Stating The Obvious: Healthcare Reform Edition

[furrbear]

From Hunter at DailyKos:

Three general guidelines for the healthcare debate:

First, whenever someone is spouting off about "communist fascism", you may ignore everything that person says from that point forward. Fascism and communism are two entirely different things, and a primary tenet of fascism is its opposition to communism. So if you think Obama is leading us to either fascist communism or communist fascism, you aren't only a paranoid, LaRouchian nut, you also don't even know what it is you're afraid of, and are just putting scary words together in the hope of stirring an emotional response among stupid people.

Second, you cannot be "against socialized medicine" and at the same time think Medicare is good. Medicare is, in no uncertain term, socialized medicine, and government run, and all of that very scary stuff. If the concept of "socialized medicine" outrages you, you are against Medicare. If you are for Medicare, then by definition there is some level of "socialized medicine" you are willing to accept, and at that point you are exactly where the entire rest of the country is, and we're merely arguing about the details.

All of the people who say that they are afraid of socialized medicine but that they support Medicare are liars. All of them. They either secretly don't support Medicare but are unwilling to say such an unpopular thing out loud, for obvious reasons, or they aren't in fact afraid of "socialized medicine" but still want to use the talking point.

This includes Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and every Senate Republican, as well as the usual assembly of pundits and shouters and supposedly panic-stricken mobs crying in fear at town halls over the imminent Russianization of America if we undertake any meager healthcare reform whatsoever.

The third guideline: the first two guidelines are freaking obvious.

Comments

[jp5040.livejournal.com]

So True!

I watch the debates hoping beyond hope that the US will rationalize the system so that once the government starts paying some of the bills directly they might see the ludicrous amount of money health care companies and pharmaceutical giants are charging for relatively inexpensive products. Then the entire system in North America will see some improvements.

Here in Canada we are facing ever rising costs - not due to poor management but due to increasing costs form US based drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers. The big companies are lobbying hard to privatize and create a rich class of care here to further destabilize our system. Ironically right at the brink of you guys finally getting a president who understands the economics of health care! Hopefully we will get a chance to kick out our right wing government and then we can undertake to put those neo-con's back where they belong. Under a rock somewhere.

The real reason the fat cats don't support social health care is that it undermines the dividend potential of these companies. This is a classic power struggle with the masses. Convince enough dupes to be afraid of socialism and then you can keep the poor under the thumb of the rich. It's always the same. From health care to social housing. It's the same argument.

[beardoc.livejournal.com]

It still amazes me that the debate has gotten to this level that you need to write this sort of stuff. It suggests that the insurance companies and the right are very good at obfuscating the real issue.

[hwynym.livejournal.com]

This is spot on. Let's take a look at Madicaid/Medicare from another perspective:

The big health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are all for Medicaid and Medicare. Why?

1) Because for pharmaceutical companies, it's a money pump.

2) For health insurance companies, it removes the "problem" clients just when they're about to become the most expensive clients to serve. They're left with only the younger, healthier folks who are less likely to need expensive care.

So these big companies are perfectly happy to take taxpayer money and cherry-pick only the healthiest individuals, leaving the taxpayers to support the medical needs of the older, sicker folks...but now they want to balk at having to compete in a new environment?

I'd like to see a report of the spent by health insurance companies on campaign contributions and related spending, who got it AND which of our leaders have significant investments in the stock of the health insurance companies.

[lumberjackie-o.livejournal.com]

may i post this in my journal with credit to you.

brilliant!

[lumberjackie-o.livejournal.com]

lol - just saw where YOU got it from...nevermind :)

posting too!!!