The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 a
 >
>>
Hidden Costs of ObamaCare

Better late than never I guess.

Back in September, around the 10th, David Axelrod of Obama's administration talked to Wolf Blitzer on CNN.  You have probably seen the video already.  Hot Air had a post about it.  Rush Limbaugh tore David a new one on his radio show on September 22.  Everyone is calling it a lie.  It may very well be.

I will quote out the main key point on the next page.

Blitzer
said, "The cooperative option, a series of health insurance
cooperatives that wouldn't be the public option, but would be something
in between?  Is he going to get into a detail like that and say he
likes that idea?"

AXELROD: 
He will acknowledge the fact that there is that idea.  There's the idea
of putting a trigger on the public option so it goes into effect at
some date when it's clear that the -- that a market is uncompetitive. 
There are a number of ideas, but what is very important is that we have
the kind of competition and choice that will help consumers
.

Blitzer
says, "Why not break down these state barriers and let all these
insurance companies compete nationally
without having to simply focus
in on a state by state basis?"

AXELROD:  Because we are trying
to do this in a way that advances the interests of consumers without
creating such disruption
that it makes it difficult to --

BLITZER: 
Why would that be disruptive if Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United
Health Care or all these big insurance companies, they don't have to
worry about just working in a state, they could just have the
opportunity to compete in all 50 states.
 
AXELROD:  But insurance is regulated at this time --

BLITZER:  But you could change that --

AXELROD:  State by state.

BLITZER:  The president could propose a law changing that.

AXELROD:  That is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we are proposing or that --

BLITZER:  Why not, why not?

AXELROD: 
We're proposing a package that we believe will bring that stability and
security to people, will help people get insurance, and will lower the
cost impact and pass the Congress
.  And that has to be the test.  We're
not into symbolic expedition here.

Like I said, while most critics are focusing on calling Axelrod a liar for claiming that opening up the borders for insurance companies would not increase competition and reduce costs.  However, he did admit that Obama is only focused on doing something that will pass Congress.  And, of course, it is not within the right reform proposals. 

Why increase competition when your whole focus is to eliminate it?

But what I would like to focus on is the theory behind the public option versus this topic: Allowing people to seek services from out-of-state insurance carriers.

Think about this.  The ObamaCare has as its basis a push to establish a government-run not-for-profit option to compete with all of the for-profit insurance carriers out there.  This administration has already stated that it is against opening up the borders for insurance carriers.  Put the two together now.

If they are not going to open up the ability of insurance companies to operate nationally, then that will force ObamaCare to create 50 different "options".  They will not be able to create a single NATIONAL "public" option.  That of course, would be illegal and would go against the "kind of reform" that they are trying to implement.

So, tell me.  How expensive do you think this deficit-neutral (cough, cough) plan will be now that you know they will have to create up to 50 seperate ObamaCare plans?

Oh, and you will be forced to buy in to one plan or another.  You will have to purchase one of his plans or a private plan that will be forced to offer the same coverage as the ObamaPlan.  If you choose to save your money and not purchase coverage you will be fined andor jailed.  But then, of course, that is not a tax.

  #Dictatorship

Powered by Snarf · Contact Us