Health care CEO's really do smile when they do this,after all they make billions of dollars this way.
And yes, America is Charlie Brown in this analogy. It's a pretty fair, and simple one too. Lucy is a health insurance company, and the foot ball your policy. Lucy promises to hold the foot ball until Charlie Brown kicks it, just like a health insurance companies promises to, hold in trust, the policies we buy. Lucy tells Charlie Brown that she will hold the foot ball in place when he comes in for the kick, just like a health insurance company will tell you your policy will be there when you need it. Now we both know Lucy isn't going to let Charlie Brown kick that foot ball, she is going to pull it away for her own sadistic amusement. Insurance companies do this for profit. When ever they deny a claim, cancel on a policy holder, or purge an employer's policy from their coverage, they pull the foot ball away from someone they made a promise to, and another fellow American lands on their back.
Let us examine how they convince people that they are the only ones who should be allowed to hold the foot ball of health insurance, despite the bad habit of pulling it away when we need it most.
Argument 1: Government will ration care.
This is different from insurance companies how? At least we can hold government accountable with our vote. And where did the idea come from that the government would ration health care? Canada, France, Great Briton, and Japan certainly do not. Any party in a free nation like ours would quickly be removed from power if they started killing grandma, and while health care companies haven't started euthanasia of old farts yet they do dump them at homeless shelters, other hospitals, and even at the homes of total strangers.
Argument 2: Government will choose your hospital, and your doctor.
Again this is no different than the way things are now. Your insurance provider chooses which hospitals you can, or can not go to, and who your doctors can, or can not be. They even have their own claim review doctors who decide, weather or not the treatment plan, or specialist recommendation of the doctor you did see, is "medically justifiable", and when that review doctor's bonus depends on denying a certain amount of claims, you can bet plenty of people will have that foot ball pulled away at this point too. Would this same problem exist in a government plan? Maybe it would in an American run system, who knows? What I do know is that it's not a problem in any of the above mentioned countries. All those Canadians that come to Minnesota to see a specialist still have that care paid for by their government. All those specialist are there, right by the boarder, because working with the Canadian government is easy, and profitable. That might not always be the case as doctors here are increasingly buried by insurance paper work, and insurance red tape, that takes up to %40 of their total time, and forces them to watch people suffer while they stand by helpless. Would you want to stay in a system, or a country, that forced you to do that? In the future, Canadians might not need to leave their country to see an American doctor.
Argument 3: A Government bureaucrat will stand between you and your health care.
I'm starting to see a patten here, because we already have corporate bureaucrats standing between us, our doctors, our drugs, and our care. It seems the overall strategy here is blame the reform for what the health care industry is already guilty of. Again I will point out the difference between a corporate bureaucrat, and a government bureaucrat. A corporate bureaucrat is paid, by their company, to prevent cost by denying care, and you can't do anything about it. A government bureaucrat is paid, by your tax dollars, to provide you with efficient health care, and if your not happy with it you can get his supervisor, the governor of your state, voted out of office. If the problem is with the whole party we can vote them into minority status. Remember how everyone was pissed off at the republicans by the 2008 election season, yea democracy at work right there.
Argument 4: It's socialist!
So? If your argument is socialism is evil your wrong. Only human beings, are good, or evil. Socialism is just an idea, it's inanimate, and is only as good, or as evil as the people who wield it. Religion can be used for good, or evil. Weapons can be used for good, or evil. Law enforcement can be used for good, or evil, and in fact, our law enforcement is socialized. If your argument is because Hitler was a socialist, wrong again. He was a national socialist, and a dictator. One of the first things the nazis did was force democratic socialist to wear red triangles, and they were some of the first sent to the concentration camps. So if your going to compare a group of people that wants democratic social reform, at least have the decency to compare them to this guy, and not the guy with the funny mustache that tied to kill all the democratic socialist in his own country.
I could go on, and on, but I don't feel like it any more. Having a battle of the wits with the neo-cons out there is like playing chess with a 7 year old that knocks over all the pieces when you declare checkmate, and then declares him self the winner. Tho at least in a chess game you can reach over the table, and clock the ass hole. At least that what I did when my brother tried that crap.
Keith.J.Lemire,
iReporting
P.S.
For all your Christan right wingers out there.
"Then shall the king say to those on his right hand, Come ye, the blessed of my Father, inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I did hunger, and ye gave me to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye received me;naked, and ye put around me; I was infirm, and ye looked after me; in prison I was, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, and we nourished? or thirsting, and we gave to drink? and when did we see thee a stranger, and we received? or naked, and we put around? and when did we see thee infirm, or in prison, and we came unto thee? And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] to one of these my brethren -- the least -- to me ye did [it].Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers; for I did hunger, and ye gave me not to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me not to drink; a stranger I was, and ye did not receive me; naked, and ye put not around me; infirm, and in prison, and ye did not look after me.Then shall they answer, they also, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, or thirsting, or a stranger, or naked, or infirm, or in prison, and we did not minister to thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of these, the least, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
-- Matthew 25: 34-46 Young's Literal Translation
No comments:
Post a Comment