Some revealing double-speak on healthcare reform

Greetings, racists!

“This plan needs real barriers to prevent big companies that hire low-wage workers (like Wal-Mart) from merely pushing the health-care burden onto taxpayers,…”

So, who was that? Some tea party protester whining about having to foot the bill on behalf of the chum in the capitalist shark tank?

Not at all. That’d be rather the current mayor of San Francisco and candidate for governor of our fine state, Gavin Newsom. Of course, that quote was made nearly two years ago and represented Newsom’s opposition to Governor Schwarzenegger’s push to install an Obama-style health reform plan here in California.

Of course, Gavin is singing a different tune now as he is in full support of Obama-care.

But we’ll take Newsom’s original assessment of Arnold-care as his honest first impression take on government-managed health care because it is spot-on and represents why most big businesses are lining up behind Obama-care. If outfits like Wal-Mart are subjected to a tax for not providing a government-approved health plan to their employees for an amount that is less than what it costs them to provide a health plan, what do you think is going to happen?

Perhaps, merely because he was a Republican and Newsom needed some campaign fodder did he oppose Schwarzenegger’s plan but we won’t let the cynic in us not appreciate Newsom’s fit of honesty in seeing and espousing upon the game plan behind Obama-care.

The Friday Evening Dump

(one in a weekly series intended to shine some light on unsavory news being jettisoned from the White House and Capitol Hill right before the weekend)

Just remember: it’s not a tax.

WASHINGTON — Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled yesterday by leading Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

(italics, ours)

Further on in this article there is some juicy info that betrays the “public option” lie being touted by Obama-care proponents.

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics. The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

Bounce that against this:

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that don't offer coverage to employees.

So, if you are one of these larger companies, what incentive do you have to provide health care for your workers? You don’t. If you are paying out an average of $4,700 per person and over 12 grand per family in medical coverage, you are going to drop that in a heartbeat to merely shell-out that $750 annual “fee” to the Feds.

The next time you here any non-sense regarding how Obama-care just wants to compete against private insurance and not displace it, remember the facts as laid-out above. With the government calling the shots of how this “public option” will be implemented, they can skew the playing field as they see fit, rendering the public option as anything but.

Your sadly obligatory Mark, er.... Health care update

Damn that Mark Sanford and his news cycle dominating ways. Anyway, here’s a breakdown (with pie charts!) of the Obama-care infomercial on ABC last night for those of you who may have had better things to do.

Dig this:

In addition to Obama’s longwinded responses, the ABC special left the most critical questions until the “Nightline” portion of the segment – after a 30-minute break for local news and likely fewer viewers.

… after a 30-minute break….?

good lord, how are we defining torture, again?

Something we haven’t heard discussed too much with respect to the public option, it’s competitiveness and the tilting of the playing field towards this alleged “option” is medical malpractice insurance which has been a thorn in the side of doctors for years.

Long story short: will doctors operating under the public option have to buy the same kind of med-mal insurance that private doctors do? The government buys insurance for nothing – everything they purchase and operate is self-insured with your tax dollars and the doctors practicing under the big tent of the public option will be no different.

From jump street and without even having to actively legislate for, the public option already has a huge competitive cost advantage on the private sector.

And speaking of competition, Robert Reich thinks the computer (or cell phone/PDA) upon which you are viewing this would be even better if the government made one as well. For reals. B-Daddy has more, here.