Government Healthcare
Government-run health care will be very, very bad for seniors. [1] [2]
Obama himself has admitted "experts" will need to build a consensus around "what works" which might include telling Grandma to take the painkillers instead of having life-extending surgery.
Sarah Palin called this cabal of experts a death panel and the Associated Press is going for her throat. They're saying her claim has been "widely discredited" and that it's all been "debunked" [1].
Which is strange because a panel of people deciding who lives and dies (by Barrack Obama's own admission) sounds a lot to me like a death panel. The Associated Press -more than any other group touting itself as a 'news organization'- is just a sounding board for liberal editorialists. No wonder the local papers are canceling their AP licenses.
The truth is Democrats have major concerns with government run health care, but you won't read that in the news. I've read article after article on RCP.com where Barack Obama supporters are opposing these deals and sometimes referring to the government comittees as "death panels".
The first person I can remember opposing Obama's health care agenda was Mary Landrieu of Lousiana. Harry Reid was adamantly opposed to the single-payer option. And there are a host of other democrats against it.
This whole issue will be a major albatross around Obama's neck. Entrade is majorly betting it will never pass in any form, and the companies who could be destroyed from the health care legislation are seeing their stock prices climb. If investors thought they were going to lose money, they would be selling it off like hot bricks.
It will not pass, and the Democrats are going to lose big next year.
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
12:29 PM
1 Comments:
Seniors in America already have Government-run healthcare in the form of Medicare. As far as i've heard, they have not been forced to die off en masse. I don't see how you can define something like this as a death panel when you already have insurance companies deciding not to treat people who are going to die because it is unprofitable. Caring for someones health is not always going to be a profitable endeavour, so they cut them loose through loopholes in the contract. It's happened so many times. The main goal of a corporation is to maintain (or increase) profits for the shareholders, and I don't see how philosophically that can be reconciled with caring for sick people. Their profits rise as the price of premiums increase and the depth of coverage declines.
America already spends more money in healthcare per person than any other country, and because it goes to subsidising private companies and not actual care, millions aren't insured, many of the ones who are are underinsured, and everyone still has to pay a sizable sum to be insured. It's absurd.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home