Tennessee’s Option
Article Tools
Congress hasn't yet begun the lengthy process of bargaining out the differences between House and Senate on the actual formula for health-care legislation. But, miracle of miracles, the Democratic majorities in both chambers now seem committed to inclusion of a so-called public option. What that phrase means is not that the government will "take over" health care, as various Republicans and tea-partiers maintain. Nor will the public option, as proposed, come anywhere close to being the single-payer system — aka "Medicare for everybody" — that some liberals have insisted on.
It's more akin to a downscale equivalent of the U.S. Postal Service, existing more as a last resort than as serious competition for the entrenched health-insurance companies. Just as the Postal Service has been no threat to FedEx and UPS, whatever minimal alternative the federal government would establish by way of a basic insurance option would hardly endanger Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, or the rest of the big boys in the health-insurance field.
What it might do is A) provide an additional incentive for those companies to improve their business models; and B) be something of a brake on skyrocketing costs. And that's all it is meant to do.
As unveiled on Monday by Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, the Senate's version will contain a further reassurance to sincere conservatives with legitimate concerns about the erosion of barriers between the private and public realms (though it is hard for us to imagine what could be more legitimately "public" than making universally available the means for a healthy citizenry).
As currently proposed, the Senate bill would allow states to opt out of the public option if they chose. Presumably, other, less controversial aspects of the legislation — guaranteed portability, elimination of restrictions on pre-existing conditions, and the like — would still apply everywhere. What's the catch? There is none. All those ideologues who have conjured up the phantasms of "death panels," physician scarcity, and inferior "socialized" medical care could see the issue put to a fair test.
Which brings us to the subject of what course Tennessee would take if confronted with an opt-out provision. Democratic hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, every indication is that the electoral trends will continue that have already resulted in Republican majorities in both houses of the Tennessee legislature.
Most members of the state's Republican establishment have long embraced the benefits of the Tennessee Valley Authority, once ritually denounced as "creeping socialism." Poor, underfunded states like ours are exactly the sort that benefit from the variety of "public options" made available by the federal government. (An ironic feature of the health-care protests held in these parts last summer was the number of participants who owned up to having benefited from Medicare.)
Sometime within the next calendar year, the GOP-dominated Tennessee General Assembly may well have the opportunity to choose between ideological purity and clear advantage to the state's citizens in the matter of health care. We believe candidates for the legislature and, for that matter, those running for governor have a duty to make their positions clear on the matter.
Showing 1-5 of 27
Add a comment | All comments »
If the Post Office has been no threat to FedEX or UPS, this infers their poor quality. It is well known that most agencies ran by the Government is either bankrupt or a failure, i.e. Medicare, Post Office, etc. Next the writer states that this proposed health care will provide an incentive for companies to improve their business models. Why? If they can't even offer competition now; this simply does not follow. The writer also thinks that this health program will be a brake on high costs we have now. Controlling prices always results in low incentives by hospital/medical personnel, poor quality, and fewer numbers that enter the field of health care.
Secondly, this writer must have his TV cemented on MSNBC for his information. Harry Reid is deceptive in this proposal. Harry Reid's actions are not as simple as this writer makes them sound. He also mentions that we have some 'moral' obligation to maintain a 'healthy people'. Where does this moral rule come from? If that is the case, then we have a moral obligation to make sure that all people have cars, houses, food, Where do we draw the line? Harry Reid couldn't allow a final passage out of the committee with a public option in the bill, as he knew he would lose Democrats and have no GOP support. He still wanted his public option. He created a plan to have one form of the bill voted on without the public option, while planning to add it in the final product. He used the old 'bait-and-switch' tactic. He has pretended to modify the bill on the Senate floor to attract moderates and few Republicans. This was seen when he and Baucus presented a slimmed-down version. In the House conference, he will then add the full public option into the bill.
This writer also makes a joke of 'death' panel's if this bill passes. It certainly will bring rationing of health care. Can he not perform basic mathematics? Let's see; If I add millions more onto a list of patients and not add an equal number of health care providers, I'll not get any rationing...not! Presently, there are long waits for even primary doctors in some states; not to mention specialized care Has this writer read this 2,000 page bill (HR 3962)? Medicare costs nearly $800 billion annually with a 300 page bill; what do you think this new 2,000 page bill will add? The new bill uses the word, 'shall' 3,425 times according to one source. The word 'shall' in a bill is a government order after it becomes law. Controls will be enormous, resulting in the same flawed systems the government now runs. The old slogan, 'you can keep your present coverage if you like it' is BS. The 'exchange' formula will cause higher penalties for not enrolling in this new health plan. Employers who do not enroll into this plan will be charged penalties that are transferred to the employee's salaries, products, research investments, and higher product prices for the public. This wonderful Health Choices Commissioner has voiced all these particulars. Tennessee's Governor's fears are well founded given all these controls. According to Pelosi, the Feds will only pick up the tab through 2014, then starting in 2015, Tennessee will pick up 10% of that cost. Pelosi's additions will bust Tennessee's budget and we tax-payers will be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars. Does any reader think that forcing a car insurance company to cover my car after I've wrecked it, to be a morally viable law? The same situation applies in the Feds requiring the chronically ill to be insured by coercion. If any of this bill carries 'free' options, then it will most certainly be abused. Take a look at what the Feds did to the housing market and see if you trust them with health care. Low-income people who are the supposed beneficiaries of government 'compassion' are the victims. Foreclosures in minority neighborhoods are generally 7 times higher than the national average. We can expect the same in health care as we are getting with this socialism.
No one on the Flyer staff or its readers has yet to prove that health care is a legal function of the Federal Government by the US Constitution that all members of Congress and the President have sworn an oath to keep. I'll challenge anyone on trying to use the general welfare clause or the commerce clause that Nancy Pelosi so ignorantly perverts.
The Federal option will wipe out the private insurances, as legislation affecting the private sector is not imposed upon the Federal Government health care. Section 221 of the bill is deceptive. The Goverment will be free of federal and state taxes, premium taxes, and income taxes. It will not be subject to antitrust laws that now regulate private companies. The Government plan would be free from tort litigation, no liability for punitive damages, attorney fees. The Health Choices Commisioner can collect unlimited information on patients, costs, etc. in order to out-bid the private companies. Due to the Governments creation of paper money out of thin air, they can always finance their program.
Corruption a la' mode
someone please make it stop....
i just don't understand why we haven't privatized the military yet. well, ALL of the military.
"this writer must have his TV cemented on MSNBC for his information"
...and CHG must get all his information from NEWSMAX.com
Flyer Flashback
Flyer Flashback
To mark the Flyer's 20th anniversary, we're looking back at stories from our first two decades.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
Comments (27) RSS