Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Liberals Mourn Latest Health Reform News

The lefty Readers Who Comment are furious this morning as they absorb the MSM conclusion that President Obama has counted the votes and decided that a public option for health insurance (not to mention a single-payer option) is not an absolute necessity for health care reform.

All the networks, the Post, the Times, etc., are in agreement. As Ceci Connolly writes in the Post, "top administration officials signaled Sunday that the White House may be willing to jettison a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberals." There is some talk that nongovernmental insurance coops may be a solution.

The president himself, in a New York Times op-ed, outlined why he thinks health care reform is essential, but did not use such words as public option, co-op or single payer.

Many of our readers are angry about this. There is a belief that without a government-run competitive plan, the insurance companies will continue to run up profits by rationing or denying coverage.

We'll start with rexl, who most succinctly stated the pure left position in writing, "i wanted single payer, public option is a cheap substitute. but without at least that what is the point?"

farhorizons suggested, "Force a filibuster! Let those opposed to health care reform go on the record. If President Obama wimps out on this he deserves what happens to his programs."

But tfitzgib said, "The liberals are going to have to learn how participatory Democracy works when they are in the majority. There are similarities with the Health Care "reform" proposals and Global Warming. The liberals take a position based on their ideology. That's fine. But then they close out anyone who might oppose them from the formulation stages and then viciously attack anyone who opposes them while they try to ram through their politically based proposal..."

6925thCobras wrote, "...Obama is practically apologizing for trying to do the right thing because a few knuckleheads with bad information show up at rallies at the behest of the right wing radio stations. Forget about the people that voted him into office."

ggrant9170 asked, "what will change with co ops? nothing, premiums will still continue to double every 9 years and we will see jobs bleed and premiums more than our mortage payments. the gop sold the elderly lies about how democrates want to kill them with Death Panels... wow, the republicans are good, very good!"

yesnomaybe213 wrote, "this whole piece of crap legislative initiative is about to fall spectacularly apart. as well it should. we have enough red ink already. it's time to go back to the drawing board and come up with something we can afford."

mark31 said, "Boy is it exciting to hear from all the folks that are jumping off Obama's bus because of the government option cave-in. When you add them to the people who are deeply concerned about the massive deficits, and the people who dislike the continuing attacks on profit, investors, and capitalism itself, and the people who are opposed to national bankruptcy to reduce CO2, now who is left on the bus? This young president is about to make some major changes, or be written off as Jimmy Carter Jr."

weidenhof4 asked, "Government run insurance. How would they staff such an undertaking? Is this where the promised new jobs would be found. How many people are employed in the Health Care Insurance Industry? Would the government require State and Regional offices simular to Social Security. Would State and Regional offices be staffed with qualified Medical Staff or clerks that would forward requests for medical treatment to regional then national office or Bureau..."

To which infuse replied, "Please Google, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, TRICARE, SCHIP AND VA, read something factual for a change, including the specific answers to all those questions, and then get back to us with your only possible response: "WOW! They already do all that?"

AlbyVA wrote, "Liberals lost!! w00hooo They have all the votes to pass any law they want, and they still can't do it.. woohooo.. So Long Govt Run Health Care. Hello to Co-Ops where you still gotta pay... No more tax dollars from my pocket for the fool who eats McDonalds everyday and needs triple bypass surgery."

chrojo01 said, "Maybe President Obama realizes that the so-called public "option" isn't the only avenue that we should be considering for reform. It is inherently anti-competitive and will only make our problems worse because there will be even less accountability in the market than there is now...We can use more time to think about these things... There's no reason to rush this."

ProfElwood wrote, "Seniors are currently getting the tail end of a unsustainable good deal. We still have a large number of workers paying in and relatively few getting the money. Medicare and Medicaid have very few spending limits, which is why they are in trouble. But Republicans and Democrats both decry "rationing"... but within the decade, this lie has got to come to an end. The fact is, congress's ability to tax and borrow is limited; the amount that we can spend on health care isn't."

