"Liar, liar, pants on fire."
Posted on 08/16/2009 9:20:30 AM PDT by Smokeyblue
Apparently ready to abandon the idea, President Barack Obama's health secretary said Sunday a government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul.
The White House indicated it could jettison the contentious public option and settle on insurance cooperatives as an acceptable alternative, a move embraced by some Republicans lawmakers who have strongly opposed the administration's approach so far.
Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the White House would be open to co-ops instead of a government-run public option, a sign Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory on the must-win showdown.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," she said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition."
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said co-ops might be a politically acceptable alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has assailed.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
1. “almost 50 million uninsured. “
This number keeps climbing and nobody challenges it.
2. “I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” (Sebelius) said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition.”
Sebelius and Obama, showing their respect for the free market.
SCRAP THE BILL.
"Liar, liar, pants on fire."
ObamaCare Health Plan : Deal ? or No Deal ? ... Howie , the public says...... NO DEAL !!!!
Do not lose the passion, folks....his agenda must be crushed.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
TORT REFORM. HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL. THOSE ARE THE PRINCIPLES.
Republicans, you better wake up and not let Hussein claim a victory here--the cooperatives forced upon the industry by government is not the pursuit of liberty. Keep your MITTS off healthcare. Period.
Exactly.
I’m not opposed to that idea but I don’t believe it for one second. The Dems heads will explode. They want free health care, the last thing they want is to be forced to buy insurance. They would rather spend that money on other things and let us pay for their health care.
Dem Senator: Public option is dead
Hot Air ^ | August 16, 2009 | ED MORRISSEY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2317329/posts
Don’t believe it!
Reject Health Care Cooperatives — Trojan Horse for the Public Option
Written by Larry Greenley
http://www.jbs.org/freedom-campaign/5165
It was just two weeks ago when I posted, “Oppose Obama’s Stealth Government Takeover of Health Care,” which warned about the intention of President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to get Congress to approve health care reform legislation with a “public option” that would put our nation on the path to a completely government-run health care system (See also our newly posted, “Obama’s Orwellian Health Care Reform.”). Back then in mid-July it appeared that both the House and Senate would comply with the President’s strong request to pass health care reform bills with a public option before the August recess.
Nonetheless, during the past two weeks the wheels have begun to come off the health care reform juggernaut as grassroots opposition to the President’s proposal has grown rapidly. First, the Senate announced its committees needed more time to craft health care reform legislation and wouldn’t be considering a health care bill in the full Senate until September. Next, one of the House committees working on a health care bill, the Energy and Commerce Committee, has been prevented from finishing work on its bill by the opposition of Blue Dog Democrats.
Although the Blue Dogs have as many as twelve problems with the health care bill in their committee, one of their main concerns has been over the public option. In fact, just this afternoon Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), who has acted as a spokesman for the dissident Blue Dogs on the committee, announced that a deal had been struck for the committee to proceed on its markup of its bill as long as other Democrats on the committee agree to several demands including weakening a government-run insurance plan (also known as the public option) that would compete with private insurers and postponing a vote on health care reform by the full House until September.
Since the health care industry makes up 17% of our economy, comprehensive health care reform legislation is necessarily very complex. However, one aspect of the health care reform debate stands out in importance — namely, the extent of government involvement in our health care system. We already have a mixed system with both private funding through individuals, businesses, and private insurance companies and government funding through Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are advocating any new health care reform bills include a “public option,” which refers to a government-run health insurance entity which would provide “competition” with private health insurance companies. Since no private insurance company could compete with the resources behind the “public option,” especially in light of extensive (and soon to be greatly increased, no doubt) government regulations on private insurers, this public option would set the stage for a transition to a completely government-run health care system over time.
Enter the Cooperative Compromise
The stage appears to be set for a great, deceptive compromise which would address the concerns many Americans, most congressional Republicans, and apparently many congressional Democrats have with increasing government involvement in our health care system and which would, behind the scenes, also provide a path to a completely government-run system that President Obama and most congressional Democrats prefer.
As evidence of just how much traction the opposition to a government takeover of health care has gotten, consider that a few days ago my Democratic congressman stated in a letter to me that “I do not support a government-run, single payer system.” Although he is representing a historically Republican district he is not listed among the 50 plus members of the Blue Dog Coalition. Based on his past performance, I assume he will be a solid vote for any health care reform bill endorsed by the Democratic leaders; however, at this point he is clearly stating his opposition to a “government-run” system. He would clearly be most comfortable voting for a health care reform bill that appears to avoid enlarging the government’s role in health care.
Now imagine a compromise health care reform bill that seems to prevent a government takeover of health care but at the same time provides a platform for transitioning to a government-run system. That’s a bill that President Obama could endorse and that virtually all congressional Democrats, including the Blue Dogs, and many Republicans could vote for. And, there’s no need to imagine this bill. It’s being crafted right now by three Republican and three Democratic senators, who are members of the Senate Finance Committee. The key to this compromise bill is the provision for “health care cooperatives,” which would replace the “public option.” In recent days several members of this group of six senators have made it pretty clear that health care cooperatives will be a key provision in their bill.
