|
My read is that Conyers was complaining, in htat I dont blame him. As Ron stated, this is not the first time.
In my view, trying to sit on the fence between privatised care and what could be a nationalized healthcare care system - just complicates everything further and will not produce tangable results. Either way it will never be perfect. The only way way, healthcare costs will be reduced is when the masses pay for it. The only way to do that, is to pay taxes for it, just like social security and medicare that most of us seem to pay without much objection. A National Healthcare programs, social security. medicare - other healthcare programs drawn into or under one administration, veterans for one is the solution. In similar logic, that is what George Bush did when he organized the Homeland Security Department.
It is perhaps, a fundamentalist approach. However, I see little in terms of how those who may work for a company that does not provide this insurance already, will be made to do so in a fair competition environment with others that do.
There are several versions of the Healthcare bill, House version, Senate versions ones that vary by party and committees, etc. Too confusing to follow, to the extent that not even the President can understand what is going on. By the time a final bill comes out, we can expect it will be so watered down in the end at best it would provide just another insurance company, one that is supposedly in competition with private ones. Similar to going to a dentist where a crown may cost (lets say) $400 but the dentist with charge you $600. The mandate that all companies provide insurance is barely alive, even blue dogs (especially some southern politicians) are trying to kill key elements that would perhaps give the bill some teeth.
I know of numerous retired persons who get new knees, get fixed up at the hospital at enormous expense but wind up living better lives in thier golden years as a result of programs such as medicare. To me that is a good thing. How to expand this phenomenon to all is the challenge. This bill will be laced with special interest provisions, heathcare for you, not for the other guy. Congressman, senators, veterans, retired persons ... they all get heathcare - but who (really) pays for it? I hate to pay taxes, too. What I really hate, is when taxes comes from unruly or non-catergorized sources.
But whether one calls it taxes or insurance premiums that falls on the burden of those who have it, what difference does it make? In many other country's, that cost being shared does not place itself on the ability to compete at the company's level of expenses. I would prefer that companies had nothing to do with my care and subject to the manipulation. So, if it be like the Canadians, the French and the English -I am for that.
They are taxing cigs for healtcare now, sugar, candy, tanning beds, botox, facial work, alcohol - these are all next. The potential is, a bunch of fluffy and unaccountable laws that are not categorized into the purposes they are intended to serve.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Yet another MI Democrat ( from the East Side of the State ) - sticking his foot in his mouth and not even realizing it!