But costink said, "Costs costs costs. When we will some politician have the guts to say profits profits profits. Profit at the expense of a person's health is what led to the current existence of death through no or denied insurance..."

Dan1967wewon wrote that "...The public option is included in 3 out of 4 proposals by the Senate and House. If the bill passes, it will pass with a public option. Otherwise most Democrats won't vote for it. This idea of co-ops by Senator Conrad is ridiculous. How can 500 different co-ops fund and implement health care? The Democrats won the election. It is time for the Democratic party to unite and to push the public option through!"

EnemyOfTheState said, "...I still can't understand the anger and paranoia about a single payer plan - not a single black helicopter in sight and, no, Grannie wasn't going to be denied coverage by a "death panel" (besides, this is already being done better by the insurance industry)."

jdonner2 wrote, "Wow, the free loading lefties are out in droves today. But I don't blame them for being upset. There is nothing like having the Messiah throw you under a bus to save his political hyde. Just ask his grandmother. But they had better get used to it, it will happen again."

Nut fringe or intentionally inaccurate charge?:

ggrant9170 wrote, "The same Democratic party that passed Medicare making health care available for all the elderly to live longer are now the same ones that want to kill them with Death Panels!!!"

We'll close with WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services. I could keep going, but they just won't get it."

All comments on this article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  August 17, 2009; 7:08 AM ET
 | Tags: Health-Care Reform, Obama, Public Option  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Few Defend Cheney
Next: Debating the Public Health Care Option

Comments

Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.


Jhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

Posted by: jhenry1908 | August 19, 2009 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations to the brave University of Colorado student Zach Lahn for single-handedly nuking Obamacare and stumping The One with his brilliantly articulated, direct, simple question.

Bravo Zach! You've got a great future! Thank you for having the courage to challenge Obama's elitist, socialist rhetoric in a straight-forward, honest manner.

Posted by: lisamc31 | August 17, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

We worked for the Obama campaign, because we believe that President Obama would be (and so far has been) the leader we believed would be on the same page w/us "Yes, we can" ready to make difficult changes that the US needs, in healthcare and in other issues. He's made the appropriate steps to withdrawal in Iraq. He's done what is possible to turn the economy around. And through all this President Obama has shown willingness to be pragmatic about how much can be accomplished and willing to compromise to get the best possible legislation out there that enough legislators will get behind and that can pass, and while he has shown an interest in bringing the Republicans and Independents along to maximize the unity of the country, there is one issue that he must stand on as we stand with him. We need a public plan option in the health care reform legislation, especially because the single payer plan as President Obama knows cannot pass even though it is the best way to accomplish reduction of healthcare costs. It would not be a successful piece of legislation given people's resistance to change. That said we must have a piece of legislation that can accomplish the goal of bringing down the cost of health insurance and health care costs. A public plan option is an essential piece of that plan.

Posted by: nkelly1 | August 17, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

40 other countries obviously have better health care as they have a greater life expectancy, Is it because they are socialized?

Posted by: marcussutton | August 17, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I am sorry - you STUPID people! This is one of the few countries in the world that does NOT take care of its citizens and does not offer health care. You talk about government intervention in health care as if this intervention were a disease! The truth is that this country’s health care system is run by for-profit health insurance companies! Yes - read again FOR PROFIT. These companies turn sick people away, do not care for people, fight against people who need medical services - it is BRUTAL! Again, FOR PROFIT. What would Jesus think? More importantly, what would he do? This is disgusting. Government intervention is needed to stop this inhumane for-profit carnage, to set limits to the disgusting, anti-american, inhumane treatment of American citizens. Yes - I need the government to step in and set guidelines because this is twisted - just like I need the police to step in when a bank is being robbed. Wake up people! Don’t be stupid! You know what it’s like to continually fight with your insurance company, I know you do! This government intervention is to stop this carnage - to not permit someone from being dumped by their insurer and to get the medical attention they need without having to fight big FOR-PROFIT beurocrats. Wake up!

