Carlson declares that "the name" of the public option "should technically be" "government-run health care"
October 27, 2009 6:57 am ET
From the October 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Doocy follows, referring to the public option as a "government takeover."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Gretchen Carlson, If i were you i would spend more time explaining the Genesis of your Ted Kennedy Hate?
I'm still waiting on your Sincere Contrition.
If you don't "The Poet" has plenty of Clerihew Ammunition.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Goebbles was a propoganda minister. Fox News propogates propoganda profusely. Ergo, the analogy.
Yes - you certainly ARE pathetic, puppypoop.
instead of just letting the name be whatever it is and giving fair and balanced reporting, this airhead just implements some idiotic label. does she even know anything about health care?
she probably thinks health care is fine just how it is... doesnt give a damn about the almost 50 million people with no health insurance. as long as she is living in her big mansion with her rich husband and being taken care of on all fronts, she is all good.
same goes for bert and ernie.
anybody notice the resemblance?
The picture with the above heading, looks like Miss Piggy when she's mad at Kermit.
The reverse is true. Both the public and private options will be subsidized by the government, with the private option costing more to the government. For the insured who don't qualify for subsidies, it will be up to them to pay the premiums.
And at this point, it's useless to keep screaming this from the highest mountaintop, but I'll repeat it again anyway:
WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE!!!!
That's been the case for as long as there has been health insurance. Paying for that care as insurance rather than as urgent treatment will save us all money.
And for someone who (I assume) is for limited government, how do you propose we'd track the healthcare needs of illegal aliens without having yet another level of bureaucracy and paperwork?
Yeah, send a bill to all those foreign nations. I believe the response to that would be something on the order of either A) "Are you kidding us?" or B) "Um...that's your problem now, not ours." Or possibly both.
WE ARE....go ahead, "WE ARE...."
ALREADY....
PAYING...
FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE.
We've always paid for their health care. Now we just want to pay for their insurance instead. Same money. We take it from one pocket and put it in the other pocket.
Get it?
You are nuts.
Also, do you not understand the difference between health insurance and health care?
Hospitals will treat any sick person who shows up at the emergency room. That's called "health care."
Many of those people do not have a financial safety net that covers the costs of that care. That's called "health insurance."
I can run through this again if you need me to.
The public option is for people who don't qualify for Medicaid and don't get insurance through their work.
What a loser that you don't already understand what is going on, yet you try to educate US on the topic!! That's the height of hypocrisy and self-centeredness.
And Obama hasn't caused a single job to be lost. The economy was tanking before he got into office, and the systemic problems were caused by Republicans!
Guess they'll have to grab onto those bootstraps and start pulling.
And are you really that disconnected from reality to believe that only Obama has presided over job losses and a crap economy? Bush the Younger's economic policy, such as it was, saw our nation slow to a 0.28-percent-per-year increase in the job rate - easily the lowest of any of the last eleven (ELEVEN!) presidents. And hey, guess who the previous record-holder was? His very own dad, that's who! Birds of a feather, I suppose.
When you find a fact of some kind that backs up your ridiculous assertion, feel free to let us know. I suspect it'll be a while.
The Patriot Act
That set a new standard for White House audacity.
As far as calling the public option government run healthcare, who cares what you call it. If it continues to upset you right wing nuts so much I'm all for calling it government run healthcare.
Isn't the argument that the tax payer is already paying for the uninsured? So lets fix the system, get people the basic care they need and they won't run to the emergency room over every little stuffy nose.
In case you missed it, the government is already heavily involved in health care. Medicare, medicaid, VA, government employees, all have evil "government run" health care.
So the risk out weights the cost,
I disagree. Saving 45,000 lives and countless thousands of bankruptcies are worth any additional costs.
Care to try again to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do the insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care.
Ah, a fresh, original slant from a right-winger! But you know, corporations do a great job, too! Just look at things like the stock market. So glad we put that in the reliable hands of Goldman Sachs and AIG. What fine stewards of the economy they were.
Plus automobile manufacturing. So many quality American cars now. Such well-run companies that have never relied on the government for anything.
But you know the real American success story? Wal-Mart. Only $1 billion in government subsidies to do it all on their own. Plus encouraging employees to apply for government assistance while paying them poverty-level wages.
P.S. The right loves to prattle endlessly about the DMV and the Post Office. I've never had a bad experience with the DMV and have had far more problems with UPS than the USPS -- even though the latter delivers most of my mail.
It's the fact that we call one option the private option - that's private health insurance. The other option is the public option.
See, the antonym of private is public.
No, the name of the "public option" should be Public Health Insurance, and the definition of that name should be "a health insurance plan that is publicly underwritten and administered, where the insured person pays an affordable premium for coverage similar to if not the same as what Medicare provides".
Of course if that same person prefers private health insurance and its obscenely high premiums where the private commercial driven-by-profit insurer decides what coverage (if any) that person receives, or what claims (if any) the driven-by-profit insurer will pay... if the person prefers that type of health insurance plan, then good for them they can have it, or if they still elect to go uninsured, then that's fine too.
The "Public option", or Public Health Insurance, is for those people who want health insurance but can't afford it, or who otherwise have private health insurance but find that the obscenely high driven-by-profit premiums take too much money out of their already moderate to low incomes.
Whew, it took all of six minutes to type that out, and probably takes two minutes to say/read... whew!
Too bad Fox News Channel, in all their countless hours of 24/7 broadcasting, can't find the several minutes to properly define what the "public option" is.
You tell me exactly what you believe the government (that's right the government that's NEVER run a successful program) is going to do to FURTHER reduce premiums. Lets face it Medicare is scammed for over 60 billion dollars annually NOW.
Try some of these and the cost will REALLY go down:
1. TORT REFORM
2. Award caps
3. Interstate competition
BTW - the proper definition for the "public option" is HIGHER taxes, bigger deficit, higher healthcare costs, reduced research... Everyone with any common sense already knows these things... PROOF Kaiser and BlueCross/BlueShield are NON-PROFIT. Overall the health insurers have a less than 3% profit margin, and they arent't scammed for $60 billion dollars every year. Tupperware and the candy companies have higher profits... come on get rid of the kool-aid and open your minds to REAL health reform.
Let's see your fifty tiny state insurance plans attempt to make a dent in the business of the four or five massive conglomerates who currently rape and pillage the healthcare system as we know it.
Free market competition, right? States' rights, yes? Sounds good in theory, but you and I both know that "Statecare" would get trampled and destroyed in that fight. I suspect you would welcome such a thing, since then you could say "See? We TOLD YOU it wouldn't work!"
Do you attempt to think this stuff through before you spend all the time typing it up? Or do you honestly enjoy shilling for big insurance companies?
And while we are at we should rename everything in our society.
Let's stop calling our roads freeways and highways and call them Government Supported Transportation System.
Government Run Protection Organization
Government Funded Fire Suppression Cadre
Health Care, after all is a public safety issue...or do we need to return to the days of the black plague, polio, and small pox for people to realize this.
We have public roads, built and maintained by the government. We don't call them government roads, do we? We call them public roads to differentiate them from private roads that aren't maintained by a municipality.
We call it public transportation versus private transportation.
The antonym for private is public. That's why it's called the public option.
But FoxNews (news segment here) doesn't want to have a fair and balanced debate on this subject, because they are part of the opposition party. This is just one more example of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to be technical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Being middle-classed, smart and ugly ain't no picnic either though!
Totally agree, Gretch . .
At faux, we all know they honor THE WARRIORS . .
But it aint gonna happen.