Comments on: Will Ferrell, Mad Men’s Jon Hamm, Mock Insurance Execs, Push Public Option

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 04:31:25 +0000

Wait a second, wasn’t it the insurance companies that funded Obama’s ad campaign for the public option? I seem to remember that Obama had to agree not to allow Americans to purchase their drugs from Canada in exchange for those ad dollars.
If the insurance companies weren’t on board with this public option, then why help the government advertise it?
Besides, requiring ALL Americans to purchase insurance is a gift to the insurance companies, isn’t it?

By: SE Michigan Resident

SE Michigan Resident — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:02:33 +0000

It’s a cute ad. There’s a lot of truth in it. But as usual MoveOn probably does more damage than good–especially with the figure that 80% of people want the public option (up from 70% just a month or so ago?!, which was also a suspect number–55% so far in the vote on the AOL website).
MoveOn is an organization that pretty much preaches to the choir–and the choir loves the message. For all those in the middle, which may just be the majority of us, this has more of a negative effect–especially when suspect figures are used (if this is the only way they can get their point across, the point itself must not be very strong). Of course, we consider the source; things are not as clear-cut as the uber-progressives or conservatives would have us believe.
Don’t get me wrong, how we pay for healthcare needs to change or we’ll all be broke. And the insurance industry needs to be reined-in (a pound of insurance from BCBS should the same as a pound from United Healthcare). We need to improve access for those who truly cannot afford insurance. There are good ideas about what we’d all like changed (“apple pie” statements) but actually making something happen…well, that’s a different story.
It’s a tough problem with tough choices. Let’s have a well-reasoned, spirited, and realistic debate.

By: davidfrat21

davidfrat21 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:34:48 +0000

can some of you who are saying 80% of americans want a single payor system cite something to prove that?

By: davidfrat21

davidfrat21 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:33:09 +0000

i agree that there’s no reason to trust insurance companies. but there’s also no reason to trust the government. thus, with insurance companies in charge of health care, there’s at least the potential for government oversight through regulation. if government is in charge, then who is going to conduct the oversight and regulation? i think a lot of people are missing the point that putting government directly in control will not end corruption, it will simply remove one potential protection…government oversight of private industry. if government’s in control, not only is there no authority to check their actions, they’ll also be immune from legal action because of sovereign immunity. at least you can sue an insurance company now…if government’s in charge, you can forget that. and what about medical malpractice…if a government doctor at a government run facility amputates the wrong leg…too bad…sovereingn immunity. plus, what happens when another right-wing administration takes office (which WILL happen some day)? do all the people in favor of government run health care want a bush-like appointee in charge?

By: davidfrat21

davidfrat21 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:27:30 +0000

concernedcitizen, unless you are so naive as to believe that all these reforms can be done without raising deficits and taxes, then you should know that it won’t just be insurance execs who get the shaft financially…it will be every single hard-working taxpayer. no one with an inkling of intelligence can believe that the plans will even be revenue neutral. it’s economic unreality to think these plans won’t cost generational fortunes.

By: davidfrat21

davidfrat21 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:24:40 +0000

so, what’s the collective wealth of the stars in the shoot? and how much of their millions have they given to the poor? if all these super-wealthy celebrities calling for a public option really gave a crud, they’d take their own money and start insuring the uninsured. unlike the streisands of the world, if i were a billionaire, i’d use most of the money to help others. if people like these would pledge to give only 50% of their wealth, they’d still be rich beyond most people’s wildest dreams…but they won’t, because they live for the attention that being “socially conscious” brings…they don’t really believe what they say. if they did, they’d pony up money. like michael moore and his new movie railing against capitalism…how much money has his lardbutt made in the last 10 years and how much of it has he shared with the poor? bunch of hypocrites.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:15:45 +0000

Health insurance companies make enough profit to be able to bribe radio personalities, journalists, and even members of congress. Every one of those dollars comes from someone being denied coverage, so it is, in effect, blood money.
Right now there is a monopoly on health care. Creating a public option would break up that monopoly, and eventually save millions of lives, not to mention millions of dollars through preventative care. Don’t be an idiot, its not socialism, its patriotism.

By: Shomida Panels

Shomida Panels — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:06:57 +0000

And shouldn’t “government panels” be the euphemism for “death panels?”

By: Shomida Panels

Shomida Panels — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:01:51 +0000

“I know that HR3200 doesn’t mention death Panels. For you stupid people thats a Euphemism for a government panel that decides what level of health care is given to what people.”
So where is the government panel in section 1233 that Sarah Palin euphemized into a death panel?

By: sootsg

sootsg — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:20:50 +0000

FREE MOVIES FREE DVDS DOWN with Hollywood. Lets have a Government Plan for Movies. Lets nationalize the Movie and tv industry. These rich actors with thier mini zoos and private jets are the victims. They are victims of their own wealth. It gives them the perception that they are actually smart. So if they make the per capita salary for our country ($40,900) per year then maybe they won’t think they are smarter than the average American.
Why should these actors make MILLIONS of dollars and we have to pay $10 to $15 to see some crappy movie. I say cap movie ticket prices at $2 a show $1 for matinees. This would lower actors and actresses salaries. And no DVD should cost more than $2.50. Tops.
And don’t forget about the directors and producers. They shouldn’t be allowed to make more than $45,000 a year.