Posted by: Jules6 | August 17, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Re: No public health option

Again Obama has shown his true colours. He's a Chicago politician with a gift of the gab who will, pardon the pun and play on words, turn on a dollar.
First, his massive bailout of Wall Street but leaving the average citizen with an debt so large that the U.S. ultimately risks becoming a backwater nation;
Second, his retreat on public health care which leaves the world of medicine and medical health in the hands of greedy Wall Street insurance companies.
Obama is little more than a deeply tanned
Edward Greenspan but who happens to be president.
Where is Hilary when you need her?

Posted by: Rudy7 | August 17, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The 2 biggest obstacles to many liberal policies such as health care are reality and human nature.

It's great to have all these talking point pie in the sky ideals about "everyone has the right to everything" but its a totally different matter matching up those ideals to reality and factoring in human nature.

Unfortunate fact is most people will do the minimum they need to to survive. You take away all incentive to have to work hard and most people won't. That is why most "compassionate" or socialist governments either:
1. Collapse under the weight of the costs
2. Turn to communism/fascism as given the choice people will not do what is necessary and the government has to enforce marxism to make it work.

Yes things fall through the cracks in capitalism but history shows it is a much better system than the other options.

Democrats are now finding all their great sounding campaign ideals are much harder to implement when faced with reality and are showing through all their rhetoric they never really had a plan.

Posted by: Cryos | August 17, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The insurance companies could pay for 133 FAMILIES to have insurance for a YEAR with the amount they spend lobbying EVERY DAY.

Now who is wasting money?

Posted by: Independent4tw | August 17, 2009 10:48 AM
================================
They wouldn't have to spend as much lobbying if they didn't have to defend against idealists, clueless posters who have fallen prey to the "for the people" leftist propaganda and believe anything having to do with a corporation is evil.

Granted corporations do need to be watched but they do provide several beneficial services and technological advancement that can not be achieved by individuals or small businesses.

Get a grip and realize "evil CEOs and corporations" is a propaganda tool and doesn't cause all people to instantly get mad. Your posts also indicate a high level of jealousy to successful people. Get over it and make something of yourself instead of wasting your time being jealous.

Posted by: Cryos | August 17, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

With due deference to those who, like me, want government out of our lives, I have to point out the critical difference between government services under freedom compared to those under collectivism. It is not whether the task is "specific" or whether you support citizens over insurance companies. Who doesn't?

Under freedom, government's SOLE job is to preserve our individual freedom.

To accomplish this, national defense is necessary to keep out those who would gladly invade our country and deny us our freedom. Tens of millions of illegal aliens prove that we have failed at this. While this function can be extended to include protecting our interests around the world, it is questionable how it can be expanded to include going to war in Iraq or most of our other militarily adventursome endeavors of the past half century. Unfortunately, current conservatism is often only marginally a better friend to freedom than is socialism.

Preserving our freedom also must include police to deter, if not protect, harm to the innocent from the thieves and murderers among us, but not to give them license to gun people down with impunity.

Preserving freedom also includes courts to enforce contracts, but not to legislate from the bench. It may include limited regulation to protect us from the collective power that exists in and will certainly be abused by our corporations.

Preserving our freedom can require extensive action on the part of government; however, any such action must be limited solely to that end for America to remain the land of the free.

Opposing this view are our socialists (in their various versions from social democrats to Marxists) who fundamentally contend that collective interest outweighs individual freedom and that it is the role of government to promote the greater good, regardless of costs to individual freedom.

Once you throw out individual freedom as the foundation of America, the government can take on literally anything we collectively decide it should. We have demonstrated that the list of areas government thinks it should be involved in knows no bounds. It literally believes that it has every right to "run" the country.

Absent freedom, under socialism, we certainly should provide healthcare to all on an equal basis. Indeed, absent freedom, there is no reason why we shouldn't follow the Marxist maxim, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as applied to every human need.

Once you accept collectivism, questions surrounding issues like healthcare begin to center around effectiveness, equality, universal availability, cost trade-off's, etc.

Under socialism, there is literally no limit to the scope of government action or authority and to contend otherwise is self-delusional or duplicitous.

There has been no shortage of self delusion or duplicity in the last century of the war between freedom and socialism, but it is important for those of us who value freedom to keep the issues clear.

