False choices in HC reform?

[SHRED]

Direct and to the point, or full of crap?

On the one hand we have the Republicans. They are for privatization, deregulation and the "free market", all deceptive synonyms for giving all power to, and putting us totally at the mercy of, the corporations. In the Republican world view, we will be forced to buy corporate medical insurance if we can afford it, and simply die if we cannot (or if they cheat us out of our coverage).


On the other hand we have the Democrats. They serve the SAME corporate contributors. But where the Republicans would force us to buy corporate medical "care" by direness of necessity, the Democrats would do it by force of LAW. Hence, they are pushing for a forcible mandate for everyone to buy insurance from an artificial "market" with no options OTHER than corporate insurance. And when the system goes bust from the overhead, and can no longer provide coverage because of unconstrained corporate greed, again people will simply die.

It is a false and ultimately meaningless choice. It is like giving a condemned person a choice of the method of their execution.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-False-Health-Debate-S-by-thepen-100227-884.html

[Edweird]

1. I think that about sums it up. SIngle payer is cheaper and better for the citizens.

But it's bad for the corporations, and our administration LOVES those corporations.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. If we had single payer, everyone would be charged in our taxes.

We all have to pay either way.The "Common Good", even in a social government, isn't free.Do you drive a car? Do you have the choice of buying or not buying insurance?

[SHRED]

3. You have a choice whether to buy car insurance...

...or prove self insured.


---

[daleanime]

4. You have a choice to drive or not...

No one has that choice with health care, now I would rather spent my health care dollars actually getting health care for myself and others, if you rather spent them making a few more rich people in this nation that would be your choice.

[Edweird]

6. The sorry assed car analogy again? Seriously?

Yes, we would have to pay for it through our taxes. So fucking what? There is no 'profit motive' in government programs. Insurance companies are not in it for 'the common good' - they are in it solely to turn a profit. That profit comes from denying care.

[The Wielding Truth]

9. I'm glad you get it.

[Edweird]

11. "I'd rather deal with a bureaucracy that doesn't care if I die, than

an insurance company whose livelihood depends it."

Paraphrased from a DU'er sig line. I am unable to attribute this, as I have forgotten your SN.

[The Wielding Truth]

12. Frighteningly accurate. You nailed it.

[eridani]

8. How stupid do you have to be to prefer--

--a $125/month "tax" to a $450/month "premium?"

Which is cheaper, a government plan where the electorate is demading more value for money, or a corporate system where shareholders demand maximum profits?

[The Wielding Truth]

10. Yep.

[regnaD kciN]

5. The answer for that is "full of crap"...

...because, if you read the current bill, you'll find there's an exemption from the mandate for anyone if premiums come to more than 8% of their income -- a near certainty for anyone outside of high-income earners.

For good or ill, the current (Senate) bill comes as close to having a "pretend mandate" as you can get.

[ixion]

7. great article

kicked and recommended.

I'm really pissed off about the mandate. :grr: