On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:40:37 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Jack wrote:


Be honest and just say you're for government provided health care. Don't
try to push this bull**** on us that the founding fathers meant it to
be. BO may be able to convince your 10 year old of that next Tuesday,
but it won't fly here.

You seem to be jumping to a few conclusions. First, I never said
anything about the founding fathers providing health care. I responded
to a post stating "Congress had no authority to grant 'health care'". I
posted that would come under "promote the general welfare", and
apparently, you agree.

Secondly, as I understand this health care reform, as it now stands,
health insurance will be mandatory. If that is the case, a government
option will be necessary, IMO, to promote competition. As it now stands,
the health insurance industry is not very competitive. I have no strong
desire for a government option to be the only option. I do know,
however, something has to be done on health reform. We are rapidly
approaching 20% GDP on health care expenditures. That is not
sustainable, and, as it is on the backs of businesses, it is anti-
competitive in the global marketplace.

Here's what will happening, in a nutshell. IMO.
The gov, in order to keep the health welfare of the U.S. people
only three steps behind that of Europe/Canada/Austrailia/Japan,
will take action.
Aside from all high-falutin arguments about the Constitution and the
Founding Fathers, there is general agreement among Dems and Reps that
this will be done, as bitter a pill as the Reps find it.
Reality and the 21st Century dictate that.
Given the internet and other means of communications the word has
leaked out that U.S. health care is lagging behind the countries
mentioned above in health care delivery and costs.
There are only quibbles about selected details, details selected
according to whose political ass is being kissed.
The path to accomplish insuring the uninsured, and making insurance
affordable for the lower incomes - without a public option - is to do
it purely through the private insurance companies.
We taxpayers will be taxed or sent deeper into debt by massive gov
payment to insurance companies, and health providers will also suck
harder on gov tit with no oversight or control of cost except that
dictated by insurance company execs.
Gov subsidies to lower income families to pay for private health
insurance is going to happen even without a public option, and even
the Reps have acceded to that reality.
And I'm talking up to 4x poverty level, or about $80k for a family of
4, on a sliding scale.
Good luck voting insurance and health company execs out of office for
stealing your money.
A continuation of the same corporate welfare that has led to the
continual widening of economic classes.
In other words, corporate welfare as usual.
Debt will increase, or taxes will increase either way.
But without the public option, absolute "free enterprise" in the
health care industry will be maintained.
But you WILL be taxed for it. Without representation.
Wonder what the founders would say about that.
To sum up, and this is only my take from observing the fracas, and
with my usual optimism:
Health care reform is here.
Everybody will be provided roughly equivalent health care, like it or
not.
It will be paid for by higher taxation or increased national debt.
It will be provided by either a relatively efficient gov program
somewhat responsive to the taxpayer and cost control, ala Medicare, or
via gov titty milk subsidies to Wall Street health insurance and
health care companies.
Wall street will skim the cream and pass the milk out.
The typical mafia-like casino skimming operation.
Remember AIG, BOA, Goldman Sachs?
Same ****.
Cast your lot with either one. There are no other choices.

--Vic