Posted by: RUKidding0 | August 17, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't get why large groups get better rates, coverage, etc. The uninsured of the country are a pretty large group. The individual coverage without an employer is pure price gouging and the government knows it. So why not go after the corporate usuary and leave taxpayers with the staggering debt they already have to pay.

Posted by: Vickie803 | August 17, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Independent4tw | August 17, 2009 10:29 AM
Do you support American citizens or do you support American corporations?

Posted by: Independent4tw | August 17, 2009 10:29 AM
-----------------------
Nope, I really don't want to inordinately support either. Anything connected with the health care industry has robbed people for years - the evil greedy folks call it capitalism. Given the impact on this nation, the government should defend citizens against this gouging. That does not mean I can afford to supply anyone and everyone's needs. The young people I work with think a public option would be great because you can quit your job more easily and still have your health coverage. That is rewarding irresponsibility.

Posted by: Vickie803 | August 17, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The Post Office/Fed Ex example is an excellent description of "cherry picking" Fed Ex removed an elite group willing to pay more than $15.00 for next day air delivery, leaving lots (and I mean lots) of little mailings to go door to door for less than 50 cents. The unemployed (and this number keeps growing), the underemployed or under-insured, and independently working are forced to pay a disproportionate share or go without.
Furthermore, many employers change their insurance plans every year, so we are forced to change our providers who were on plan A but not on new plan B--We have little choice in the current system.

Posted by: Marywexler38 | August 17, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Why should health care "insurance" be attached to work? Then when I (or you) lose my (your) job, there is no coverage. My son is an independent worker. His individual blue cross coverage recently increased from 350/month to 425.00--or about $6,000 per year. He is healthy, but does not have the benefit of a group. After his rent, health care is his highest expense!
For the folks who complain that government would make decisions about what would be covered, let me remind that the insurance companies now make those decisions, and they do not make them with our health in mind, but rather their very well paid executives and their shareholders in mind!
Medicare has its limitations, but it is open, and not funding a bunch of 7 figure paid executives!
We need to remove this insurance from employment!

Posted by: Marywexler38 | August 17, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

It's a pretty simple question. Do you want everyone to have coverage or not? That's it. If so it will cost money and there will be more strain on the system but that's the price you pay for making sure everyone can get the care they need. I don't really get the insane reactions people have been having to this as it's not really that difficult a concept to grasp and similar systems exist in nearly every Western country. The difference is that the proposed US system would still leave almost all control in the private sector, which isn't the case in most countries.

Posted by: Stu_c | August 17, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services.

___________________________________________

Conservitives understand we need things like Military and Police and Firemen for protection and are willing to pay for such, we expect our goverment to defend us and gladly contribute.

We are even willing to in "good times" (when we have money in surplus) supply health care for those that are in our country illegally, but right now is not that the time.

One of the reasons our healthcare costs skyrocket is that we expect our hosptials to pay for these people to come in for free and be given medical care so many of them come across the border to get such care and put a drain on the system, I do not blame the Capitolist system for wanting to recoupe some of the costs by charging us more for health care.

What we should do thosugh is shut it down adn tell them we cant afford it right now, to go back home and let their own goverment pay for them and watch our healthcare costs come down.
-----------------

"One of the reasons our healthcare costs skyrocket is that we expect our hosptials to pay for these people"

WRONG. These people have been getting free ER visits for 30 years.

THE REASON THAT HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE RISING IS THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE SPENDING $1.6 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY FIGHTING THIS REFORM.

They could easily pay for 40 million peoples health care but they CHOOSE to use that money to BRIBE OUR GOVERNMENT.

Average Family health insurance cost per year = $12k

The insurance companies could pay for 133 FAMILIES to have insurance for a YEAR with the amount they spend lobbying EVERY DAY.

Now who is wasting money?

Posted by: Independent4tw | August 17, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

TO WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services.
---------------------------------------
Wapo - FYI -
1) The Postal Service failed that's why UPS and Fedex were created in the first place. USPS couldn't read addresses or deliver on time.

