By: terri

terri — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:12:20 +0000

A rose by any other name?? Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute cautions that opponents of a government-run “public option�? should not be fooled by this “compromise.�? It’s suggested that these co-ops would be nonprofits, but many insurers are already classified as “nonprofit�? companies–including “mutual�? insurance companies and groups like Blue Cross. In addition, states already have the power to set up their own health care co-ops and a number already exist. So, if the “new co-ops�? are to operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother? Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op’s officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) says, “It’s got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option.�? If a “co-op�? is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, that is government-run health insurance by another name. Also check the so called “” Stimulous Bill” death panels already installed and in place”" End run around OUR Constitutional Rights!!!! WAKE UP. They really think WE THE PEOPLE are “STUPID”

Comments on: PUBLIC OPTION COMPROMISE: CAVEAT EMPTOR

By: terri