FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

[Vast LWC]

your masters pelosie, hoyer and reid said it and you know it, i can understand your fear of admitting it, seems youre both getting it in the ass.

Really? They said that, specifically about the folks at the McCaskill meeting?

Perhaps you'd like to give us all a link to that?

 

[Meister]

You do realize that 500 billion is to be slashed from Medicare in the House version of the healthcare bill to help pay for the bill donchya?

Why should that matter? I thought that "socialized" medicine was terrible anyway, right?

Who said that? You cannot locate one of my posts that ever suggested that. I have said lets get it right without a government takeover.
I will be waiting for an apology.

 

[Vast LWC]

You know, this is a perfect example of the problem with the folks who are disrupting those townhall meetings.

Here we were, having a nice discussion, disagreeing but discussing, and someone comes in and starts spouting invectives and gets me all riled up, and then the conversation degrades to insults and quips again.

Sigh, as much my fault for responding to the taunts as it is the taunter's fault I guess.

I apologize.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why should that matter? I thought that "socialized" medicine was terrible anyway, right?

Who said that? You cannot locate one of my posts that ever suggested that. I have said lets get it right without a government takeover.
I will be waiting for an apology.

You're right, I responded quickly and mistook you for another poster. I apologize.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Have any of you actually been reading the bill?

I have. Here is a small sample of what is saved on my computer in microsoft word


Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

The actual text of health care reform legislation is starting to percolate up from the depths of the committees, and it contains a plethora of hard stops on the freedoms that Americans are guaranteed and have come to expect. President Obama remains inordinately fond of continuing to campaign about all the “choice” he wants us to see in his vision of health care reform, but unfortunately for him what’s in this House version of the bill contains anything but.

Since our unrepresenting representatives can’t be bothered to do so, i'm going to try and read through this bill.

The party line is that if you currently have health insurance, sure, you can keep it. They call this “grandfathering” in your plan. But Section 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE doesn’t protect anything except the government-run “gateways” and “exchanges” because the day you decide to give up your current plan, it’s all over but the shouting because unless you enroll in an employer-provided plan (that must provide no less than exactly the same benefits as the government’s plan), it’s straight into the machine for you.

These are the key excerpts:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. (notice that this is the sum total of verbiage in “this paragraph”. There are NO exceptions. Health insurers may no longer enroll new plan participants.)

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
**This means that if a health insurance company wants to stay in business, it must get in bed with the government.**

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.
***How very kind of them. Separate insurance policies will be “permitted” by the government. If you didn’t ask “What are excepted benefits?” then you deserve the government we’ve got today and don’t come crying to us when the govt tells you that your life isn’t worth the cost of saving it. But because I’m feeling generous today, I’ll ask the question for you. What are these “excepted benefits”? Well, basically anything except what we all think of as common medical treatments, such as:

• Coverage only for accident, or disability income insurance, or any combination thereof.
• Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance.
• Liability insurance, including general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance.
• Workers’ compensation or similar insurance.
• Automobile medical payment insurance.
• Credit-only insurance.
• Coverage for on-site medical clinics
• Other similar insurance coverage, specified in regulations, under which benefits for medical care are secondary or incidental to other insurance benefits.

Not exactly the “choice” the President, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the government are leading you to believe, is it?
So just what happens to your “health care” once the government gets their guaranteed hold of it?

Tis the question that will kill this bill.

 

[Fatality]

your masters pelosie, hoyer and reid said it and you know it, i can understand your fear of admitting it, seems youre both getting it in the ass.

Really? They said that, specifically about the folks at the McCaskill meeting?

Perhaps you'd like to give us all a link to that?

they said it about everyone, it was a blanket statment and you trying to split hairs is a shallow attempt to alleviate their guilt. good little slave supporting your masters so.

 

[Gudrid]

Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?

No, because a bean counter is capable of no such thing. That's what doctors are for. There is nothing I've read in this bill allowing the kind of decision making power for individual cases that we currently have to deal with from the purely private insurance companies.

Personally, i support this reform because I'm not willing to let the "bean counters" be the decision makers anymore, among other things.

 

[Immanuel]

One,... the words of a rational poster.

Thank you

Two, the argument here is based on the unsupported supposition that a "public option" will force the rest of the insurers out of business.

Unsupported, but I think if you read the language of the bill and think about the consequences of that language you will come to the same conclusion that I have. This bill will spell the end of Private Insurance coverage. It does not mandate it, but regardless, it is the stake in the heart. No business can survive if it can not write new business. No business can survive if it can not maintain its costs or boost its revenues.

This bill clearly prevents Private Health Insurers from doing just that.

I wonder how many insurance agents are set to enter the unemployment lines. Not to mention employees of the industry as well.

Three, I have NEVER known a "poor" or even "middle class" doctor, with the possible exception of brand new, fresh out of medical school, residents, who happened to work at a free clinic, in a bad area.

Every single doctor I have ever met is at the very least, "well-off" and most are quite rich.

So please, don't give me the "they have trouble paying off medical school debts" sob story, because that is definitely not going to fly.

Nor have I, but will the government maintain the standard of living of medical professionals once the government has control of the purse strings. I'm betting no.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?

No, because a bean counter is capable of no such thing. That's what doctors are for. There is nothing I've read in this bill allowing the kind of decision making power for individual cases that we currently have to deal with from the purely private insurance companies.

Personally, i support this reform because I'm not willing to let the "bean counters" be the decision makers anymore, among other things.

But you know as well as I do that it will be bean counters who make the decisions as to what is covered and what is not.

Hey, come to think of it, isn't it a left wing mantra that these kinds of decisions should be left up to me and my doctor? Why the sudden change? Now we want government involved in our health care decisions? I think the world just turned upside down!

Immie

 

[EriktheRed]

Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?

No, because a bean counter is capable of no such thing. That's what doctors are for. There is nothing I've read in this bill allowing the kind of decision making power for individual cases that we currently have to deal with from the purely private insurance companies.

I know someone who's a nurse and works for an insurance company. Her boss is a doctor. IOW, it's not really fair to say that it's only "bean counters" who are making decisions at insurance companies. It's just that at the same time, it's not fair to make the assumption that a publicly-run insurance co. is going to be any more or less calculating in their decision-making.

 

[Immanuel]

I know someone who's a nurse and works for an insurance company. Her boss is a doctor. IOW, it's not really fair to say that it's only "bean counters" who are making decisions at insurance companies. It's just that at the same time, it's not fair to make the assumption that a publicly-run insurance co. is going to be any more or less calculating in their decision-making.

Good point Erik,

I had already said something similar, but when it is an insurance company the insured has other avenues, including changing providers. When the government has sole possession of the purse strings there will be no options at all. When they say no, the answer will be no and you will be up shit creek without a paddle.

Immie

 

[Gudrid]

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. (notice that this is the sum total of verbiage in “this paragraph”. There are NO exceptions. Health insurers may no longer enroll new plan participants.)

You're misunderstanding that section. All that's doing is defining the qualifications for grandfathering in a specific plan. It doesn't bar private insurers from enrolling new participants in general.


(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
**This means that if a health insurance company wants to stay in business, it must get in bed with the government.**

No, that means if the health insurance company wants a kickback from the government - being part of that individual portion of the program - it must meet the guidelines. The section you're drawing from has nothing to do with limitations on private healthcare - it's solely defining what must be done if a private insurer wants to also be part of the public plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.
***How very kind of them. Separate insurance policies will be “permitted” by the government. If you didn’t ask “What are excepted benefits?” then you deserve the government we’ve got today and don’t come crying to us when the govt tells you that your life isn’t worth the cost of saving it. But because I’m feeling generous today, I’ll ask the question for you. What are these “excepted benefits”? Well, basically anything except what we all think of as common medical treatments

And all that says is that if an insurer opts to offer coverage as part of the public system, it can still offer supplemental or other private insurance as well.

Not exactly the “choice” the President, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the government are leading you to believe, is it?

Yes, actually, it is. The section you're citing has zero to do with limiting private healthcare; it simply defines the standards if a private insurer wishes to also provide the public healthcare option. How are you getting limitations on private insurance out of that?

 

[Gudrid]

Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?

No, because a bean counter is capable of no such thing. That's what doctors are for. There is nothing I've read in this bill allowing the kind of decision making power for individual cases that we currently have to deal with from the purely private insurance companies.

I know someone who's a nurse and works for an insurance company. Her boss is a doctor. IOW, it's not really fair to say that it's only "bean counters" who are making decisions at insurance companies. It's just that at the same time, it's not fair to make the assumption that a publicly-run insurance co. is going to be any more or less calculating in their decision-making.

Not to be mean, but a nurse is not a doctor and should not be making medical decisions that would require an MD beyond the insurance company walls. And her boss has not examined the patient. Combined with the fact that their primary job is for-profit, that relegates them to bean counter status in my book.

It is perfectly fair to assume that a publicly run insurance co. is going to be less calculating, because we already have one. And from what I've seen, they have set standards they go by, without the flexibility to decide that this person or that person doesn't really "need" a particular operation, etc.

 

[Maple]

There are 3 plans which one are you referring to. There is one with end of life counseling.

 

[Maple]

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.

 

[Sinatra]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

Right on - the Obamacare apologists point to the fact that the proposed health care bill does not actually say "Death Panel" as proof not to worry over the possibility of the Feds deciding who is worthy of certain health measures and who are not.

Add to that the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.

Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.

The reason the Obamabots are so upset at her words are simply that they have proven very effective in debilitating Obamacare's possibility of passage...

 

[Vast LWC]

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.

As I said in the other thread you posted this in:

"Asked to clarify, the White House said Obama was pointing out that while core Postal Service services are different from those offered by UPS and FedEx, it has not undermined the competitive spirit of the private shipping industry."

The post office is an entirely different animal than the private shippers. They do the bulk of mail across the country, the cheap mail that is.

The point being, you can get the bare essential, cheap, public health plan (tthe post office) or you will be able to opt for the more expensive private health plans, which have better service (FedEx).

And, for the price they charge and the volume they handle, the post office does a pretty good job thank you very much.

 

[Vast LWC]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

Right on - the Obamacare apologists point to the fact that the proposed health care bill does not actually say "Death Panel" as proof not to worry over the possibility of the Feds deciding who is worthy of certain health measures and who are not.

Add to that the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.

Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.

The reason the Obamabots are so upset at her words are simply that they have proven very effective in debilitating Obamacare's possibility of passage...

Yes, use another poster's unsupported opinion to back up your own unsupported opinion.

For instance:

comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.

Says who? You? Some guy off the street?

older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases.

Opinion, with no supporting evidence.

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

No example of where it is "inferred".

But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere.

Which is exactly what private insurers do.

And the entire last paragraph is an excerpt from an opinion piece by an ultra conservative commentator.

Yet you expand on this, with yet another extension of the originally flawed argument thusly:

Add to that the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.

What "disturbing views" would those be?

Finishing with an extrapolation from several unsupported implications, "supporting" wild claims made by a popular Conservative politician:

Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.

Priceless. This is right-wing propaganda at it's finest folks. A seemingly logical progression springing from an unsupported premise.

 

[Sinatra]

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

Right on - the Obamacare apologists point to the fact that the proposed health care bill does not actually say "Death Panel" as proof not to worry over the possibility of the Feds deciding who is worthy of certain health measures and who are not.

Add to that the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.

Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.

The reason the Obamabots are so upset at her words are simply that they have proven very effective in debilitating Obamacare's possibility of passage...

Yes, use another poster's unsupported opinion to back up your own unsupported opinion.

For instance:



Says who? You? Some guy off the street?



Opinion, with no supporting evidence.



No example of where it is "inferred".



Which is exactly what private insurers do.

And the entire last paragraph is an excerpt from an opinion piece by an ultra conservative commentator.

Yet you expand on this, with yet another extension of the originally flawed argument thusly:

Add to that the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.

What "disturbing views" would those be?

Finishing with an extrapolation from several unsupported implications, "supporting" wild claims made by a popular Conservative politician:

Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.

Priceless. This is right-wing propaganda at it's finest folks. A seemingly logical progression springing from an unsupported premise.

Thank you - and it happens to be correct as well...

 

[Chris]

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.

As I said in the other thread you posted this in:

"Asked to clarify, the White House said Obama was pointing out that while core Postal Service services are different from those offered by UPS and FedEx, it has not undermined the competitive spirit of the private shipping industry."

The post office is an entirely different animal than the private shippers. They do the bulk of mail across the country, the cheap mail that is.

The point being, you can get the bare essential, cheap, public health plan (tthe post office) or you will be able to opt for the more expensive private health plans, which have better service (FedEx).

And, for the price they charge and the volume they handle, the post office does a pretty good job thank you very much.

They do an outstanding job.