Should We Restrict Public Services for Suspected Republicans?

I think so. I herewith submit my name, candidacy and personage for the position on the Health Care Rationing Committee (HCRC). My deep knowledge of and intimate experience with Republicans makes me exceptionally qualified to further the the committee’s mission.

WASHINGTONriprepublicans — The Republican National Party (RNC) has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats might…deny medical treatment to Republicans.

A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government could check voting registration records, “prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system.”

It asks, “Does this possibility concern you?”
Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the question was “inartfully worded.” –> full article

What say we actually start doing things the Republicans are lying about.

The saddest part about all this, is the Republican strategist know their constituency is stupid enough to be cajoled by lies into fear. If they were smart enough to figure that out, I think they would be offended.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by brewski on August 28, 2009 - 6:35 pm

    Cliff,
    Your biggest weakness is that you see politics as some us vs. them war of righteouness. It is sort of like watching a Florida fan talking about Florida State. They are sincere in their blind hatred, without actually having any reasons.

    But you say “aha, but I do have reasons, Republicans are lying scum and the Dems are moral and noble.”

    I wish life were that simple. But as the daily lies that comes from the mouths of the Dems are just as disgusting as the lies that come out of the GOP.

    For example, Obama keeps saying that “If you like your current health care plan, no one will take it away from you.” That is just as big of a lie as death panels are. Obama knows very well that tens of millions of people who currently have employer provided plans will be dumped by their employers since it will be easier and cheaper to do so. I don’t know why Obama keeps repeating this lie over and over, other than he is just a born bold face liar.

  2. #2 by cav on August 29, 2009 - 7:17 am

    The little people are divided.

    Division is not only the result of, but the device used to further the control and rapaciousness of the most aggressive and predatory elites . They want it all and are clearly getting what they want. Until there is serious pushback from the little people, of all persuasions, who finally see past the divisions, there’s little chance of correcting this sham of a democracy.

    It seemed to me we were connecting pretty well around the notion that everyone should have the kind of healthcare that the congresscritters have.

    Let’s not drop that ball.

  3. #3 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on August 29, 2009 - 12:38 pm

    Cav, Brewski, you’re both right. Polarization is, indeed, a tool of the powerful to keep the masses ignorant. And Cliff is, indeed, a tool of the Democrats.

    I guess my main concern is that the Republicans are more blatantly using these lies and fear tactics than the Democrats are, from what I see. Brewski, you must be able to perceive a difference between the two lies you presented–unless using the death panel lie as an example was merely an expedient to make you appear more evenhanded in your judgments.

    As things are, businesses have already begun to drop people from their employer-provided plans, without anything being done by government to encourage it. There is never really any security in employer-provided coverage, anyway. Or private coverage, for that matter, when it includes premature end-of-service options for the insurer and loopholes to free up the insurer from actually covering what it says it will cover.

    I think what Obama is saying is that, if you want to keep your private, non-employer insurance, you can. The government isn’t about to make you give it up. If your EMPLOYER takes away the health benefits HE provides you as a part of your compensation, that’s his business, but the government isn’t going to force him to do that, either. I know that it’s a thin line, and Obama’s statement on the matter is, indeed, somewhat disingenuous, if nothing else than because he should know that the healthcare bill will inevitably result in changes in employer-provided healthcare (albeit at the unforced choice of the employer, who is wont to change healthcare plans whenever it benefits him to do so, regardless of government involvement), so he should present it as such. Regardless, H.R. 3200 includes the creation of a panel to investigate ways to encourage businesses to keep their current employee plans.

    I agree, cav, that we should have the care the congresspersons have, on one condition: that their and everyone else’s coverage cease to be employment-based. As it stands, asking congress to give up their care is akin to outlawing employee-based care. They receive it as a part of their compensation. The Dems aren’t asking everyone to give up their private and employee care, so why should Congress have to?

    Personally, I would prefer a single-payer system with supplemental private insurance for those who want it. I want medicine to be provided by an independent medical industry, but with rules. No one, for instance, should have to go bankrupt to take care of a treatable illness for which there is a surplus of available treatment resources.

    And to anyone who misunderstands the concept of an unutilized resource surplus (if it’s available, they’ll sell it, right?), consider this: in today’s market, you pretty well KNOW that you could secure medical services for most illnesses if you had the money for it. You pretty well KNOW that, if you could pay cash, you could get cancer treatment, a cabinet of fresh-out-of-the-lab prescriptions, and elective brain surgery to trim off some of the extra fat. And, if you signed a waiver and paid a little more, you might even be able to get all of that within an unsafe amount of time. Much of our medical services operate on the same principle as DeBeers diamonds: restrict the excess supply to keep prices high.

    Now, I recognize that kidney transplants are limited by kidneys, but I have to wonder how many kidneys have been allowed to become unusable, even in a market as desperate for them as our own, just because people couldn’t pony up the dough in time. But the fact that you could get what you want, when you want, and that hospitals and clinics could still fulfill their contractual insurance obligations regardless, is proof that we have more available than we are utilizing, and that somebody, somewhere, is playing a money game with peoples’ health and lives.

