THE RUMORS OF THE DEATH OF "OBAMACARE" ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED

...Obamacare is not dead

Just as the "making of sausage" is difficult to watch, a final health care plan will take many ugly forms before it´s finished.

Conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, in his recent Washington Post article, says he would like everyone to believe that Obamacare is "dead" due to all the current activity on capitol hill from all sides of the issue.

Well yes, he and others of his kind would certainly like to think that these issues have been put to bed under their terms. But that´s just not the case. And just as with the past bills for Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid, "it´s not over till it´s over".

If one looks at what Mr. Krauthammer would recommend to President Obama, he basically pretty much says "just make some adjustments, then leave it alone and move on".

Here are his comments and ideas as to the proper "exit strategy" for President Obama:

>>> "Obamacare Version 1.0 is dead."

>>> "Forget the public option."

>>> "Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling. People see such Medicare-paid advice as subtle encouragement to voluntarily refuse treatment." (Even though this provision is already a part of the approved Medicare Plan D Prescription bill.)

>>> "Soft-pedal the idea of government committees determining "best practices." President Obama's Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research [that] was sold as simply government helping doctors choose the best treatments."

>>> "More generally, abandon the whole idea of Obamacare as cost-cutting."

The only area where Mr. Krauthammer makes sense is the basics of where he states:

>>> "Promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one -- Obamacare 2.0 -- promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for preexisting conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement."

Of course, even though Mr. Krauthammer says that "Obamacare is dead", he still seems to support one core of regulations of what Obama wants to change, but he (as expected) still does not believe in supporting "health care for all".

What is it about Republicans that they don´t want to support a healthy America? Why is it only OK for people of wealth to be able to access comprehensive health care?

Yet, later on in his article, he appears to make a 180 degree turn by recommending that:

"Government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance."

So, Charles is saying "Let´s not give everyone health care coverage, but it´s OK to subsidize the poor for their healthcare….?"

Let me get this right……

A conservative like Charles Krauthammer is actually agreeing to more regulation of the currently "semi-legal" insurance monopolies AND he wants to spend the tax payers money for subsidizing the poor for obtaining their health care…..?

My, my, my, will wonders never cease….

After all this, Mr. Krauthammer then expresses even more recommendations for government regulation of the insurance industry when he states:

"The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies."

Of course, we then see that he has just been leading us on and this was all a ruse as he finishes with:

"It's the perfect finesse -- government health care by proxy. And because it's proxy, and because it will guarantee access to (supposedly) private health insurance -- something that enjoys considerable Republican support -- it will pass with wide bipartisan backing and give Obama a resounding political victory. Isn't there a catch? Of course there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic."

In other words, as per all conservatives, "health care for all will eventually be totally catastrophic for all of America".

I wonder why Social Security and Medicare haven´t become "catastrophic", (except when the Republicans in power continued to rob the funding of these programs). And I also wonder how all the other industrialized countries have been able to provide health care, early retirement, education and a host of other support functions, while it wasn´t "catastrophic" for them…? Just what was their secret?

In fact, for the most powerful nation on earth to come into 37th place for the "World´s Best Health Care System" doesn´t sound like it could get much more "catastrophic", but then I´m not the great Mr. Krauthammer.

Yes sir, sounds like we should all jump on Mr. Krauthammer´s health care wagon.....but only if you are looking to die young.

So, thanks Charles for being so true to your cause. Once again, you make it clear why the conservative, "I got mine, you can go to hell" approach is so totally out of step with the rest of the modern world.

There´s a reason why the GOP is now such a small party and why Obama won with a mandate. Please keep it up Mr. Krauthammer.

Copyright G.Ater 2009

Follow me on Twitter: gater01