Imagine for a moment we had a press that was reporting on controversial issues. Here's an
exchange in 2009 between an Obamacare shill and a skeptical member of Congress:
REP. PRICE: You also mentioned, as other folks have, that the president's goal -- and it's reiterated over and over and over -- that if you like your current plan or if you like your current doctor, you can keep them. Do you know where that is in the bill?
MS. ROMER: Absolutely. And things like the employer mandate is part of making sure that large employers that today -- the vast majority of them do provide health insurance. One of the things that's --
REP. PRICE: I'm asking about if an individual likes their current plan and maybe they don't get it through their employer and maybe in fact their plan doesn't comply with every parameter of the current draft bill, how are they going to be able to keep that?
MS. ROMER: So the president is fundamentally talking about maintaining what's good about the system that we have. And --
REP. PRICE: That's not my question.
MS. ROMER: One of the things that he has been saying is, for example, you may like your plan and one of the things we may do is slow the growth rate of the cost of your plan, right? So that's something that is not only --
REP. PRICE: The question is whether or not patients are going to be able to keep their plan if they like it. What if, for example, there's an employer out there -- and you've said that if the employers that already provide health insurance, health coverage for their employees, that they'll be just fine, right? What if the policy that those employees and that employer like and provide for their employees doesn't comply with the specifics of the bill? Will they be able to keep that one?
MS. ROMER: So certainly my understanding -- and I won't pretend to be an expert in the bill -- but certainly I think what's being planned is, for example, for plans in the exchange to have a minimum level of benefits.
REP. PRICE: So if I were to tell you that in the bill it says that if a plan doesn't comply with the specifics that are outlined in the bill that that employer's going to have to move to the -- to a different plan within five years -- would you -- would that be unusual, or would that seem outrageous to you?
MS. ROMER: I think the crucial thing is, what kind of changes are we talking about? The president was saying he wanted the American people to know that fundamentally if you like what you have it will still be there.
REP. PRICE: What if you like what you have, Dr. Romer, though, and it doesn't fit with the definition in the bill? My reading of the bill is that you can't keep that.
MS. ROMER: I think the crucial thing -- the bill is talking about setting a minimum standard of what can count --
REP. PRICE: So it's possible that you may like what you have, but you may not be able to keep it? Right?
MS. ROMER: We'd have -- I'd have to look at the specifics.
5 comments:
Help me decide- is this obfuscation, or just plain old vanilla grade waffling?
My former friends are now going on about how this only affects five percent- I am tempted to ask them if they would be OK if it was 49% , with the other 51 % calling the shots. It seems one of the virtues of a Republic was to prevent the tyranny of the majority, fueled by other peoples money.
Oh well. It's getting "grim" around here, time for a musical interlude appropriate for the occasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RGXfDCmMbY
If it only affects an unimportant 5%, why can't we keep our policies? We're too tiny and unimportant to do any harm to the wonderful new pools, right? We should be allowed to live our the remainder of our pitiful lives with our paleolithic throwback policies.
Good point- but as ( I think it was C.S.Lewis?) said- they can only be sure they have real power by hurting someone- otherwise, there is the possibility that obedience is willing- and willing compliance is not POWER. Now when they force a man to his knees, grind his face in the dirt, now THAT is power.
Also, as the statements you quote cite, they believe there's a moral issue at stake. Every American should have a certain level of basic coverage. It's only decent.
You just don't like having to pay for it. But if you hadn't done well in life, they'd arrange for someone else to pay for part of it for you. You just did well enough that you should have to carry your own weight in living up to their standards of decency for you.
It's funny, in a way, because this is the group that would scream the loudest about (say) a public dress code that was based on a notion of "decency." Somehow when we're talking about insurance coverage instead of sartorial coverage, the idea of 'decency' becomes much more respectable.
"You just don't like having to pay for it. But if you hadn't done well in life, they'd arrange for someone else to pay for part of it for you. You just did well enough that you should have to carry your own weight in living up to their standards of decency for you"
And my reply to them would be this-
"Am I my brothers keeper? If so, If I am to pay for their care, then surely I should be able to dictate their actions so as to minimize the outlay, so some other, less fortunate person should also have a share?"
NO doubt they would agree heartily, as long as THEY got to determine who had access to the Cherry Garcia and the last pack of smokes.
Actually, I would be much more vituperous in my language, as my circumstances are about as far as possible from the mystical "rich". In fact, they are designing to remove from myself and my wife nearly all our yearly surplus.
I will say this- my normally live and let live wife is getting a whole new appreciation of the demanding and envious attitude of some of our acquaintances.
Thank you God for protecting me from envy- what a savage curse, guaranteed to rob contentment from the soul.
Post a Comment