BEWARE THE TROJAN HORSE

BEFORE MAKING A DECISION AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR HEALTH CARE ONE SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING. WHO WOULD YOU TRUST TO WRITE A HEALTH BILL OR EVEN HAVE A FINGER IN IT;S CREATION.

HILLARY CLINTON THE WANNABE SAVIOUR (REMEMBER THE SECRET MESS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE TENURE OF THOSE TWO DEVIANTS, (ONE FOR POWER THE OTHER FOR SEX).
I WOULDN'T THEM WRITING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HEALTH OF MY ANIMALS MUCH LESS ME.


HOW ABOUT THE LIKES OF JOHN EDWARDS. A TRIAL LAWYER WHO MAKE MILLIONS SUING THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, THIS WOULD GIVE YOU THOUGHTS OF WHAT HOLES ARE IN THE COVERAGE FOR HIM TO HAVE MADE WHAT HE DID.

SHARPTON, DINGLE, SPECTRE, REED, PELOSI, OBAMA, JUST ADD THE NAMES OF THE REST OF WASHINGTON TO THIS LIST, THIS WOULD BE WHO YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR HEALTH DARE.

JUST REMEMBER THE TAKING OVER OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS JUST SHORT OF TAKING OVER THE MEDICAL FACILITY TOO. YOU REMEMBER THE DEBAUCHEL AT WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL.



MY OPINION DAVE ANDERSON.


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |

Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: Americans need to ask themselves if they really want to drive private insurers out of the medical marketplace, because that's what President Obama's plan would do.

The public should be thankful these days for any small favor it gets. Here's one: The White House health care reform juggernaut appears to be losing steam.

A few weeks ago, the administration lost Tom Daschle, the man it was depending on to steer its agenda through Congress. Now it's finding that not everyone out there shares its sense of urgency. With the economy in deep trouble and the banking system still largely paralyzed, fixing health care — which has lots of problems but no crisis — can wait.

The debate has barely begun. Let it be a very long one.

Maybe, for a year or two, the politicians should do nothing more than talk. That would be far better than to rush ahead with the plan that the president was promoting during his campaign and, we have to assume, would prefer to see enacted now.

As we said at the time, Obama's plan is a blueprint for socialization in stages. It starts with a basically good idea — setting up a truly national market (which we don't have now) for private insurance — and stacks the odds against the insurers by putting a tax-subsidized plan in the mix.

The private plans would have to be at least as generous as the public plan; this was stated explicitly by the Obama campaign. However, they would be denied its subsidy, so it would be impossible for them to match its benefits and still make money.

It would be like herding sheep into the fold and letting the wolf in. Or you can think of the public plan as a Trojan horse. Once allowed inside the gates of the health insurance market and given an unfair advantage, it will eventually out-compete its private rivals and gain monopoly power.

At least two interest groups, big labor and the insurers, get this.

Unions that want to see government-run health care see the public insurance plan as a crucial step toward that ultimate goal. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has been circulating petitions insisting that Americans need "the choice of a public plan, so we're not left at the mercy of the same private insurance companies that have gotten us into the mess."

Insurers see their survival in the medical market at stake. As a result, Obama is already having trouble keeping all the health care players at the table.

Last week, the AFSCME and another union, the Service Employees International Union, pulled out of the Healthcare Reform Dialogue, a coalition of unions, employers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, patients, drug companies and consumers. The group had been meeting since last September. According to members who spoke to the New York Times, they could not agree on two issues. One was the proposed mandate on employers to pay for insurance. The other was Obama's public insurance plan.

Politically, health insurers are an easy target. They get no attention when they do one part of their job — protecting consumers from being ruined by medical bills — and plenty of attention when they do the bad-cop work of controlling costs.

As much as possible, they say no to exotic, untested and wasteful medical procedures. They earn the wrath of doctors by doing so, but they keep premiums from being even worse than they are now.

They also use their bargaining power to get discounts for their policyholders on drugs and medical procedures. If the government were to take over their job, it would have to do exactly the same things, only with no competition to give consumers a choice.

All the chatter about health care reform really boils down to the question of who will hold the commanding economic heights and pay most of the bills. Will that ground be shared by government and a viable private-sector insurance business, as it is now, or will government take it all?

The choice is between giving consumers a real market of competing insurers and steering them steadily toward single-payer.

That's a weighty decision, and it must not be rushed.



Email To Friend |