Rep. Rick Larsen (D) sets an example that Matheson wont follow

Posted By on August 14, 2009

Now THIS is how an elected official with spine and a conscience should act –

CITIZEN: I have two real concerns about the nationalized health care insurance.

Why are all Americans forced into a government-run health care and insurance plan when only 46 million out of 312 million are uninsured? Do you want me to break down how those insured are found? 12 million are illegal immigrants, 17 million earn $50,000 plus and choose not to have insurance. 8.8 million without insurance for four months or less…or more because they’re between…they’re unemployed and between jobs. 8.2 are chronically uninsured. That’s a total of 46 million people. I’d be willing for the government to buy insurance policies for the 8.2 million chronically uninsured, but the other 37.8 million are not the responsibility of the American citizens and I will…I’m not willing…and I am unwilling to throw my present health care away for them.

LARSEN: Thanks. Thanks, Jim. Thanks for your input and your comments. With regards to the first comment about being forced to buy health care, I’ll say it again,[…] the bill does not force anybody to change their health care plan. If you’re in a plan, you will not be forced into the public option. You will not be forced into the health insurance exchange. Now folks will say that’s not true, but I’ve got facts on my side and you’ve got Glenn Beck on your side. It’s just not going to play off that way.

Crooks and Liars has the video HERE or –

About The Author

Writer, part time indie-film maker, musician, wonk and political consultant. Host of The LEFT Show Award winning writer of JMBell.org Former Democratic National Committee Communications Director for Utah. Creative Director for Defenestrate Media Group Award winning host of the late Left of the Dial.

Comments

30 Responses to “Rep. Rick Larsen (D) sets an example that Matheson wont follow”

  1. Cameron says:

    But millions of people will be forced off their current insurance plans because their employers will drop their coverage. The right wing extremist Jake Tapper made that point to the president recently. It’s disingenuous to go around reassuring everyone that nothing will change for them if they don’t want it to, all the while knowing full well that it’s just not true.

  2. JM Bell says:

    The three drafts I’ve read are completely the opposite of what you just said. Turn off Glen Beck, get on the internet and actually read the bills, Cam, instead of ignorantly repeating the bullshit of right wing liars.

  3. Cameron says:

    See, that’s good – go after the questioner with personal attacks instead of reading, comprehending, and responding to the points made. Well done.

    Or you could follow the Jake Tapper link where he asked President Obama about the same point I made in the first comment and the president admitted that yes, your employer could and likely would drop your coverage.

  4. JM Bell says:

    An employer and/or an insurance company CAN ALREADY do that!
    You’re out of context, and that deserves the attack.

    Now – go into the bill that was voted in the House and see that it was a REPUBLICAN – who ended up NOT voting for the bill – that stapled that amendment in there.

    You bet your ass I’m calling you ignorant. The horseshit of this whole desecration of the democratic process is several layers deep – you want to skip the surface – fine – then I will call you shallow on the subject.

  5. Cameron says:

    It has nothing to do with any amendment Jeff. It’s the entire idea of a public option. That’s what Tapper asked the president about, and the president said, yes, the public option would cause employers to drop coverage. Tapper tried to ask a follow up question in regards to why the president is so vehemently claiming that no one will be forced off their insurance plan all the while knowing full well that they will be, but he got cut off. It’s a lie.

  6. JM Bell says:

    Again – They can already do that.

    The original bill took that away – but a Republican made the change to deny that protection.

    If a company dumps their medical – that’s the company.

    If the bill passes without a public option, then a Republican has once again found a way to make health insurance even more inaccessible to the middle class.

    You’re bitching against the status quo and calling it reform opposition. Again – it’s deeper than the top layer.

    At least – if there’s a public option, people who are dumped -or, like I have been, denied – coverage will be able to have affordable, accessible health coverage.

    Right now there is not an affordable, accessible option.

  7. Cameron says:

    Now you’re arguing that it won’t matter if employers drop coverage. But that’s not what you wrote in your post. Nor is it what the president has been saying. Both of you have gone on and on that nothing will change, you’ll still have your insurance if you want it. And that’s a lie.

