Saturday, October 10, 2009

The Worst of Both Worlds

I am confused. When I have heard about other countries with a national healthcare program, they talk about medical services being free - "free health care for the citizens". The results are logically: reduced quality, rationing, long waits, etc. But, they talk about the service being free, once you do get it.

I hear discussion that BO and the other Libs are trying to get us a system like these other countries have. So, my bewilderment has to do with this; if Obamacare is like what Canada or England has and the citizens have free health care, what is the talk about a "public option"? From what I understand, the public option that BO wants is supposed to be and will probably begin as a Government run insurance plan to "compete" with those greedy, private insurance companies that just want to make a profit. If they are competing as an optional insurance company, that means they will be charging for it, just like the low-life insurance companies.

If the whole system is designed around the public option, which it probably will be, then insurance will become mandatory (or you will be fined for not having a government approved plan). If insurance is mandatory, then you are paying for medical care - it will not be free! How is that different from what we now have where people who do not want to pay for medical bills themselves, buy insurance (unless you are here illegally and then you just go to the emergency room for your free health care).

We are about to get the worst of both worlds! Our medical system, which just about everyone believes is the best in the world, is about to be taken over by the government. And if that is not bad enough, our system will not be free like we are being led to believe.

No comments:

Post a Comment