Joe Mirabella

Why I want to drop the healthcare bill

Filed By Joe Mirabella | March 15, 2010 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Canada, health care reform, Insurance Reform, president obama, Public Option, single payer health care, universal health care

I'm over it! The bill the President is pressing forward is not at all what progressives hoped for when we elected Obama, so I'm not going to pretend to support it.

If the Democratic Party were interested in supporting meaningful healthcare reform, we would be debating Medicare Part E (for everyone). Instead, our reps are debating just how much more money the corrupt and abusive insurance industry is going to get from our hard earned wages.

We do not need insurance companies to have a good health care system in this country. Remember, insurance companies don't make anything. They don't do anything to help someone who is sick. Their only purpose is to funnel money. They are the middle man. It is time we cut out the middle man.

We can look at single payer models throughout the world in other wealthy nations, like our neighbors to the north in Canada, and see quite clearly how a single payer national health care system works. It works well. No one ever goes bankrupt because they get sick. Health care is not a privilege, it is a right.

Don't get me wrong, the current system sucks. I know that. We just spent $140 for generic medicine! But if we don't do it right this time around, our politicians will never re-visit health care for as long as I live.

I am sick and tired of bottom up economics. The bank bailouts were bad enough, but why would we be willing to marry ourselves to the insurance companies that got us into this mess for next five or more generations? Why do we need CEOs that make $20 million or more running the system? I don't get it.

The President called for a vote within the next 10 days. If our congressmen and women do not pass a bill that has real market competition with the option for anyone to buy into a potential future single payer option, I'm done. That option has to be cheaper than any commercial product. After all, after 13 months of debate, if you don't know that the public option is a better economic lower priced option, then where have you been?

It's a deal breaker for me. No public option, no support. My vote and political influence is turning elsewhere. Where? I'll have to figure that out by November. I know I'm not alone, so perhaps enough of us can actually make an difference. Or not. But at least I know I spoke up before it was too late. Have you?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Eric Payne | March 15, 2010 1:23 PM

The current bill is not health care "reform."

It is not even "health insurance industry" reform.

It is the most reaching of federal laws for a specific industry I can recall ever having been written. It will become illegal for each and every citizen of the United States to not purchase one specific industry's product.

It will, ultimately, allow that industry to shelter itself completely in the state which has the least restrictive laws and guidelines overseeing the product of that industry.

It will subsidize the customers who cannot afford that industry's product, to ensure those customers purchase that product, so those customers do not violate the new federal law which makes the absence of owning that product illegal.

If the above-mentioned product were "food," I might be a little more comfortable with the government taking such a stance; though I'd still, probably, feel the entire concept was an invasion of an individuals personal rights and freedoms, and wonder where that invasion might land next.

The government now owns a majority position in General Motors... is there a potential future "own a Chevy or pay a fine!" bill if GM cannot recover from the sea of red ink in which it is currently deluged?

This proposed legislation went from real change to the health insurance industry's wet dream. The day it gets signed into law, the boards of directors of that handful of health insurance providers are going to achieve a massive, mutual climax... and clean themselves off using the dollar bills of taxpayers who are already counting their pennies simply to balance a budget ensuring they have food and minimal shelter in their lives.

It is NOT what we wanted. But I believe it will save lives. It stinks, but I support it, but I have little chance of convincing my arch-conservative, homophobic Mormon Congressman to vote for it.

I do believe this: Obama needs a win, and this is his chance. If he fails at this, any progress on ENDA, DADT and DOMA is flat-out doomed.

Juston Thouron Juston Thouron | March 15, 2010 5:45 PM

In 1945 the people of the UK voted Winston Churchill out of office.

Winston Churchill.

Think about it. They voted Churchill out of office.

Why?

Well, for one the people of Great Britain were tired after almost seven years of sacrifices and wanted government to acknowledge that health care is a right. They wanted to transition from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy.

For another, Churchill made a campaign blunder during a radio address when he said that a Labour government would have to use "some form of gestapo" to implement their "socialist" policies. Sound familliar? Sound like a 21st century American conservative talking point? Of course, because Churchill was a Conservative. But the people of the U.K. weren't susceptible to such blatant fear tactics, were insulted at Churchill's implication that anyone who was seriously considering his opponent was a socialist sympathizer and they billed him for his presumption.

But the people of the U.K. gave the boot to Churchill and voted for the comparatively bland Clement Atlee. And from Atlee's Labour government came the British National Health Service, composed of four single-payer health care systems. They cover all of their citizens and do it for approximately 10% of GDP. Today, any politician in the U.K. who does not voice support for the NHS is considered unelectable. Our health care GDP is around 17% with around 15% of the population uninsured with an additional number of underinsured.

Atlee, not Churchill, was voted the greatest British prime minister of the 20th century in a 2004 poll of 139 professors.

Behavior like Churchill's will not get you voted out of office in the U.S. Instead, it will get you regular appearances on Fox News for free branding and campaign advertising under the guise of doing an 'interview' or an 'opinion peace,' and people running around the streets of America with your name on their signs, while they talk about how nice your hair looks today.

A. J. Lopp | March 15, 2010 7:21 PM

On February 5 Bill Moyers interviewed Dr. Margaret Flowers about her activism to get a single-payer system --- but the Obama White House tuned her out, claiming that a single-payer system is politically impossible at this time.

[...HERE...] is a link to the PBS website. You can also find a transcript of her interview using the TRANSCRIPTS prompt on the navigation bar on that webpage.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | March 16, 2010 3:33 AM

Obamas health care bill is manna from heaven for HMO's, insurance giants like AIG, still passing our hundred of millions of our dollars as bonuses and Big Pharma, parasites who make obscene profits on drugs. And if they don't get the money we don't get the drugs.

For the rest of us the Democrats scam bill is just a rerun of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We're goona get burned. Again.

The only way a good bill will be written is if it's done by the AFL-CIO, nurses and the phyisicians for single payer health care.

Congress and the lotters lap dog in the White House should be cut out of the loop and forced to give us socialized medicine.

If they can't or won't they're unfit to rule.

There is no ideological reason the bill had to be this way. It's not like the right is happy or that the left is jumping for joy. Liberals are probably the happiest of any group, and they're not all gung ho about it.

One would think that they at least messed up the politics of it at some point.

Health insurance reform has already passed. It passed the house and the senate. There's no dropping it.

It's water under the bridge.

And it will help people. Maybe it won't help as much as it could've or as many people. But it will help more than now. And there's no reason to throw out the pie just because everyone can't have as big of piece as they wanted.

A. J. Lopp | March 16, 2010 5:56 PM

Tavis Smiley interviewed documentary-film-maker Michael Moore recently [...transcript here...], and Moore pointed out that under the new health care bill (he did not specify whether the House version or Senate version) the "no denying coverage for pre-existing condition" regulation kicks in after 6 months for children, but not until 2014 for adults. Thus, people with serious illnesses such as cancer will need to survive for four years before this new bill will even help them!

Secondly, he pointed out that under the new bill, that once these provisions kick in, the insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, but they can still deny coverage for particular types of treatments. So we have gone from "We can't cover you because you have cancer" to "Yes, we cover your cancer, but we don't cover chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, or surgery, or any of the other common cancer therapies."

Bottom line: The new health care bill apparently still has loopholes that you could fly a Boeing 747 through. And that's exactly the way the insurance companies want it.