Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Senate Republicans cry real tears over fate of insurance companies

  1. #1
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,885

    Default Senate Republicans cry real tears over fate of insurance companies

    After the rape and pillage of the last several decades, do we really care all that much about the survival of the insurance companies? If they were providing adequate service at a reasonable cost, it might not be so infuriating. But to pay all that money and get so little in return?

    Yet the Senate Republicans, the Party of No, the Handmaidens of Corporate Welfare, are more concerned about losing their political patrons than the fact that people all over the country are, quite literally, dying.

    WASHINGTON The mood was upbeat in early March when scores of powerful lawmakers and lobbyists joined President Obama in the East Room of the White House to talk about fixing the nation's health care system. Still, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, rose to tell Obama that many Republicans had a problem with his plan to let the government compete with private insurers.

    "There's a lot of us that feel that the government is an unfair competitor," Grassley said. "We have to keep what we have now strong, and make it stronger."

    Translation: We can't possibly let you cut into insurance companies' obscene profit margins!

    Three months later, disagreement has turned to discord over a key element of Obama's health care prescription: his insistence on a "public plan" to compete with private insurers. America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, is joined by the American Medical Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others that have expressed misgivings about greater government involvement.

    "We're not sure that the government is very good at running a health plan," said Nancy Nielsen, president of the AMA, which heard Obama defend his plan Monday.

    Except for Medicare, with that measley 3% in administrative costs - and the V.A. system. But we'd rather not talk about that!

    That has led to a number of compromise proposals, designed to inject choice and competition into the market without letting the government set prices or shift costs to the private sector.

    "What I am trying to do and what a public option will help do is put affordable health care within reach for millions of Americans," Obama told the American Medical Association.

    The first Senate and House bills to emerge this month would offer a public plan, but a third bill, in the Senate, to be unveiled soon might not include it. Ten of 11 Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee wrote Obama this month in opposition.

    An analysis by the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, found that a public plan such as Medicare would draw 119 million people away from private insurers. That's because a plan patterned after Medicare could pay doctors and hospitals 20% to 30% less than its private competitors. Limiting who can join and regulating what the plan must pay providers would reduce the upheaval, the analysis said.

    In other words, we need to make sure the people who need it can't get it...Crooks and Liars
    I've been reading up a lot on this and the fight over some form of national healthcare goes back to--get ready--TEDDY ROOSEVELT. I'll try to find a link or two that traces the century-long fight with doctors (who started out wanting to make sure they made money) through to the all-powerful HMO's. It's bloody scary stuff.
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  2. #2
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I like the idea of having a choice. At least if there's a government option the insurance companies can't completely gouge the market the way they've been doing for decades.

    I know some people want a single-payer system, but I don't trust the federal government alone to provide healthcare. Not after the way they've 'borrowed' money from Social Security for so many years.

  3. #3
    Elite Member qwerty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,671

    Default

    The insurance companies could use a little competition. Doesn't capitalism thrive on competition?

    What is the problem here? If they can afford it, people will buy the superior private health coverage. If they can't they're covered too.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 4th, 2009, 08:30 AM
  2. Senate Republicans brake rush to tax AIG bonuses
    By travelbug in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 20th, 2009, 07:44 PM
  3. REAL Denver State Senate results
    By msdeb in forum Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 6th, 2008, 10:49 PM
  4. Treasury Department now set to bailout INSURANCE COMPANIES
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 25th, 2008, 12:20 AM
  5. Moderate Republicans 1, House Republicans 0
    By miss_perfect in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 10th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •