You're on the right track, but you're thinking too small. This is an effort to ensure that businesses become more profitable since their costs will go down as people are forced from private insurance through the employers to gummint insurance.
Downside is that the Feds will now tax their improved profitability to help pay for . . . well, everything!
True,..at the expense of BHO taking credit for the "recovery" and that I will have my healthcare deferred to a gov't regulator.
Not so much for me, but my wife who is a breast cancer survivor with a God forbid, a pre-existing conditions, that might require follow up care, will be deemed unworthy of treatment unless I can afford a few grand,...
I'm sure it's in the 1200 pages somewhere of how it will be a benefit.
Actually one of the big hallmarks of Obama care is that
ALL pre-existing conditions will be covered. This is an effort to correct the wrongs of the current private insurance companies that exclude many with pre-existing conditions and look for any excuse to deny coverage to those that are currently covered and that develop catastrophic illnesses. I agree whole heartedly that these practices are very wrong and that they are in desperate need of reform.
The argument from the Republicans, and from many conservative Dems, is that providing such coverage, for all in need, is totally unsustainable. Other concerns include the undeniable fact that the government coverage will drive private insurers out of business, due to their inability to compete. In very short order, this will result in the government program being the only game in town. Just another huge government takeover of the American healthcare industry. An industry that is estimated in it's totality, including support industries, to be responsible for approximately 20% of the US economy. Another grab for a major US industry and another giant step deeper into Socialism.
The huge burden of funding the bureaucratic monster of universal healthcare will be paid for by the heavy taxation of business and industry. American business and industry that is already struggling in this current recession and is also struggling to compete in a global economy. This funding will not be sufficient to feed the beast and increased taxation of the private citizen will ensue. With all of this still being unable to pay for this monstrous social program, rationing will become necessary.
There are additional concerns that care will be limited or denied based upon behavior. Benefits will be limited for smokers, the obese, diabetics, the out of shape and any other "correctable" behavior that is deemed to place an additional monetary burden upon the system.
The current system is deeply flawed (primarily due to the issues of the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions, non coverage for catastrophic illnesses, under coverage and the millions that are uninsured). These are serious problems that require complex and difficult solutions. I believe that we can address these issues without the transition to socialized medicine.
The question is which is the lesser of the two evils? I would say that it is up to the American people to decide, but we all know that the nanny state will decide for us.
Just today, I heard a Democratic Congressman say, "We don't need a single Republican vote to pass healthcare reform. We are going to do what other Congresses have failed to do for the last seven decades."
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
