« | »

Obama May Allow Non-Govt Insurance

From CNN via an unquestioning Associated Press:

Sebelius: Public insurance option not essential

Sun Aug 16

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s health secretary is suggesting the White House is ready to accept nonprofit insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run public option in a health overhaul plan. A Republican senator says that is worth looking at.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says Obama still believes there should be choice and competition" in the health insurance market — but that a public option is "not the essential element."

Obama has been pressing for the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s nearly 50 million uninsured. But he had not seen a not-for-profit co-op as sufficient to offer consumers choice and competition that would bring down the costs of private insurance…

Mr. Obama may allow some non-government insurance companies to implement his plans, at least at first.

Is not Mr. Obama wonderful in his mercies? However temporary they may be.

Still, no matter what he pretends otherwise, we know that a single payer government controlled plan is his ultimate goal.

That has always been his opinion, and it will always be.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, August 16th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “Obama May Allow Non-Govt Insurance”

  1. U NO HOO says:

    “choice and competition” in the health insurance market ”

    I heard that there are 1700 insurance companies.

    I get a fax a week offering $99 a month health insurance.

  2. Melly says:

    Are we the American sheep really supposed to believe this pathetic excuse at reasonable compromise?
    This is all part of a Barry’s grand Communist scheme.
    Because he now suggests something less than complete mind and body government controlled healthcare, we are now supposed to agree to something less than big brother and be grateful.
    Shame on any Republican who flies towards Barry’s flame like a dumb moth.

  3. conservativecanuck says:

    Long time reader, new poster. For those of you who are unsure of socialized medicine, take it from a resident of the true north, it’s not something you should play with. My wife required three major medical procedures and each one had a waiting list of over 18 months in Canada. We ended up spending the money and having it done next day in the good old US of A. Now if you go the way your Pres is headed, where will I get my wife treated? Waiting lists and unapproved procedures is what awaits you all. There is no such thing as “free health care”, just restricted health care administered by your government.

  4. GL0120 says:

    First and most important rule for dealing with TCO –
    If his lips are moving, he’s lying!

  5. mrbeverage says:

    The unintended consequences of forcing pre existing conditions to be covered will drive insurance premiums sky high for healthy people or drive insurance companies out of business. Why bother to maintain insurance? You can just wait until you actually get diagnosed with an illness and an insurance company will be forced to accept you.
    It is a kin to forcing life insurance companies to cover someone, even in the case of a pre excising death! “Here is my husband’s first premium, now where is my $500k death benefit?”

    • bitterclinger says:

      When an insurance policy covers pre-existing conditions, what idiot will buy insurance before he gets sick?

      When only sick people have policies, your policy will cost more than your medical care.

    • proreason says:

      I agree with the points about pre-existing conditions.

      But it seems to me that once a person has contracted with a health insurer, if they change without a break in coverage (because of switching plans at an employer, or going to a new employer, or purchasing an individual policy), then there should be no new review for pre-existing conditions.

      If there is a new review, it essentially pins a person to the existing employer or plan.

      I think what I described is the common way it is done today, but there must be exceptions, or else the screaming about portability is totally hype.

  6. GL0120 says:

    First and most important rule for dealing with TCO –
    If his lips are moving, he’s lying!

    Remember “No tax increase for those making less than $250K?”

    • beautyofreason says:

      Yeah, remember that part when he said “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” too?

  7. canary says:

    An example of Obama’s habitual lying.

    Obama calls this little piece “just a tiny sliver”? of the health care ‘s entirety.
    1. In no shape or form is it “just a tiny sliver”.
    Obama’s tiny sliver really means chopping the head off American people.

    Wether or not the “enormous tiney slivers left” of the health care left, means actual literally enormous tiney slivers left for cutting off the body. Like skin cells, which can now grow embryos (clones) for more stem cells, pieces of organs they can plant in you and regrow.

    Or does Obama use the example of “slivers” to mean violating the Constitutions in no unnecessary Search and Seizure, violating every Privacy Laws in America, the Pursuit of Happiness, former Presidential Executive Orders, the U.S. Code of Federal Law, and Supreme Court Mile-stones.

    One can only guess with a President compares delightful enchanting deep crimson ribbons swirling every …….
    instead of just saying blood was squirting and flying everywhere when the chicken was killed for our dinner.

  8. proreason says:

    American Thinker’s Russel Hoven discusses Democrats putting their co-op in competition with private health insurance providers.

    Surely, the entire country will quickly flock to an enterprise with all that brain power behind it. Libwits everywhere can luxuriate in the low deductables, tiny co-pays, high quality service, gentle end-of-life counseling, computer based medical diagnoses, wellness programs, and low low cost prescription drugs.

    It should be an easy way for them to demonstrate the vast benefits of foresaking profits for the public good, right?


  9. Rusty Shackleford says:

    I don’t care what Blammo and his type-setters come up with. It’s gonna uk-say. Adly-bay.

    He is not “willing to” do anything. He is being forced to back off. And, like any arrogant fool, he will take it personally and thus, attack on another front with mucho gusto. He will try to ram Amnesty next…and other things. Crap and Tax….which is already seemingly stillborn.

    It’s not that I don’t trust him…..It’s that I trust him all too well.

  10. GetBackJack says:

    Bwa-hahaha. Nose of the camel into the tent, boiling the frog slowly, two steps forward one step back, etc etc.

    I call bullshiat. It’s all the same Plan to get control of your conjones.

  11. Right of the People says:

    If you all think this is bad, wait and see what happens if the unwashed morons who voted for his Assholiness last year re-elect the butt monkey. He will have a lame duck presidency where he won’t be worried about re-election and the sh*t will really begin to fly. I can envision him going after the Bill of Rights and trying to get rid of all the amendments he doesn’t like; 1st so no one can speak ill of him, 2nd, need I say more? The fourth and fifth, fourteenth, and all those other pesky ones that keep him from absolute power. Someone needs to nip this in the bud!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »