Monday, August 10, 2009

"Government Health Care in Stealth Mode"

Let's review again what Obama has said previously about health care "reform:

Michael Barone:

"Obama has never made his ultimate goal a secret; it's the same as Schakowsky's and Hacker's. The video shows him saying in October 2003, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, 'I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program.' He adds, 'We may not get there immediately,' noting the Democrats must 'take back' the White House and both houses of Congress -- a condition fulfilled last Jan. 20.

Campaigning for president in May 2007, he says, 'But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.' That seems to imply that his goal remains the same as it was in 2003. 'There's going to be potentially some transition process -- I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we've got a much more portable system.' Which of course government health insurance would be.

You couldn't get away from it. The president's defenders depict this video and others like it as a patchwork of irrelevant and misleading statements. They also cite Obama's oft-repeated pledges that any health care bill he would sign would let you keep the insurance you have. They don't address the point, raised by Hacker, that you can't keep it if your employer stops offering it.

But, as Schakowsky says, 'This is not a principled fight.' Schakowsky, Hacker and Obama believe, out of idealism but also perhaps for crass political reasons, that America would be better off with a single-payer system like Canada's or Britain's. But they realize that they're operating in a country where most voters don't agree. The video helps us understand how they're seeking to reach their single-payer goal through government-option stealth."


  1. Bubba,

    Here's what Matthew Holt, a health care specialist and an ADVOCATE of a single-payer system, says about the legislation now before Congress:

    "Despite the complaints of every progressive in the Congress and all the single payer advocates shut out of the process, (the right claims) this is a push for single-payer, government-run health care.

    "If you think even the House bill is single payer you are merely exposing your ignorance.

    "What the President wants and what's in all the bills is a big
    expansion of private insurance.

    "What Obama said while trying to get elected to the state senate (On YouTube he said health care was 14% of GDP which it hasn't been since he’s been in the Senate) is irrelevant to any legislation that’s going to pass. This of course is why the private insurance industry is in general in favor of the current bills, as it will deliver them up to 50 million more customers. But that’s OK, why get all tangled up in reality when there’s an old YouTube clip about what Obama would like in his ideal world.

    "But don’t worry—Stalinism exists. It’s called the “public option”.

    "a) single payer is the abolition of private insurance. Would AHIP (America's Health Insurance Plans) be signing on for that? No way--yet they're in favor

    "b) CBO says public option would include around 11 million Americans by 2019. There are 48 with no insurance--therefore universal care under this plan would add about another 30-35 million to private insurance rolls. Another reason why AHIP supports the plan in general."

  2. While the current version is not single payer, that is the ultimate goal. What is going to be the new solution in 5-10 years when this new system does not work? The answer is for government to be the only option. You have to look at the long term goal of "progressives" and the ruling elite: increased power for the government.

    Maybe you should take some Russian history classes to see how their five and ten year plans worked. When things were no better and eventually got worse due to government ineptitude what was the solution? More government.

    Also, how do you think a government that cannot budget and administer a program as simple as cash for clunkers can handle a complex program like health care?

  3. "Also, how do you think a government that cannot budget and administer a program as simple as cash for clunkers can handle a complex program like health care?"

    It is INSANE that they are proposing a massive expansion of government health care while ignoring the pending insolvency of the program they currently run.