GOP hopefuls see Dems’ health plan as ticket to rise
Kirk
WASHINGTON — Did somebody say government-run?
That’s the refrain sounding from just about every Republican in Washington, and the GOPers who would like to get to D.C., in response to the latest version of a Democratic health insurance plan, this one offered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk, a candidate for the Senate (Barack Obama’s old seat), released a radio ad today asserting that “Democrats in Washington want to put the government in charge of your health care, but Mark Kirk is fighting back. He’s leading the effort to stop the government takeover.”
Kirk, a five-term House member from Chicago’s North Shore suburbs, adds that the alternative he prefers features “no government interference with your doctor.”
Are we getting the point yet?
If not, in St. Louis, Ed Martin, a Republican congressional aspirant, put out a statement this afternoon that began thusly:
“Nancy Pelosi today presented her plan for a government takeover of health care which (Rep.) Russ Carnahan will rubber stamp.
Martin later refined the verbiage refer to Pelosi’s House proposal as “a disastrous and debt-laden government takeover of health care.”
For his part, Carnahan called the new plan a step forward in achieving health reform that accomplishes cost control, choice and competition.
“I say to my colleagues,” Carnahan added in a statement, “the time has come for you to decide on which side of history you will stand? Will you stand with the vast majority of Americans who are demanding real solutions to our health care crisis?”
By the way, Pelosi’s legislation does include the so-called public option, a government entity to run an insurance program to compete with private insurers — the source of criticisms about government intrusion. But it wasn’t one of the more far-reaching public options that have been discussed in Congress; it would allow hospitals and care providers to negotiate their rates with the government rather than having those rates dictated.
The question is do 44,000+ human beings need to die yearly because they can not get medical care due to ability to pay issues. Its seems that if a human being needs medical care to survive said care would be outside the scope of ability to pay issues. Thus reasonable medical care could be provided by the state. This seems consistent with life, liberty, and happiness. It appears repugnant to the Constitution to state that welfare is not for medical purposes. See folks all money is welfare thus it seems necessary medical care would be a reasonable usage of this aspect of the Constitution. The concept applies that property is over life meaning that ones property is over ones life securing it. Surely we hold the constitution we pay for it from birth to death. When necessary we are to be secured by the Constitution. Those that argue that Adam Smith holds the power of life and death over us are not exercising sound judgement plainly speaking.
So Mike, have you foresaken all possessions in order to provide for the medical care of others?
> Are we getting the point yet?
Come on, Bill … if endless repetition of the same point is a bad thing, what of the obsession of the entire Post-Dispatch editorial staff with pumping up the Democrat’s proposals? I’m going to start calling you xoF News.
> The question is do 44,000+ human beings need to die yearly because they
> can not get medical care due to ability to pay issues.
Actually, MM, the question for me is how many human beings will die yearly when the government runs our healthcare system into the ground. I’ll bet it’ll be more than 44,000.
Sure, Mark Kirk is trying to distract attention away from all the issues that prove he’s really a liberal Dem. Don’t be fooled Republicans.
Mark Kirk is radically pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda, and he’s a gun grabber. The NRA gives him a lifetime grade of F.
He is also one of only 8 Republicans in the entire country who voted FOR Obama’s Cap & Trade, economy destroying bill.
Mark Kirk is just Barack Obama Light.
ABL- Richest country in the world, pathetic health system. We can fix this, and you and Mike can keep all your stuff. Wonder if Jesus took stock of his wordly possessions before deciding if he had the wherewithal to heal the sick. Grab your Bible and see. I’m sure you keep it handy since you and your ilk are constantly reminding us of the Christian foundations of this nation.
Such bogus demagoguery! Kirk and Ed Martin and both fools.
And, the democrats need to get back to the drawing board, work on this flawed legislation, and jettison the giveaways to the insurance industry.
TO THOSE WHO USE THE EXPRESSION ‘GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE’ AS A PEJORATIVE:
Believe it or not, our government has a better track record in health care than the private sector. Medicare is government managed and overhead is 3% of its revenues; operating expenses for private insurers are between 30-40% of their income. A public option would reveal the insurance industry’S waste and inefficiencies. As for your angst about a ‘government takeover,’ talk to someone on Medicare. You’ll discover that they’re free to choose any doctor and follow their recommendations; no one has to argue with insurance companies for treatment authorization. MediCare pays the bill. The insurance companies are the guys with the bureaucracy that intervenes in a patient’s case and makes decisions based on profits.