2) Medicare is bankrupt

3)Highways!? - Have you driven in any metropolitan areas without bumper to bumper traffic??!! LOL, you're kidding right?

4)Firefighters are a mix of paid and volunteer - but they do a great job

5) Police - Are doing a great job. (Obama thinks they act "stupidly" though - so I'm surprised you mentioned them)

6) Military - Are doing a great job...so far. We'll see what happens with their slashed budget.

Do you see the pattern? Government does a good job when the task is specific. IE, Put out a fire, clean up AFTER a crime has been committed, go fight a war. But the government fails time and again with budgets, efficiency, and common sense. If you want more government, move to Russia or China.

For me, keep the government out of my life.

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 10:36 AM
-------------------
1) The postal service is still running in direct competition with fedEx and ups. What do you have against capitalist competition? When FedEx started, the postal service got its sh*t together. Are you afraid that the private insurance companies might have have to become more efficient? Your argument works more FOR a public option then against it.

2) Medicare is bankrupt because of way it is run. This reform will make it work more efficient. So unless you like the wasted money in medicare, YOU SHOULD BE FOR REFORM.

3) Traffic has nothing to do with the fact that the ROADS ARE STILL THERE. It would only take a few years without maintenance to make those roads and bridges unusable....imagine the traffic then.

4) Your welcome.

5) Everyone acts stupidly some times. I think charging someone with a crime they didn't commit and then having to drop the charges is pretty stupid, and it is a waste of tax payers money. But at least the government pays them to show up and make sure your house is okay.

Our task is very specific. Fix health care by stopping the insurance companies from robbing everyone so they can pay $1.6 Million a DAY on lobbying against reform.

Posted by: Independent4tw | August 17, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services.

___________________________________________

Conservitives understand we need things like Military and Police and Firemen for protection and are willing to pay for such, we expect our goverment to defend us and gladly contribute.

We are even willing to in "good times" (when we have money in surplus) supply health care for those that are in our country illegally, but right now is not that the time.

One of the reasons our healthcare costs skyrocket is that we expect our hosptials to pay for these people to come in for free and be given medical care so many of them come across the border to get such care and put a drain on the system, I do not blame the Capitolist system for wanting to recoupe some of the costs by charging us more for health care.

What we should do thosugh is shut it down adn tell them we cant afford it right now, to go back home and let their own goverment pay for them and watch our healthcare costs come down.

Posted by: Drifter2 | August 17, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

TO WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services.
---------------------------------------
Wapo - FYI -
1) The Postal Service failed that's why UPS and Fedex were created in the first place. USPS couldn't read addresses or deliver on time.

2) Medicare is bankrupt

3)Highways!? - Have you driven in any metropolitan areas without bumper to bumper traffic??!! LOL, you're kidding right?

4)Firefighters are a mix of paid and volunteer - but they do a great job

5) Police - Are doing a great job. (Obama thinks they act "stupidly" though - so I'm surprised you mentioned them)

6) Military - Are doing a great job...so far. We'll see what happens with their slashed budget.

Do you see the pattern? Government does a good job when the task is specific. IE, Put out a fire, clean up AFTER a crime has been committed, go fight a war. But the government fails time and again with budgets, efficiency, and common sense. If you want more government, move to Russia or China.

For me, keep the government out of my life.

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services.
-------------------------
Hey Wapo: The point is, you don't get it.

Posted by: Vickie803 | August 17, 2009 10:17 AM
-----------------
I think the point is that you don't get it Vickie803. You go around comment boards and say the same stuff over and over, but I only need you to answer one question:

Do you support American citizens or do you support American corporations?

Posted by: Independent4tw | August 17, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

WapoGestapo, who wrote, "I find it ironic how willing conseratives and republicans are to receive services paid for by socialist means when it suites them. 1) Military; 2) Police; 3) Fire fighters; 4) Highways; 5) Medicare; 6) Public education; 7) Postal services.
-------------------------
Hey Wapo: The point is, you don't get it.

Posted by: Vickie803 | August 17, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company