    Just look at Salt Lake right now. There have been at least two free medical and dental service events already this year–doctors, nurses, and dentists volunteering their time and money to provide what the industry CAN BUT WILL NOT.

    This discussion about healthcare, to me, is not so much about socialism and capitalism as it is about the people unifying and declaring their independent power over their health from the rulers of a dictatorial financial institution that limits the extant choices of doctors, researchers, the general public, and the needy. If working people in this country were charged so much for food that many of them starved, it would be time to revolt from the farming institutions just as much as 1776 was a time to revolt from Great Britain. Healthcare, once available, takes on the same necessity qualities as food does–some is better than others, but everybody needs AT LEAST the icky-tasting stuff. As we stand at the window of the clinics, their doors locked by the designs of the industry controllers, and starve, I see there being nothing wrong with uniting in common rebellion against the monarchs and aristocrats of healthcare and insurance administration. After all, isn’t rebellion from such men exactly what group-rule was created for?

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  4. #4 by Ben D. on August 29, 2009 - 7:34 pm

    Brewski has pretty much got your number. Too much us and them in your rant for me to hear what you are saying. If Repubs do one thing should you follow suit? In fact there is plenty to blame on both sides. Remember the old joke: “How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.” Is more true than you can possibly imagine. Why is there such a blind faith in trusting what the DNC says and absolute disdain for anything said by the RNC? It is obvious that you completely ignore the Independent party and any other”lesser” group. Why not swallow hard and just admit your biased, not willing to accept any other view point than your own or one handed down from the holy DNC? You can’t change and you will be crying when the small parties all come together and unify all the disenfranchised voters to kick the Dems out of public office. Don’t get too panicky, the Repubs will be lucky to remain in any seats that are up for bids as well. The rosy picture painted before the election has changed to a chant reminiscent of the Hoover days where prosperity was “just around the corner”. Obama does seem to carry enough clout to get congress behind him. there are too many that need attention (Pelosi, Reid, Franke, Dodd Etc) that make it difficult to unify the party on any controversial issue. Pelosi has spent too much time trying to slow down the Bush Administration that she can’t get her mind around the idea that the Dems have complete control. All it takes is a little negotiations and she’s home free. But thats not her style so instead we see that only small bills can get passed while important issues languish with no hope of passage. So who do you think the Independent candidate will be in 2012? Most likely a new comer to Washington and likely someone who isn’t even a politician right now.

  5. #5 by Ironical Chronicle on August 29, 2009 - 7:51 pm

    Here is the single payer plan at work. This is from today’s paper up there in BC Canada.

    Take particular note of “Ed’s” comment in the comment section.

    http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=04fc4df3-4315-43fa-8887-55b4e20a42eb

  6. #6 by Ironical Chronicle on August 29, 2009 - 7:53 pm

    “Until there is serious pushback from the little people, of all persuasions, who finally see past the divisions, there’s little chance of correcting this sham of a democracy”.

    Fife and Drum cav, fife and drum…

    “It seemed to me we were connecting pretty well around the notion that everyone should have the kind of healthcare that the congresscritters have”.

    So how do we pay for it? If we got what they got they wouldn’t be special anymore. Don’t think they will go for it, do you?

  7. #7 by cav on August 30, 2009 - 6:47 am

    When I wrote ‘term limits’ I meant: Only one of us gets past 105. We need a new math, new clocks and new calendars. And new maps.

  8. #8 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on August 31, 2009 - 10:21 pm

    IC–Gosh. That is SUCH a horror story. I can’t even believe what horrible things happen in a single-payer system.

    Of course, what YOU describe is POORLY-ADMINISTERED single-payer healthcare. That is to say, Canada approaches single-payer healthcare on a province-to-province basis, yet still allowing people in one province to receive emergency services in another.

    Hmm. . .but wait a minute. Many Americans, attempting to receive care in another state, would experience even LESS coverage than this man experienced in another province!

    So, YOUR problem is that Canada’s universal healthcare system, despite providing more to this man than an average American could expect, isn’t quite universal enough (see the man’s actual quote, in the article). I agree. Canada should have a better system of universally pooled risk, and America should follow suit. Glad to see we agree on this.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  9. #9 by Becky Stauffer on September 1, 2009 - 12:03 am

    IC/Glenn,

    You ask “How do we pay for it?” Well Glenn, how are we paying for it now? Don’t be deceived, we are most definitely paying for it now in a big way and getting bigger. There’s no such thing as a charity case in a hospital — it’s just an expense that gets shared among the paying patients.

  10. #10 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on September 1, 2009 - 4:50 am

    Thank you, Becky, for pointing out an obvious fact that so few people seem capable (or willing) of grasping: there is nothing about private insurance that innately increases the availability of healthcare. If anything, it restricts it, by inflating prices for our good friend, the profit-motive.

