« Poor Donkeys… | Main | Glenn Beck on the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act” & the possible repercussions »
Best Progressive Idea on Health Insurance Yet
By Lt. Ripley | May 8, 2009
Larry nails it in substance and tone:
How bout an opt-out clause!
Hey, Mini Barfus, I’ve got a great idea. How bout you bozos in the senate insure EVERY SWINGIN’ HICK in this country with the EXACT SAME insurance that YOU boys recieve? How bout it, Mini? And then, whoever doesn’t like it can opt out. Problem solved! Everybody’s happy. The Pubbies and the inbred go-it-alone righties can have their OWN private insurance, or none at all. And the REST of us get the primo coverage that you get, Mini! You see, Mini, we DON’T need more “cops”. We neend I-N-S-U-R-A-N-C-E! BTW, hope that your insurance covers lip strain, ’cause yours are firmly attached on industy’s ass!
by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!
Source here.
Spelling, punctuation and grammar errors are all his. I love the opt-out option, though in order for a national insurance program to come close to breaking even, you have to get every single person on board. Healthy, sick, young, old, fat or thin. But hey, if you’re all about getting what someone else has, and the only thing standing in your way is a bunch of naysayers, his idea is completely rational and sane. At least he is honest about the mentality and shows it for what it really is- something that the rest of the Progressive movement are careful to cover up.
Topics: Max Baucus, Socialism, Liberal Shenanigans, Welfare State, Healthcare, Stupid things the Left does/says, Society and Culture, Zombie Apocalypse |
3 Responses to “Best Progressive Idea on Health Insurance Yet”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
The private health insurance model cannot work. It is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed. It can only work for all of us under two conditions: 1) It is subsidized, and/or 2) we are all forced to buy their product. It is no accident we have 50 million uninsured at this time - that is the nature of private insurance.
Max Baucus, heavily influenced by the millions in private bribes he has received from the health care, pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, is guiding us towards a system where we will all be forced to buy private insurance. Progressives are asking not for a subsidy, but rather for a “public option” - the right to buy into Medicare, which is much cheaper and more efficient. But the health insurance companies know that if the public option is allowed, they will soon go out of business.
So we have a bought senator who is going to push private health insurance down our throats. Now if you can for one second exit your Dem/Rep paradigm, you might join forces with us in fighting Baucus and the insurance companies.
I really don’t think you understand insurance very well. Not being snarky - just honest.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
If the uninsured actually constituted a problem to be fixed, then yes, you are completely correct.
The difference lies in our view of what the ideal outcome is. I don’t believe the number of uninsured is a big issue. In any voluntary system, you are going to have a number who chose to not be insured (for a variety of reasons) plus a number between plans, with a very small amount who cannot buy into the system.
I do understand insurance. But the difference in opinion stems in the starting point. If I agreed with your premise (that all should be insured-public, private), then we would not be debating here. We would probably be fighting for the same system and outcome. But as we do not, I cannot support any kind of mandatory or state funded system. Private or public.
To reiterate- I realize it helps you to think that I just am ignorant of the issue. But I can assure you that I am not. We’re just starting off from different points.
I have my own opinions on what would improve upon what we have, some of which would include tort and insurance reform. But none rely on increased Gov, intervention or control.
May 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The uninsured are comprised of healthy people who do not want to pay for insurance, poor and working poor who cannot afford insurance, people with preexisting conditions who insurers refuse to insure. Most of them do not “choose” to be uninsured.
Insurance companies have to pay high commissions to agents to sift through the population looking for healthy and profitable clients. They have to generate a profit for investors. They have to push as many costs as they can onto others - government, hospitals, doctors. And they have to deny claims whenever they think they can get away with it.
Therefore, it is in the interest of insurance companies not to insure sick and poor people, and they avoid them. Therefore, the business model is inoperable. They can only effectively serve all (or most) of us be either having people forced to buy their product, or by being subsidized. They will take either, but they will not accept competition from the public sector.
Notice who the government insures - seniors (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid). It is no accident. The private sector could not take care of these people, and dumped them on government.
I’m not clear in my mind about people who choose not to carry insurance. It’s a complciated issue, but basically, if they get ill, they will 1) go broke, and then 2) dump their costs on all of us. So, they free riders.