We finally have proof that Keith Olbermann is totally naïve – at best. On his October 14th program he naturally spent a lot of time again on health care reform touting the brilliance of those in favor of it and the idiocy of those against it. He spent the first part of his hour railing against the monopoly positions held by the insurance companies for the last 64 years. He cited repeatedly the McCarran-Ferguson law which is a United States federal law that allows state law to regulate the business of insurance without federal government interference. Among other things, it allows for: the state regulation of insurance, allows states to establish mandatory licensing requirements and preserves certain state laws of insurance. This was established by the United States Congress.
Keep in mind that during those 64 years the federal legislature operated under a double standard. You gotta love those guys. Our senators and representatives could choose from a nationwide smorgasbord of health care plans. Let’s emphasize that a little bit. We citizen peons were required under the McCarran-Ferguson law to choose from health care plans from within our own states. In the meantime the national legislators who put this health care act in place were allowed to operate outside that law and choose from any insurance plan in a menu of offerings from across the nation.
Now Senator Schumer is working to have the McCarran-Ferguson law repealed because “only increased competition will give insurers the incentive they need to keep costs down.” One has to wonder if these self-anointed princes and potentates are now anxious to repeal this law that they put in place 64 years ago only because they are in the process of being caught in their scam. Or is it something more insidious than that. After all, votes by our legislators do seem to be closely associated with money and favors.
Senator Alan Grayson when interviewed by Olbermann about McCarran-Fergusson said a mouthful when he stated, “Insurance companies bought and paid for that favor and now we need to take it back”. That sounded like a tacit admission that money buys votes at the federal level. As the interview continues Olbermann points out that Senator Snow now has a future seat at the bill merger table as a reward for her vote to get the bill out of committee. Grayson’s comment reinforces the attachment of money to votes when he says, “her vote is coming at too expensive a price”. He explains the price and then asks, “Isn’t that a lot of money to pay for her vote”. That kind of talk, that kind of analogy, defines a culture in which legislative votes are directly connected to with money and favors. (Now, PeacockWatch isn’t naïve. We knew this already, and so do you. It is just interesting to hear it so blatantly admitted by a national legislator.)
Olbermann then asks, “Why do you think the Democrats in the Senate seem to have dismissed or abandoned the public plan?” Grayson then responds, “I think the leadership is placating Republicans and ideologues at the price of what is in the public interest.”
How can a proposed massive increase in debt that will bring this country to its financial knees over the next 10 years be considered to be in the public interest?
Olbermann, as usual, throughout his program proposes that only a bill that includes the public option is acceptable. Why this insistence by Olbermann on the White House public option? It is an incessant chant with him. Olbermann praises Grayson by telling him that his “four speeches have outlined quite eloquently, I think, how the Republican opposition is in fact the problem in health care reform.” Perhaps there are more ideologues than those identified by Grayson.
The bottom line is that PeacockWatch, and the majority of the American public don’t believe that the national legislature has their best interest at heart. Nor do we believe that the White House has our best interest at heart. This whole effort for a public option satisfies one overarching objective. To use health care reform as simply another method to increase government power over all of us through another form of taxation which will meet Obama’s goal of “redistribution of wealth”. As the government takes away more and more of our money, as the government takes control of more and more of our industries, and as the government takes increased action to redistribute our wealth it gains more power over business and individuals. This increase in power and control over business is Fascism. The redistribution of wealth is Marxism.
We can avoid all of this with two simple actions that don’t require months of negotiation on capital hill. These actions are:
- Enact Tort reform
- Let insurance companies compete in all states.
Enacting Tort reform quickly reduces the cost of health insurance. Anyone who has been through Business 101 understands that any legal expense has to be passed on to the consumer if the company is going to keep making a profit.
Letting insurance companies compete in all states, or letting people choose from any insurance company in the country, increases competition between insurance companies which also drives down costs and improves customer service. This is again Business 101.
But, many of our legislators have never held a real job so they don’t understand Business 101.
More to the point, Obama doesn’t want Tort reform and doesn’t want free competition between insurance companies because that works counter to his desire to control all health provisioning under the umbrella of an eventual single public option. Just listen carefully to his speeches back over the last 10 years. It does take careful listening but he is going to redistribute your wealth through increased taxation and the health care public option is simply another tax that the federal government can collect and use to enact a Marxist agenda.
MSNBC and Olbermann probably understand this very well and agree with it which is why they are so blatantly promoting the Obama agenda.
