Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (97.68)

Separate but equal (two conflicting healthcare proposals)

Recs

3

July 22, 2009 – Comments (4)

It is sad that the two parties cannot work out a compromise way of not getting healthcare. I have an idea. Let us deny coverage to Republicans separately and to Democrats separately, in a way that's most acceptable to the respective parties. Thus Republicans will be spared the heathcare tax, and will be given the opportunity to make an out-of-pocket payment to HMOs for the denial of healthcare. On the other hand, Democrats will not pay out of pocket but instead will be liable for obamataxes, and will get healthcare denied by the HMOs that will in turn get paid by the government intermediary. I think this will be a beautiful solution that will fall nicely under the category of "separate but equal". The fact that in the end healthcare will be denied by HMOs to both parties alike will guarantee equality, and the freedom to sign up or not to sign up for obamacare will guarantee the "separate" part. This would be a great example of democracy in action. I think we should all respect each other's differences because I strongly believe that there should exist more than way of getting no healthcare. 

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 22, 2009 at 10:19 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Nice post.

With President Obama having taken H.R.676 off the table does this mean you join the 27 Republican and Democratic representatives who voted in favor of States rights over Federal to remove a Federal obstacle that prevents States from implementing their own version of a single payer healthcare program if they elect to do so?

I support all 27 of them on this issue and the 16th amendment to HR 3200.

 

Report this comment
#2) On July 22, 2009 at 10:31 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

Hi devoish, 

I was unaware that there even exists a law that prevents states from implementing single-payer programs, but it doesn't surprize me. The first thing a virus does is destroy cells that might try to attack the virus...

Report this comment
#3) On July 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Hey zloj, why can't we do something sensible like mandating catastrophic care insurance for all, and providing it free of charge for the truly needy?  Who needs to buy insurance so that they can cover a yearly checkup? 

Report this comment
#4) On July 22, 2009 at 11:42 PM, starbucks4ever (97.68) wrote:

NOTvuffett, we can't do something sensible because until HMOs have us squeezed completely dry, squizing some more juice out of you will remain a cheaper and easier solution to the crisis than curbing the appetites of HMO executives Jonh McC and Barack O. play golf with. There are many of them, and they all have excellent appetite.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement