When I heard my gal* Carly explain how government regulation makes it difficult for entrepreneurs and employers to create new enterprises and expand existing businesses, I became increasingly enthusiastic about her run for the Senator. Like the Gipper (and yours truly), she understands that government is not the solution to the problem, it is (more often than not) the problem.
Now,with this morning the Weekly Republican Address on health care, she’s done it again, relating his personal battle with breast cancer to the current national debate on health care:
She doesn’t have the Gipper’s fluency of delivery, but does get his basic view of government, particularly when she asks, “Will a bureaucrat determine that my life isn’t worth saving?”
All this takes on even greater urgency in the midst of the ongoing health care debate in Washington. We wonder if we are heading down a path where the federal government will at first suggest and then mandate new standards for prevention and treatment. Do we really want government bureaucrats rather than doctors dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer?
Sounds a lot like Reagan’s address in 1964 when he warned against the belief that “a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
Carly goes on to point out how the Senate bill would empower government panels to do just that, plan our lives for us by dictating health care solutions from that “far-distant capital.” And while the woman she seeks to replace in the United States Senate, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, struggles with basic facts about the health care bill, the former HP CEO cites language in the bill itself to back up her criticism of this big government boondoggle:
The health care bill now being debated in the Senate explicitly empowers this very task force to influence future coverage and preventive care. Section 4105, for example, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny payment for prevention services the task force recommends against.
Carly doesn’t mince words in criticizing just such a task force, calling it “wrong.” Finally, she offers some solutions based on ideas which have worked, not in the minds of a little intellectual elite, but in the world of real human beings. That’s a real conservative approach to reform, one the Gipper surely would have appreciated.
Just another reason for California conservatives to rally around Carly.
———
*in the race to replace Ma’am Barbara Boxer in the United States Senate.
gee, I wonder if she has ever thought of doing something to help get those private-sector insurance bureaucrats out from inbetween patients and doctors.
Oh lookie here…she pretends such things don’t exist! Just like the rest of the rightwingers. Ya think that maybe that is one of the many reasons why y’all have no credibility on this issue?
gee, I wonder if she has ever thought of doing something to help get those private-sector insurance bureaucrats out from inbetween patients and doctors.
She has. They’re called consumer-driven health plans, catastrophic-only coverage, and health savings plans that allow Americans to set aside dollars for their own care and use them to pay providers as they see fit.
But of course, your Obama Party hates them.
Also, Tano, there’s an easy way to get rid of “private-sector insurance bureaucrats” doing things you don’t like: change carriers. People do it regularly. But when ObamaFascistCare comes in, you won’t have that choice; you will have to do what the government says.
Moochers like yourself don’t care about the poor, Tano. You care about attacking those who are productive and successful because failures like yourself are jealous and envious. You use “the poor” as an excuse for your own hatred and bigotry towards those who are successful.
Dan, she’s sounding good. Looking forward to a lively discussion tomorrow about Fiorina vs. Devore.
I think Ms. Fiorina’s address demonstrates that heartfelt personal appeals are more persuasive than “talking heads.” It’s refreshing to hear someone who actually knows what she is talking about.
I don’t think it matters how much money she makes. Death is no less scary for the rich than it is for the rest of us. I wish she’d move to Arizona and run for something here so I could vote for her.
Wow, Tano again shows how little he knows about the real world.
In the real world, if your insurance doesn’t cover something, then you pay for it. I have an associate who’s plan didn’t cover DME, so he went out and shopped around and bought his own C-PAP machine.
And in Tano-land, I’m sure he things Medicare covers everything…
Oh Tano, there is not much that is more frustrating than a person who remains willfully, stubbornly ignorant.
Insurance companies dont stand between patients and their doctors at all. Two very simple truths you are denying:
1. We choose our insurance and all the terms therein. Insurance companies simply adhere to the terms we agreed to. And
2. If an insurance company denies treatment you want, you can pay for it (even it its hard) and buy it yourself. If worse comes to worse, go into debt to pay it,
But with government run care, if the government says no, that’s it! you die.
Conservatives and independents want health care freedom, liberals as always just want to get things for “free”.
“I don’t think it matters how much money she makes.”
Oh really? Who paid for all her care? Did she pay it herself, or did she have insurance?
“In the real world, if your insurance doesn’t cover something, then you pay for it.”