    If you look at the analysis by the C.O.B. on July 17, 2009, you will see that they estimate an overall cost of H.R. 3200 of 239 billion dollars over 10 years, with an estimated increase in coverage of 16 million people. Let’s see. . .that’s 23.9 billion per year. . .about one-hundredth of present expenditure. . .to cover at least an additional 5.3 percent of the population. Wow. Even with imprecise estimates, its hard to make a coverage efficiency increase of 400% for 16 million people seem unjustifiable (not to mention the fact that they’ll actually HAVE coverage).

    Of course, that includes a tax increase for the rich. And it doesn’t include the expiring tax cuts for the rich. So it’ll be even less of an outlay than presently predicted.

    But I believe Glenn was talking about paying for everyone to have Congress’s quality of care, a problem he’s been harping about on more than one page. Let me answer it, at last, to give ICU some closure:

    Congress’s care is based upon two premises, the first of which I don’t necessarily support: (1) that they are so important as our elected officials that superior care is justified; and (2) that their care is part of an employment care package.

    The second reason is really the crux of the justification for them keeping their care. They’re not mandating that everybody take on inferior health insurance. Rather, they want to provide a public OPTION for those who want it. If they don’t require everyone else to give up their employer insurance, why should they give up theirs?

    I believe that a preferable system is single-payer basic insurance, with supplemental private insurance. The single-payer should be sufficient for everyone’s needs, however; otherwise, we’ll end up with the same problem we have now, but with government supplementing hospital and pharmaceutical income even more.

    But cav is right, too. We MUST have pharmaceutical regulation. If not, the healthcare bill will only serve to obligate Congress to pay out sums that Big Pharm sets, and we will simply funnel more and more tax money into big business.

    Then again, there’s the proposal by one Republican congressman (the name escapes me) that we simply mandate that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions. Of course, they currently do–just with a tarp.

    But how would he pay for the increase in the companies’ risk? Why, with tax subsidies, of course! It’s not really fair, after all, to force a company to take on additional risk. But that’s why we need a public option. Forcing the companies to follow set rules may not be the best choice, but forcing them to compete in a market they themselves adulate for the supposed benefits of competition? Ironically chronically appropriate.

    I must ask: why is it that the Republican solution to economic woes or poor business practices is to pay tax dollars to the scumsuckers? Aren’t they supposed to oppose taxation? And yet, you see them handing public money over to private hands every chance they get: school vouchers, tax incentives, free office-space, subsidies to the biggest and the richest, and, now, subsidies to insurance companies. The solution to our problems is always the wizardry of the market. I wish they’d grow up and realize it’s all just a magic trick–no one can really pull cash from their ear, no matter how many donations they make appear in your campaign fund.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  11. #11 by Ironical Chronicle on September 1, 2009 - 8:13 am

    Becky, we will be covering those with no coverage now, and I my view will never see any of the savings that people are expecting once the government takes over. With the kowtowing to the insurance industry and big pharma that Obama has prostrated himself to, this bill will not give us the desired result. We won’t get the savings. The profit is hardwired into the system no matter how it is fiddled with. Watch the movements of lobbyists and PAC’s in this effort and quit listening to the elected leaders who beholden to the elements I stated above.

    All the long winded theory about what could, should and may happen is belied by the reality that the money for this doesn’t exist, and no one with care now is going to opt for something they do not know, and the government runs.

    It would be nice to have the coverage our representatives get, to not have this ourselves or to talk about anything less just highlights the hypocrisy of our leaders, and their general lack of commitment to fairness, or anything that would be in their job description, service to We the People.

    The moot part of this is that Canada’s system is well run, it is just aging and has no money itsef to do the required upgrading. If you were not aware, the system is collapsing, and Canadians are looking at private options, especially in Quebec and Alberta. This is happening as Obama points to Canada as a model. Sadly people here do not know what is going on up there. It has become quite a mess, and this is with a professional class and culture that has far more commitment to its craft and dedication than anything I have ever seen in US health care generally. I except the Nuns in this generalizations, they have been incredible.

    In BC the crisis is very acute, there is no money and care falls to that factor. No matter what system you wish to implement it won’t matter if there is no money. Becky, medicare is now being funded with money printed out of thin air, it isn’t money we have or are paying for today. That is the reality, and soon 10′s of millions of more people will be on it. As it stands, we are in a death spiral. The question is why?

    Current estimates of the seemingly never ending commitment in Afghanistan are up to 6 trillion dollars. War in that nation bankrupted the Soviet Union. Our experience with unwinnable war in Vietnam cost so much that the bulk of the Johnson’s Great Society became a Federally unfunded mandate. All of this erriely familiar. Obama is making a grave error, but likely has no choice, being forced by the real powers that run America.

    We cannot do both things, we either get out of Afghanistan, or we attempt to repair our health care system. One or the other.

    The two commitments cancel each other, and guarantee the failure of both, and I see the similarities of a failed Johnson presidency coming into the lap of Obama if he cannot differentiate, or have the power to choose the right one. Health care for Americans of course is the correct option.

    He though cannot escape the Afghan conundrum, those who put him into power will never let him. In this he is a puppet, and as such his presidency is quite doomed.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: