swreader wrote:I thought it was pretty well done.
It is well done. Concise, brief, to the point.
Here's the thing: follow the money.
is a question your law school profs told you to ask.
So who will benefit from reforming health care insurance?
Not Blue Cross or Kaiser.
So why would they want reform?
They dont', but they will go along with the seemingness of reform. Just not the whatness.
Ins co's say they can't compete in a single payer system.
True insurance reform would allow the co-op, pvt ins and single payer insurance systems to exist and offer real choices. By offering these real choices, the cost of health ins would be driven down (competition) and lower prices is what Kaiser et al do not want.
In 1971, Nixon approved the first HMO --Kaiser Pernamente-- which opened the door for the rise in monopolized insurance costs we now must live with.
Remember that Nixon was also the guy who sent troops into Laos, China and Cambodia then lied about it.
He's the one with the Slush Fund and the Watergate coverup.
And who hollered loudest about the American Way was a member of Joe McCarthy's Un-American Committee.
We will not see either health insurance reform or health care reform.
The pharmas and the ins co's bullied Clinton out of it and bought Hillary's silence by contributing to her campaigns --again, follow the money.
The real money is in monopolizing health insurance, not in competition.
Tens of millions of people are basically screwed. We pay the taxes that comprise our Reps' and Senators salaries (and their health care), but we get nada.
2d Amendment is a good thing. Because I cannot afford to buy groceries.