Unless you can’t afford it, in which case either all the rest of us pay for it, or you don’t get treated.
“Insurance companies dont stand between patients and their doctors at all.”
Clearly someone here who is sufficiently blessed as to never have had to deal with insurance companies on anything major.
“Insurance companies simply adhere to the terms we agreed to. ”
Wow. One of the dumbest statements I can recall reading.
Yes, AE, except that they have an army of lawyers on call to impose on you their interpretation of what you agreed to. And part of what you agreed to is that they can drop you if you start becoming a drain on their bottom line. Seriously, are you a college student living on your parents dole or something?
“But with government run care, if the government says no, that’s it! you “die”
What the HELL are you talking about? What “government run healthcare”?
Under Obamacare, everyone who has private health care will continue to have private health care – as you well know. In fact, according to CBO, the great majority of the uninsured, who will now be insured will end up with private health insurance.
The only government run healthcare in this country is in the military and the VA – and I dont see too many people there dying as a result of treatment-denial. Even under government-run health insurance, like Medicare, you have the option to pay for care yourself if you are denied.
Why make up sh*t like this?
Ah poor Tano…
You seem to make it sound like “Or we’ll pay for it” In #8 is a bad thing. Don’t you want national heath care?
And Insurance companies don’t get between a doctor and a patient. They may not cover a service, as outlined in their plan, but there’s no huge rep standing in the door blocking access.
Hmm, Chemo drugs, Jobst Stockings, Psychology paid at 50%… Do I really need to go on about Medicare?
Tano, try to find a subject you’re informed on. Since it’s not Honduras, Politics, Global Warming geography or heathcare, might I suggest things that you try doing something besides reading democrat talking points?
“They may not cover a service, as outlined in their plan, but there’s no huge rep standing in the door blocking access.”
Are you totally unaware of how insurance works, or doesnt work, in this country? No wonder you have such screwy ideas. I guess it is the conservative way – just bury your head in the sand, ignore the real world, and suddenly that simplistic ideology seems to sparkle so nicely….
You mean like government employees have access to, but are in the process being denied to regular Americans?
The liberal “real world” is to make up the most absurd bullshit, convince as many people as possible that it’s true and that they’ll all die without the benevolent a-holes. Oh, and everyone needs to cough up MORE money and hand over MORE freedom for the safety and security of sucking on Uncle Sugar’s tit.
Everybody’s out to get people. Coca-Cola, the oil companies, Wal-Mart, the health industry, meat producers, the auto companies, food producers etc.etc.etc.
What kind of sorry ass chump supports folks who keep people afraid with crisis after crisis after crisis for political points? You’re pathetic, Tardo. Do you have ANY clue how f*cking stupid you sound on here? Do you even think before you write, or do you just make shit up to see your words on the internet?
And to think I stood up for your stupid ass the other day.
Condidering I work in the insurance industry, Tano, I’d say I’m far more qualfied than you.
Disclaimer: I don’t speak for my employer, and they sure as hell don’t want me to.
I worked in the insurance industry for thirty years. They cut a lot of corners and fudge when and where they can, but I don’t see how legislation strong-arming them into doing things that will make them less money, and cost them a lot more, is going to improve the situation.
We can’t force people to engage in commerce. We can’t force them to do more work for less money. (Followed to its logical extreme, that’s slavery.) The people employed by insurance companies, agencies and third-party administrators are the ones who will bear the brunt of this — not the EEEEEVIL executives our “progressive” benefactors say they want to punish.
Oh, and the healthcare consumers will suffer, too. Especially the poorest ones said “benefactors” insist they’re going to help.
You know Lori, if you strike out the P and o and add an e what’s that spell,
PRoegressive as you pointed out “(Followed to its logical extreme, that’s slavery.)”There’s an easy way to get rid of “private-sector insurance bureaucrats” doing things you don’t like: change carriers.
Why is that concept so hard to understand? And why is it so hard to understanding why any public service run by the government sucks? I don’t have a choice among DMVs to go to, and it wouldn’t matter if I did. Why is the left so hellbent on bringing that level of service to health care?
That last question was rhetorical, I know why of course; to enlarge the state and crush the individual.
It’s not slavery if nobody’s working which is pretty much where we’re headed with Chairman Obama’s policies.