurance companies.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. Exactly. No fault. It will save money! And we see how that went with car insurance. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Thank you!

Every time some knucklehead brings up the auto insurance comparison to argue for mandates I want to SCREAM!

Has a universal auto insurance mandate made it affordable to everyone? Nope.

Has the mandate led to universal coverage? Nope.

Has (and this is the knee slapper) the auto insurance mandate led to universal single payer auto insurance? Nope!


Don't scoff at the third one. I've seen it proposed to replace the mandatory liability requirement with a tax on gas that would go into an insurance pool. There would no longer be a problem with uninsured motorists because everyone would be covered for liability. You could punish people for bad driving and DUIs and crap through hefty fines. And of course you'd still have to buy private coverage for your vehicle if you have a loan on it.

[regnaD kciN]

12. Not to mention...

...that a) you don't have to obtain auto insurance if you don't have a car, and b) auto insurance will generally cost you no more than $1,000/year. By contrast, with individual mandate health plans, a) you have to buy insurance no matter what, and b) if you have a family, make it more like $1,000/month or more.

[glitch]

5. Excellent analysis, wish everyone could see through propaganda as well. And you a former dittohead.

Gives me hope. Thanks for posting K & R

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. The only way we will get what we want is for all of us to wake up

and take to the streets, massively.

The fix is in, has been from the beginning. Voting, it is a scam too. Just something to keep people calm.

I fear it will take all of us realizing that the power we hold is not in the vote, but in civil action, we have one party, that's it.

[lexanman]

7. considering the laziness to get up and fight

whatever we get, we surely deserve. Over in France, or many other European countries, they revolt in the streets. They get real bad ass. Americans, we get sedentary.

[yodermon]

8. If this bill DOOMS the democrats then a Veto should ensure Obama's Re election. right?

[SoCalDem]

9. and yet people get outraged and sue a bank for a $2 ATM fee

but see nothing wrong in giving up $25-30 of every $100 they "spend" on healthcare.. Would you be okay with breaking a $100 bill & getting $70 in the deal?

[tridim]

13. Obama has said he will veto a bill without a public option. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

14. The public option as it's being CURRENTLY OFFERED wouldn't provide real competition.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090727/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_4

The analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said a government-run health insurance plan proposed by Democrats...

So this is what's being PROPOSED. YOU CAN EXPECT THE FINAL "COMPROMISED" PUBLIC OPTION TO BE EVEN *WEAKER*...

The CBO report estimated only about 10 million to 11 million people would sign up for the public option by 2019...

Again - this is the NON-COMPROMISED Public Option. 10 million after 10 years? AND WHAT THE HELL GOOD IS THAT FOR PROVIDING COMPETITION?

I also think the tone of this article is very telling as well. Look how far the goalposts are shifted. I especially like this quote:

"For every dollar our country spends on health care, less than one penny goes toward health plans' profits.

Now we know that's not true. That isn't true by a LONG shot, but it's there for "balance".

What we're going to get is something "in the middle" which means something EVEN LESS than what THIS is.

We need SINGLE PAYER, not a public option. We need to REPLACE Corporate Health Insurance. AT THE VERY LEAST, make them compete with a gov't run public option.

Here's my bottom line: In order to be considered effective, IT HAS TO *HURT* INSURANCE COMPANIES. IT HAS TO CUT INTO THEIR PROFITS.

If it doesn't cut into the profits of insurance companies, then, IMO, it's NO GOOD.



.