This past weekend, lost in the wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage and Sarah Palin goodbye-cruel-world nincompoopery, there was a second round of tea party protests.
They were easy to miss because nobody showed up. But if you happened to have been driving in the vicinity of an evil publicly-funded park, you might've seen two or three Republicans loitering around -- sitting there in the socialized grass, believing that a vigorous protest involves napping in lawn chairs.
While I spent a few moments of my holiday weekend revisiting the irony of anti-socialism protests taking place on socialized park land, it occurred to me that the proposed government-run public health insurance option probably won't cost nearly as much as the CBO is suggesting.
Because clearly there won't be any Republicans signing up for it.
I mean, no Republican would dare sign up for inexpensive, easily portable health insurance. Not when red, white and blue All American for-profit health insurance is available. After all, free market private health insurance will probably continue to be the more expensive option, so that must mean it's the finest insurance, right? Expensive equals good, no? (No. More on that presently.)
And of course none of the Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress are covered by a government health insurance plan. Except for all of them.
Please explain, conservatives and wingnuts, why you wouldn't seriously consider switching to the public option if it turned out to be more affordable and portable from job to job -- not to mention the fact that you wouldn't be turned down for a preexisting condition; you wouldn't be randomly booted from the plan as soon as you needed it most; and you would never have to worry about health insurance coverage ever again. Employed or unemployed. Sick or healthy.
I find it hard to believe that you, Mr. and Mrs. Wingnut, would defiantly pay more for less reliable insurance if offered a better deal. To pay more for less would be outstandingly backwards. Palin backwards. "Quitter" equals "fighter" backwards.
The fact remains that the only downside to the public option is that it's just too awesome. We don't deserve anything that good. Simply put: it's Medicare, but for anyone who wants it. And this is somehow a nightmare scenario -- one that we must never be allowed to experience even though it would cost much less than our current system, it would cover everyone who wants it, and it would be accountable to the American people. This is somehow a terrible idea. Terrible to the private health insurance mafia, that is. They simply can't allow you to have an affordable public option because they need your financial support. Face it, $1.4 million a day to lobby members of Congress isn't cheap.
The "it's too awesome for your own good" argument was the one we heard from both Republicans and centrist Blue Dog Democrats for several months recently. But now it's back to the good old fashioned socialized-healthcare-is-awful frame, most notably trotted out by Republican minority leader and Deep Space Nine shapeshifter Mitch McConnell, who has been peppering his floor speeches with the tear-jerking story of the one person from Canada who doesn't like her free and universal healthcare.
Imagine that. Free. And this one person hates it so bad, you don't even know!
Too bad there's nothing free and universal in God's non-socialist America. Like roads, police protection, fire departments, public schools, and public parks where we can protest against public programs like funding for parks.
But Mitch McConnell says that in Canada people have to wait for a knee replacement. See now, if I'm getting a free knee replacement surgery without fear of being dropped by my health insurance carrier or having to run up credit card debt in order to cover the co-pay, the co-insurance and the deductible, I want my damn knee replacement yesterday.
Waiting eight weeks (the average wait time) for a free Canadian knee replacement surgery is eight weeks too long. In America, I can have my knee surgery over lunch, yes? Of course I have to pay more for such a convenience. And I'm participating in an enterprise that could easily screw me out of the coverage entirely. But I can have my surgery whenever I want it. (Actually, it's about a 21 day wait.)
We sometimes hear a similar argument from rednecks who outright refuse to own a "faggy" fuel efficient car even though they're more affordable in nearly every way. But, you know, maybe I'm wrong and the ability to haul a cord of wood and to disguise their impotence with an optical illusion of enormous genitalia is worth the extra cash they're borrowing from various credit card companies to pay for all of that Middle Eastern gasoline. It's this brand of ignorance and defiance that's holding us back in so many ways, be it in terms of healthcare or green industrial development or education. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Fox News have convinced too many of us that "smart, free and affordable" is un-American while "oversized, unhealthy and expensive" is patriotic.
Yet people in Canada and Europe aren't dropping dead from a lack of affordable healthcare. They're being treated for the same illnesses we are, and with similar quality of care for approximately two-thirds the cost of our system.
But people are, in fact, dropping dead here due to a lack of affordable, reliable healthcare. They're being abandoned on the street. They're being denied coverage and care. They're going bankrupt and losing everything just because they had the bad luck of losing their job and then getting sick. And the Republicans are telling us that this is the best system ever, even though our infant mortality rate ranks 29th, our life expectancy ranks 42nd (so much for "pro life") and our healthcare spending is the highest among industrialized nations.
We have an opportunity to turn all of that around, though, with a strong public health insurance option. In fact, 70 percent of us want it. But if certain wingnuts and Republicans don't want affordable, guaranteed health insurance, then they don't have to sign up. They're welcome to continue to defiantly roll the dice with their private plans. And good luck with that, by the way. Just don't punish the rest of us with this self-defeating Palin-ish ignorance.
Loading comments… 
When I retired at the end of 2007, we moved to Sapporo, Japan. I am 75. I pay $35.00 per year for my Japanese health insurance. That's not a typo, that's real. We can't afford to live in the U.S. because we can't afford the health insurance, or the overpriced medication
Something wrong with this picture? I've always thought so. So I'm totally on board with you on this issue. What we have in the U.S. is both embarrassi
George Polley
Sapporo, Japan
It was fortunate that I, too, moved to Japan in 2001, because since that time I had a massive recurrence of Crohn's. I've been hospitaliz
I've been planning to move back home, but that will depend on the success of reform efforts.
Isn't it amazing how your perception of America changes when you look at it from the outside?
