What part of you can keep your existing insurance did they not hear?

Magister; Obama admitted this at the republican retreat:

“….For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge”

I say it is clear in that statement that Obama himself acknowledges that the legislation violated “that pledge” – being “keep the health insurance you got”.

@TfT: The ability to keep your existing insurance is one of the core principles the President outlined.

I honestly don’t know if he was referencing “keep… you got” or “in between… doctor” in the above response, but thus far, nothing has become law and you’d think a Presidential core principle would carry equal or greater weight than some unknown guy hypothesizing about how a less expensive plan, a consumer might choose for themself would be administered.

I am personally thankful there is no plan at this point. I’m perfectly content with the health insurance plan that I have. I see nothing wrong with FNC speculating about Clinton and what might have been. Media speculates about everything/anything these days.

I look forward (sort of) to the upcoming public exchange of information between the parties on moving forward on health insurance. I understand after having read the invitation to the congressional leaders that Obama is going to post a new comprehensive plan on-line prior to the gathering later this month. Should be an interesting read.

Once more Fox misses no opportunity, no matter how tangential and in this case tasteless, to push the status quo and corporate profits over the interests of the citizenry.

When it comes to health care, Fox’s motto should be “We’re number 37 and damn proud of it!”, instead of “fair and balanced”.

And before anyone accuses me of being an Obama shill, I’m for tossing out the coporate sell out piece of crap he’s pedaling and coming back with a one page “Medicare Part E” for anyone that wants it.

The heck with what Wall Street would think of that or Blue Dogs, and expecially Republican corporate employees doing thier master’s bidding instead of the voters.

@TfT: I have terrific health insurance. I wish it were a little cheaper and I’m banking on the eventual plan to possibly make that happen, but I have no plans to change.

I think the point is, and as has been discussed before, would “average” Clinton (that is, someone who was just like Clinton, but not a politician or former President) been able to receive such treatment… or would he have been denied based on age and relative “usefulness?” Yes, it’s a segue into rationing… which is something very few have denied must take place in any future national plan, if we want the plan to remain fiscally possible. Truth is, knowing Clinton’s age, and previous heart and health issues, it is possible that average-Clinton would be told it wasn’t worth the cost or risk to perform the operation. That’s a valid discussion to have in the healthcare debate, is it not?

@ImNotBlue: Personally, I wouldn’t knowingly buy a plan that would ration.

Magister says:
February 13, 2010 at 11:39 am

Neither would I… and that’s part of the problem, isn’t it?

A) If the government plan does, and the government plan also forces people to get insurance (especially theirs) under various penalties… the public doesn’t have a choice but to accept rationing.

B) If the goal is to create a government plan that will encourage/force other private plans to model themselves after the government’s, won’t those other plans start to have increased rationing as well? Your option might become a foolishly expensive plan with no rationing, or everything else with some form of rationing.

In other words… they might make the decision for you… and that’s a level of power no government should have.

@ImNotBlue: I realized after I posted the comment and had left the house that I should’ve made my “no rationing” a conditional statement; For example, when others in my household started wearing glasses, I added supplemental vision coverage which went beyond what was included in my base plan and we’ve reproduced all we intend to do, so if an equally good plan was available at a lower cost, but with less than 100% of maternity care, I would probably consider it.

As to your your point… last I heard, the public option was off the table, but as I understood the proposal, it was just a bare-bones plan for those who didn’t want full coverage or who were otherwise healthy. There was nothing that would force anyone into that particular plan, competition would still exist from private insurers. Though any way you look at it, if there were some draconian plan that would have to apply to everyone, I personally believe that it’d be easier for people to get their elected officials to modify the plan to their liking, rather than relying on the good graces of a for-profit corporation.

P

NewsBusters: Is It Wrong To Use Clinton’s Heart Procedure In Healthcare Debate?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/13/it-wrong-use-clintons-heart-procedure-healthcare-debate

What other detestable crap would anyone expect from such as FOX?? Hillbily Murcuh!

Whoops! Forgot to examine the Little Person Brainpower that preceded. Joey Buttafuoko speaks out once more from the Generic Masses!

Clinton will be okay after a little counseling from Michelle’s anti-obesity program.

…and maybe a refresher on Nancy’s “Just Say No”.