As you know, Obama won't go for single payer health insurance, even though a lot of his prog supporters thought he would. Instead, Obi wants to push through the slimey Healthy Americans Act, which will dissolve all employer-based plans and force Americans to pay for private insurance plans offered by a newly-formed state agency.
All of which brings us to the now-notorious AIG. They sell insurance. All sorts -- including health insurance.
Just thought you should know that. After all, you own the company, or nearly all of it. And you've given the company tons of taxpayer dollars.
Betcha a donut that AIG will be one of the prime beneficiaries of the Healthy Americans Act. Heh heh heh heh hee hee ha ha. Heh. Betcha two donuts.
So. You can't have single-payer, because that would be socialism. But Obi says that you can pay insurance premiums to a private company -- 80% of which is owned by the gummint. What's the difference? Far as I can see, the only real difference would be mill-yuns and mill-yuns paid in bonuses to the CEOs.
Ain't "capitalism" grand?
(I'll have more to say about AIG in the future, if a story I'm researching pans out. Lots, lots, LOTS more.)
7 comments:
I love the name of the law you mention. "Healthy Americans Act". Or HAA for short. Haa, haa, haa...
I think that the difference is the new and unusual status of the government insurer as a non-profit, isn't it? Whether or not a CEO would get big money (and it would likely be far less than any current insurance industry CEO's compensation), simply stripping out the profit part of the costs would likely save huge money.
It wasn't that long ago that HMOs had among the highest profit margins of any industry, if I recall correctly (no guarantee that if it was once true that it still is, of course).
XI
Healthy Americans Act.... reminds me of Bush's " clear skies" etc.
I swear the same folks are behind the curtain
HELP!!!
When Jeb Bush is sworn in as President in 2012, be sure to thank a progressive.
Newt wants it, Perry.
I was so hopeful, given what seems to be your great attention to detail and research, that you'd actually have something on AIG. Alas, I'm disappointed - but I'll bet you that donut (by the way, the current AIG CEO is working for $1 per year)
AIG's "health insurance" is more like AFLAC's than like United Healthcare or Blue Cross. It's supplemental and indemnity (i.e., pre-determined cash payments rather than covering procedures). Obama's plan would have nothing to do with these polices, and in fact could potentially harm them because the need for supplemental, would in theory diminish.
That said, besides that the idea originated with Republicans, I'm having trouble understanding progressive objections to breaking the link between the tax benefit associated with employer-delivered health insurance and the lack of one when bought as an individual - especially with a law that will mandate the initial equivalent compensation will come in the form of wages rather than benefits.
Granted, progressives typically don't recognize "benefits" as part of compensation and so this would distort historical comparisons of wage growth, but D-President/Congress would get credit.
Why oh why does that plan make me think of ACORN?
Post a Comment