On February 24th 2010, 19 representative in the House voted to maintain the antitrust law in favor of health insurance companies in the United States. 19 against 406. Here are their names:
Akin
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Buyer
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Jenkins
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Lamborn
Linder
Moran (KS)
Paul
Price (GA)
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Tiahrt
Westmoreland
I have absolutely nothing else to add, this speaks for itself.
Oh one more thing actually: while people die every month because they are denied coverage, the top 5 health insurances companies in the US made a combined profit of over 12 billion dollars in 2009 only.
Showing posts with label antitrust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antitrust. Show all posts
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
That evil antitrust law
The chaotic and sometimes seemingly stumbling endeavors by the White House to pass a health reform has served as a powerful witness
Stupak tried to make it about abortion (and failed), and republican detractors tried to take that opportunity to divert the attention of the real debate: the fact that 40,000 US citizen die every year in the US because they don’t have health insurance. I repeat. 40,000 US citizens die every year and could live if they were able to afford treatment and had health insurance.
In the midst of all this noise, we all try as diligently as we can to understand all the intricate and intertwined elements of this debate, what has emerged as a dangerously possible show stopper is the issue of the public option.
We can only support and follow. Doing so sheds some light on why it has repeatedly failed since the last success in 1964: it is simply too complicated and I suspect that a lot of the House Representatives and senators don’t necessarily understand everything.
I understand why the public option’s cost and difficulty of implementation can be prohibitive, what I have yet to understand, however, is why on earth can’t we simply put a ban on that evil antitrust law that protects Insurance executives while they are criminals and let people die for profit. What could possibly be a viable argument against the ban?
Stupak tried to make it about abortion (and failed), and republican detractors tried to take that opportunity to divert the attention of the real debate: the fact that 40,000 US citizen die every year in the US because they don’t have health insurance. I repeat. 40,000 US citizens die every year and could live if they were able to afford treatment and had health insurance.
In the midst of all this noise, we all try as diligently as we can to understand all the intricate and intertwined elements of this debate, what has emerged as a dangerously possible show stopper is the issue of the public option.
We can only support and follow. Doing so sheds some light on why it has repeatedly failed since the last success in 1964: it is simply too complicated and I suspect that a lot of the House Representatives and senators don’t necessarily understand everything.
I understand why the public option’s cost and difficulty of implementation can be prohibitive, what I have yet to understand, however, is why on earth can’t we simply put a ban on that evil antitrust law that protects Insurance executives while they are criminals and let people die for profit. What could possibly be a viable argument against the ban?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
