August 19, 2009
REAL TALKER: BARNEY FRANK
You guys all remember learning about when Hitler proposed a more affordable alternative to privately-owned health insurance don't you?? Here's the most laughably retarded aspect of this whole health insurance/ pharmaceutical industry-driven backlash against the public option (OPTION!!!-As in you can you can choose this if you want it- or not): Somehow Obama manages to be painted as Hitler by these retards, for proposing that people should have the option to choose a more affordable govt. OPTION for healthcare. Meanwhile; it is common practice for the existing privately owend insurance companies to routinely underinsure or flat-out deny their customers necessary healthcare proceedures, if it goes against their bottom line. In other words, "we reserve the right to let you suffer or die, if it means the service you are paying us for, cuts into our shareholders' profits". To the right-wingers and sellout-ass 'blue dog' Democrats, offering people an alternative to this corrupt inefficient healthcare system is 'Hitleresque'; but maintaining the status quo of privately-owned insurance companies' institutionalized (literal) 'death panels'-approach to healthcare is not only acceptable, but is 'AMERICAN!' If you are on board with this line of bullshit than I have my own healthcare diagnosis for you: You are terminally stupid and do not deserve to live. By the power vested in me by the Lords of Apathy Death Panel, I sentence you to death. -Tell Reagan I said "suck it".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm from Canada, and ma dukes just got both knees replaced a while back and one of her friends from the US said the same deal down there would have cost around $250K. Plus she wouldn't have had a choice of knee or hospital, that would have been up to the insurance company, if we had health insurance. Right now, I think, most people pay around $900 a year for OHIP coverage (I'm from Ontario, OHIP stands for Ontario Health Insurance Plan) and I have never heard of anyone getting rejected or dying because the government doesn't want foot the bill. Sorry for the rant, keep it up dudes
You're totally wrong about everything you said. Explain the part about Franks' role in the mortgage crisis. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning considering Franks was part of the minority party (during Bush's reign of (t)error) and everything about the mortgage crisis was a direct result of deregulation of banks and lending institutions. -Deregulation being the mantra of 'free market' corporatist Republican ideology.
barney frank can explain it himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
re: Barney Frank --- bear in mind he said that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't cost the taxpayer a penny. Technically correct, the bill so far being $96bn.
It's also worth bearing in mind the following:
1) FNM and FRE were consistent, large donors to Dems and the GOP and had a lot of 'friends' on the Hill
2) Congress consistently resisted tighter regulation of FNM and FRE since at least the late '90s.
Barney Frank is partly responsible. What's sad is that so are a lot of other legislators, of both parties. It would be much more productive if we could try to avoid partisanship here - it's clouding the issue, namely that lax regulation contributed to the problems, and the regulators appear to be in the pockets of those they're supposed to regulate ("regulatory capture").
from what i can see the issues are basically the cost of ensuring universal coverage and the concern that the govt option will eventually restrict choice by either bureaucratic fiat or crowding out the private sector.
seems reasonable to debate those issues, even if the tactics have been unreasonable.
Post a Comment