Re: Health Care Bill May Cut Employer Mandate

Again, health insurance will become a requirement – by mandate.  At this point, will it be a requirement for the government to Provide coverage?  No.  Employers (big business)?  No.  Yet, for individuals, they must soon Provide for themselves (bootstraps) – you know, like in “personal responsibility,” just like they have since the corporate bailout, eight years of rampant Enronesque collusion, and more than a quarter-century of deregulation via the setup of Reagonomics.  Yes, “It would expand coverage to millions who lack it. . . .”  However, that expansion is coming – by force – and, will be based on mandatory spending (up to 8%) of income toward a policy – sold by Private insurers (a new major tax – especially on those making under $250,000, and an endless cycle of the same abuse these “providers” are known for: Rape is a pre-existing condition.  Your baby is overweight/underweight, so, your policy is canceled.  Your cancer treatment, or liver transplant, or brain surgery, etc., is too expensive, so, we’ve decided to no longer cover those procedures in your state.  Further, once we have 50 million new customers, we are going to raise rates by more than 100% – because there will be no article against it).  If there is a Public Option, “states would be permitted to drop out. . . .”  Won’t that be wonderful for people who are at the mercy of Governors like Rick Perry, who serve their corporate masters’ vulturous ideology?  “Feingold: No Public Option A ‘Strong Reason’ Not To Support Reform.”  Exactly.  Step by step: From Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (“Opt-Out”) to a “Trigger.”  This was planned, from the beginning.  “It’s just politics” – without morals or souls.  The president sold us out, from day one (just like in other areas).  He is not a Progressive, though he promoted himself as one.  In fact, he is closer to the obstructionist republicans than those blue dogs.  While witnessing a national con job, we must now prepare for those second and third jobs.

Bookmark and Share

3 Responses to Re: Health Care Bill May Cut Employer Mandate

  1. seaclearly says:

    “A family of three earning $27,465 a year before taxes – that is, at 150 percent of the poverty line – would have to pay $1,318 a year for health coverage under the proposed Senate merged health reform bill. This for families that often have difficulty paying the rent and utilities and putting food on the table.”

  2. seaclearly says:

    Headlined as “History In The Making” and “Historic: House Releases Health Care Bill,” Grim promoted a tone of celebration – as if we should be overlooking facts/fates – & rejoicing: “The ceremony . . . marks the greatest progress toward the Democratic Party’s top domestic priority goal in more than half a century.” How much more insult are we to endure – even from our (supposedly) progressive (& objective) press/media? As written previously, we went “from Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (‘Opt-Out’) to a ‘Trigger’” (still not enough for the likes of Sen. “Money Talks” Lieberman). Once the final combined bills are stripped further – in order to placate a minority – there will be nothing “robust” left of what the majority wished, fought, and voted for. Under the guise of needing 60 votes (with spines, 51 votes would have sufficed), we have been “bamboozled.” (Remember Obama using that term?) This constant watering-down has already set us up for realizing “the cost of health care” as “increasing” – in direct opposition to what would have resulted from a Single-Payer focus. Consequently, the “Affordable” reference in the “Health Care for America Act” is just as Orwellian as the “Freedom” in McCain’s “Internet Act.” Does this sham of “reform,” which mainly just mandates us into private insurers hands, really equal “the greatest progress” that could have been made? No. But, the answer as to why is explicit in another HuffPost title: “Big Pharma Ready For ‘Hand To Hand Combat’ To Defend White House Deal.”

  3. […] are we to endure – even from our (supposedly) progressive (and objective) press/media?  As written previously, we went “from Single-Payer to a Public Option to a fragmented Option (‘Opt-Out’) to a […]