Americanpolitics

The parallel universe of everyday life and politics has me wondering who is most crazy, me or the politicians.

I’m just saying, based on the desires of the politicians, we are spending billions of dollars annually supporting other countries (which over time equals trillions), yet they bitch and moan about supplying the people of America with reasonable costs for something as basic as health care on the basis of the expense.

Let the politicians tell it, we where successful in our efforts in Iraq when we paid low level Taliban to switch sides and fight on our side against the Taliban. Yet, people are still dying, car bombs and suicide bombs are still going off in areas that are “protected” by security check-points that allow bomb carrying individuals to enter guarded areas. This is a clear indication that these vehicles and people are not being adequately checked before entering any given area – what’s the point of having the check-points.

More to the point, who are the people charged with the responsibility of searches at these check-points? Could it be the same people who where paid to “be on our side” in the battle against the Taliban?

Leaving the war in the Middle East behind, as we should be doing in reality, and looking at health care/insurance reform, the parallel universe becomes even more obvious. Over and over again Republicans are saying “no” to government’s “involvement” in health care yet, their suggestion to the problem is to expand the government program of Medicare/Medicaid as a means of covering those individuals without medical coverage.

Also included in their plan was a stipulation that would make it mandatory for you, the citizen, to be covered. In some instances subsidies would be provided, by the “government,” to help cover the cost of the insurance coverage you choose.

All this “government involvement,” in covering the cost of insuring those who are uninsured, while choosing co-ops as an alternative to public options, none of which lends to the idea of lowering the basic costs of insurance but, instead puts the government on the accounts receivable ledgers of insurance companies.

Now Republicans and some Democrats, as well, who are all politicians are saying these things with a straight face and possibly a straight lie, that the public option that is on the table would give government too much control over your medical experience while they, themselves, attempt to use government money to pay the expensive premiums to the insurance companies.

On the other hand, the public option, to my understanding, allows the government to negotiate lower premiums with certain insurance companies, thereby setting up a competitive edge in the insurance business. This, according to my understanding would be the only involvement the government would have in the public option.

Even though at this point, I am unclear how they would negotiate these lower premiums or why those against the public option have the idea that this involves a “government takeover” of insurance companies, I say at face value the public option has more ability at achieving the goal of coverage and competition.

I do have to ask would the negotiations sacrifice services for lower prices or would the lower prices come as a result of group coverage alone, as is the case with most coverage coming from job situations at this time? My impressions are that this is not the case, that services would not be compromised however this is the case being made by those opposing the public option.

I feel as though what the Republicans are offering is the insurance version of the old bait and switch con game. I feel they show more love to foreigners than they do to their own people, who they were hired to protect and serve. I feel they are intentionally confusing the issues with only their best interests at heart. I feel “we the people” are being duped with a word game played by politicians that think they are smarter than us.

And that’s the way I see it!!!!

WebWatcher Computer Monitoring Software

Trackback URI | Comments RSS