To Republican
http://axi
So, what you're telling you're telling me is that approximat
If it's good enough for Congress, it's good enough for us. (Our new rallying cry...)
Actually they won't be. Good businesses learn how to identify flaws and provide solutions to them. In Britain (where I am from) we have the same wait-for-e
So actually we have the best of both worlds. A single-pay
So why on earth would someone like me be in favor of this?
And no you don't have the best of both world (rarely can you have your cake and eat it too, hence the phrase). Maybe for those who earn next to nothing since they don't pay taxes anyhow...s
I want to know why?
If you think you may have to pay $5 more a week in taxes to save the lives of over 18,000 people and that is too much, then how much, exactly are people's lives worth to you? What would you pay to save lives? 5 cents? 10 cents? 0?
If you think that you may have to wait a half an hour more in the doctors office to save families being ruined by health care costs and resulting 62% of bankrupts is too long? How much longer would you wait? 2 minutes? 15 minutes?
Most Americans say they are willing to pay more, even though it would be unnecessar
So even in that you are in the minority.
You know it is all fantasy. You are paying for the uninsured now.
And you all on the right should know that there is no such thing as a free lunch as your hero Milton Friedman said.
In the end even Friedman admitted that they rule of law [by government
You know why I say NO? Because what you don't understand is this "Give an inch they take a yard"
At some point you must say NO to new taxes or to raising taxes. Now maybe you don't care because you possibly earn under $30,000/ye
But that is okay? You can just dump every penny you have until you have to declare bankruptcy into private care?
It isn't even logical what you say.
Both Sen. Sanders' S.703 and Rep. Conyers HR 676 include how to pay for it. Which will mean MORE money stays in the pockets of American. Under Conyers' plan a family of 4 with median income would pay 36% LESS for care than they do now.
How much tax are you paying? I'm quite sure I'm making more than you are. I paid US taxes last year on $146K of income. Top that.
The many people who need care have worked hard all their lives and paid taxes too so don't paint them as free loaders.
Many people with higher incomes and even real wealth, like Warren Buffet, are saying they'd gladly pay more to relieve some of the suffering in the US. And most Americans agree with them.
You are selfish.
“Did the doctor tell you to put the pill in your POCKET or in your MOUTH?” asked my brother.
“It costs $30!” replied my dad. Our sick system makes him think of the costs before thinking of his own health.
“In order for your medicine to work it has to pass one big obstacle, your mouth!” I say in vane.
This same scenario is playing out everyday in millions of families across America. It is sad.
Universal single payer now!
Demand your Senators support Sen. Sanders’ S.703 and your representa
See Where Congress Stands and how to contact them here:
http://sta
In any case. if the "free" market is sooo swell, why aren't they in it???
If no public health care is enacted, congress must enact a law that strips members of congress of all public health care benefits and makes them unable to use Medicare or VA benefits if otherwise eligible.
Ideally only those who voted against public health care would be stripped of their benefits. .
If members of congress believe a public health care is “not good,” then relinquish
Publicly funded campaigns are the only way we can get to a time where the most qualified people run for office rather than the most well funded.
If it takes a few years to do so trust me before you know it your schooling will be done. Time flies when you are busy. If you lack the money to do so, EVERY person is entitled to a a stafford loan. Oh, you are too good for a student loan? Then you can apply for a Pell Grant or other Grants and need based scholarshi
Think health isn't a political issue? I got one word: Tylenol. It has been known for many years that it can harm the human liver. But wonder why it only got to the press this year? New administra
Obama should stand up to the “medical industrial complex,” expose the “socialism
It’s greed, the relentless pursuit of ever increasing profit margins to please shareholde
(I’m disabled with MS and have been on Medicare – with nothing but good experience
My problem is that there are plenty of healthy people out there that are able bodied and I dare ask why I should pay for them when they can do something. There are illegal immigrants working making up to $200/day in NY for instance working as carpenters or landscaper
As for you once again, I have no problem with some of my tax money going towards helping those who truly CAN'T.
I also have a new question: If the big bad republic profiteers are making $millions by denying claims and such, wouldn't it be easy for others to start their own health care insurance company and put the Rethuglica
While it would be possible, the event isn't particular
As for your questions regarding taxation and funding - it's difficult to comment on legislatio
Personally
This is an excellent interview by PBS's Bill Moyers with two doctors who advocate Single Payer.
http://www
And here’s an even better one : “Profits Over People.” Moyers interviews an insurance industry insider who spilled the beans in testimony before Congress about all the twisted tactics of the insurance industry to deny coverage and care to increase profits.
It’s a real eye-opener
Employer's can drop there carrier like a hot rock. If they are bound by contract, they can switch when their contract is up.
"As for your questions regarding taxation and funding - it's difficult to comment on legislatio
I have a guess where the money will come from.
Who pays for it?
Will it work?
The answers?
You don't know Bob.
You are filled with opinions backed with no real informatio
These aren't questions we should be asking?
What progressiv
It's time for the idiots who know nothing about running anything except for-profit manners to get the hell out of the way because they're taking down the country, our health and our economy.
So wake up.
Here's a link: get educated, and get hip.:
http://www
It'll tell you or anyone who wonders all ya need to know.
.
Right now let's say me and my wife pay $6000 per year for health insurance. Under a universal health care system are you telling me I would pay LESS than that in increased taxes?
BS.
If my taxes go up $6000 grand a year what is the point? And with this "health care system" MY taxes will go up WAY over $6000.
I'd like to see you prove it wouldn't.
Don't you see that all of these countries that your link mentions pay way more in taxes then we do.
This is the problem. The money for universal health care has to come from somewhere and that somewhere will equal even more $ out of MY pocket.
AND yours...