Thursday, December 17, 2009

Howard Dean On Fire

The American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG

This is the reason we elected him so many times. Knowledgeable and passionate and not easily bullied by those in his own party. Yet the media, and my conservative friends, painted him as a maniac for "the scream." God forbid we have a politician out there with both knowledge and passion.

He's right; this isn't a "Health Care" bill, it's a "Health Insurance" bill. Listen carefully to the politicians and you'll hear them slip and call it that once in a while (I've caught them twice but have no links, sorry). Medicare for all would've been far simpler to implement, and equitable across the board. Right now it looks like they're going to force us to buy health insurance--when the people without it can't afford it in the first place. Re-freaking-tarded.

UPDATE: Just noticed his Op-Ed today in the Washington Post. He gets to the nuts and bolts of it immediately:

Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Listen to the Doctor. Whose wife is also a Doctor, btw, so you can be damned sure they've discussed this ad nauseum.

And then check the comments on Americablog as well.

1 comment:

Jamie said...

Check this comment on the WaPo OpEd, left by "HK45":

"Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health not real health-care reform."


This is so absurd it boggles the mind.

Last time I checked, private insurers have a monopoly on auto insurance. They're called auto insurance companies. Is this an evil that needs to be eradicated as well?

So why wouldn't health insurance companies have a "monopoly" on health insurance. That's the business they're in!

It's like complaining that toothpase manufacturers have a monopoly on the toothpaste market.

Do we now need a not-for-profit government-run toothpaste manufacturer to compete with for-profit toothpase companies?

Where will this line of thinking end???

Evidently this person's line of thinking ended before it began. Notice that in the Dean quote he mentions "Health Care," but his critic HK45 changes that to "Health Insurance"--this is the conflation by politicians that I was mentioning earlier.

*sigh* Carry on . . .