Here’s a video of an interview on July 27 with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Senior Republican on the Finance Committee and one of the three Republicans working out final details in their committee’s health care reform bill:
VIDEO http://www.jbs.org/freedom-campaign/5165
Notice that in this interview Senator Grassley likes to point out that his committee is restructuring one sixth of the U.S. economy, which goes to show just how important the health care industry is to our economy. He also sees his committee’s role as that of crafting a workable compromise health care bill based on health care cooperatives that can be supported by many Republicans as well as Democrats. He prides himself as being ahead of the curve in helping produce the compromise that many Republicans will end up supporting this fall. And, he’s also very certain of success in getting this bill approved by the full Senate. He points out that only once during the past ten years has a compromise bill crafted by Senator Baucus and himself failed to pass in the full Senate.
So, in light of the Democrats’ current difficulties in getting health care reform legislation with a public option (read government-run competition to private insurance plans) passed in either house, it seems likely that Grassley’s health care cooperative compromise will be incorporated in the health care bills that are actually voted on by the full Senate and House this fall, either in the initial bills or in a final conference report bill.
I won’t take the time in this article to document how well the concept of health care cooperatives engenders thoughts of private, non-governmental, consumer-driven health care. That’s what Grassley and the other senators working on this compromise are counting on to make their health care bill attractive to congressional Republicans.
What’s more interesting is how these health care cooperatives could be used as a transition to a completely government-run health care system.
First, here’s an interesting perspective on why these cooperatives would be doomed to failure:
[W]hat would Conrad’s non profit (really for-profit, tax-exempt) co-ops be able to do that the Blues plans couldn’t and didn’t? How would they cut costs more than Kaiser’s plans (non-profit insurers that make their docs rich)? The simple answer is that they wouldn’t survive long, and they wouldn’t make health insurance more affordable, because politicians would require them to provide incredibly expensive coverage with low co-payments and deductibles. Consumers would have no incentives to curtail health care expenditures, and the co-ops would have tremendous incentives to be the most rigid and nasty HMOs in history until shell shocked politicians put them out of business.
Second, here’s a very interesting analysis of how the cooperatives could easily lead to a government-run health care system in an article entitled, “Co-opting the Co-op: That kooky health care cooperative idea is still the Democrats’ best shot at bipartisanship.” Here’s the very telling conclusion:
Still up in the air is what a national co-op would look like. Would it be truly nationwide or would each state have its own? How much startup funding would it get from Congress? Will the government have a hand in running it, or will it be entirely patient-controlled? Would it have the power to negotiate the best rates, to make it competitive with private plans?
Depending on the answers to these questions, the cooperative proposal could be the Democrats’ greatest defeat or biggest victory. It could be as unambitious as adding another private plan to the mix. Or it could be nearly synonymous with public-option itself. (emphasis added)
So there you have it. The cooperative compromise proposal could end up being “nearly synonymous with public option itself.” Which means that the cooperative compromise proposal could end up ensuring passage by Congress this year of a comprehensive health care reform bill that would lead to a completely government-run health care system over time even though most grassroots Americans and congressional Republicans would have been deceived into thinking the bill would prevent a government takeover of health care.
The bottom line for those of us who are opposed to a government-run health care system is that we cannot be content to rail against a “government takeover” of health care. The Democrats are already well aware that a government-run health care system doesn’t play well with the American public. And, key Republicans, such as Senator Grassley, are already hard at work crafting a health care reform bill with a deceptive, health care cooperative compromise which they expect will be passed by Congress with bipartisan support. So, we need to be opposing “health care cooperatives” in addition to “government takeover,” “government-run,” “single payer,” “universal” health care legislation. Although health care cooperatives could be useful theoretically, in our political and regulatory environment they would only prepare the way for a government-run system.
Click here to contact your representative and senators in vigorous opposition to President Obama’s and the congressional Democrats’ “public option” health care proposals and also the Republican “health care cooperatives” alternative.
For your consideration.....
They “drop” this for a week or two...the idiot class starts giving him props in the polls....then he turns around and says see all that “misinformation” is now gone...I got the “truth” out...so I’m putting government run health care back in.
D.C. has given us multiple reasons to believe that whatever form it takes there will be Trojan horse provisions hidden or added.
The U.S. Constitution does not grant a “right” to health care and does not authorize the Federal government any power to be involved in our personal lives.
Why not start with the basics!
1. Tort Reform
2. Stop Paying the crooks
3. Allow insurance companies true freedom to compete across state lines like on auto & home ins.
4. GET GOVERNMENT OUT where it already does not belong! Simplify and reduce costs.
Newt’s site: http://healthtransformation.net/
Pelosi has been quiet in the last few days. Maybe she gagged on eating her "Un-American" words.
The bill is toast either way. Even with public option traded in for a co-op. In that case the dissatisfied liberals will vote no, and so will the more conservative Republicans (still), and it will be narrowly defeated.
“3. Allow insurance companies true freedom to compete across state lines like on auto & home ins.”
I spoke of this in one of my letters to the editor. Competion will reduce costs (which is obvious to conservatives).
Commies don't like competition - that requires that they actually perform their jobs. Instead, they like government protected monopolies.
“Commies don’t like competition - that requires that they actually perform their jobs. Instead, they like government protected monopolies.”
Fortunately we outnumber them, at least when people are INFORMED. We all need to inform everyone we know, in as many ways as we can.
Obama and Co. have already shown they are not trustworthy. I wouldn’t accept their semantics anymore than I could throw them. Don’t believe they are willing to compromise. This is a smokescreen to quiet down the masses (read the “mob”) who are wise to them already - and it’s only Sunday!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.