jakeb210’s posterous

a) it is the surest way to reduce healthcare costs over the long term. See canada, france, the UK, ah hell all of the 28 nations ranked ahead of us in healthcare. notice how much less they spend in healthcare costs and their better results. do not believe liars who say their ’socialism’ healthcare is worse than the usa. it is not. this is a FACT. let’s keep healthcare in this country mediocre. as bill kristol said the other night on the daily show, regular americans don’t deserve excellent healthcare.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-27-2009/bill-kristol

b) it would shrink health insurance companies to small entities insuring extra care for rich people. this would significantly reduce the amount of money sent to politicians re-election campaigns. how will they pay for slanderous campaign advertisements?

c) it would significantly reduce american corporations healthcare costs thereby enabling them to hire more people and expand their businesses in the us of a. its way better to have our companies outsource their workforce to other countries.

d) it would allow people with the dreaded pre-existing condition like myself to be insured and get treatment without going bankrupt for just trying to stay alive. we should just let people like me move to other countries where we won’t complain about being denied coverage.

i’m learning french.  or maybe german.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_reform_for_beginners_th_1.html

Here is a comment from the above article illustrating my point.  Why are our representatives in Congress against a government run healthcare provider when a majority of their actual constituents want this option?  There is only one reason, and it is called campaign contributions & lobbying from private healthcare insurance companies.  We need to stand up and tell our congressional representatives that if they don't include a government run healthcare option in the healthcare reform bill, then they can start looking for another job.

"Why didn't you quote the Post's own poll?

Here is a question from a Washington Post - ABC poll:

"Which would you prefer: the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance, OR, a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?"

62% favored Medicare for All; 33% were opposed. That's pretty decisive. And this is with the facts suppressed. Other questions in the poll show that the 62% supporting the universal program mostly believe it will cost more when it will cost less. They believe they won't be able to pick their doctor when Medicare allows much more freedom than most private plans. They believe there will be long waiting times when this is a myth. And still they support a universal plan like Medicare for All by 2 to 1.

Len Charlap
Princeton, NJ"