    “If a company dumps their medical – that’s the company.” They will have dumped it because of the government’s plan! The government is entering the market and changing that market, yet you want to stick to the meme that it’s not the government’s fault?

    If you (and the president) want to argue that the public option will be so much better than anything else out there – then make that argument. But don’t go on tv reassuring everyone that nothing will change, and write witty posts about “we have the truth” when you’re flat out lying.

  8. JM Bell says:

    Alright lets try this again – and I’ll type slow …

    THEY CAN ALREADY, AND DO ALREADY, DUMP COVERAGE.
    It exists. It’s real. It’s legal.

    If a company dumps heath insurance now – it’s because they can. If they dump coverage later, the public option is nothing more than a new excuse for current behavior.

    Here, as opposed to your hyperbolic charge that everyone but you, Beck, Limbaugh and Dobbs are lying – is a referring link that should, if you bother to read it, point out that what you’re arguing for is more fiction than anything else.

    We liberal bloggers call this a reference. I believe you and Bill-O call it “smearing the right.”

    http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

  9. Cameron says:

    And the government will make even more of them dump coverage, all the while promising everyone that it won’t. That’s a lie.

    When that “real” democratic representative above says “If you’re in a plan, you will not be forced into the public option.”, that’s a lie. When you write the same thing, you’re perpetuating the lie.

    The reason that the administration is lying is because they know there is a large portion of the population that does not want a public plan. Rather than having that vigorous debate he claims to want, and convincing the population of his plan based on its merits, the president soothes these people’s fears by lying to them.

  10. JM Bell says:

    Cameron – the government plan will not MAKE a company dump coverage. The company will be deciding to that all on their own

    Do I think that the number will uptick? Yeah, it probably will.

    At that point, as insurance companies watch the customer leave for the public option, they’ll either change their practices or they’ll go out of business.

    So, the decision to change or die is – AGAIN – one left up to the company.

    You, the consumer, can still pay the same insurance company for the same plan – but, if your company screws you by dumping the plan, then you get to either pay what the insurance company wants for you to keep that policy, or you’ll search for a better plan, whether public or private.

    Our argument, it seems (aside from you calling it the government’s fault that your company will dump your current plan) revolves around the word “make.”

    The government won’t MAKE your company do anything.

    You can call the president a liar because you’re grinding the semantics of what your company may choose to do – but I call you a liar because you’re distorting things to whip up fear and, for those of us who are currently labeled as uninsurable – you’re trying to keep every little fucked up thing about the status quo in place.

  11. Ronald D. Hunt says:

    I would think employers would be less likely to dump their current plans. In the new system dumping their plan won’t save them any money as they have to play or pay. How expensive the pay option is will effect this depending on the bill between 4.5 and 8 percent of the employee’s gross income. It very likely for most employers that it is cheaper to keep their current option.

    Further for the employers that dump their plans, the insurance exchange will provide you with access to plenty of private options in addition to the public option. Your employer dropping coverage doesn’t push you into the public option. The public option is just one of several that will be available on the exchange. Thats the whole purpose of the exchange.

    During the last 20 years the insurance industry has been consolidating, and for the most part their are only a few mega behemoths left. The public option is needed to prevent industry collusion on pricing and maintain a competitive market. Yea i know that last sentence may sound a little funny, But calling the private market we have now a free market is just as funny.

    The insurance industry has been slowing destroying the free market to create their own profitable privately ran socialism. I see this mistake made by republicans all the time, The belief that a private socialism through attrition of options is somehow better then a public socialism.

  12. Cameron says:

    So when the government institutes a policy which incentivizes behavior, the government gets no credit for it?

    So the mortgage tax deduction causing more home ownership is not traceable to the government? The Cash for Clunkers program causing people to buy cars because the government created an incentive to do so – that’s not the government’s doing? Come on! Clearly it will be the government influence that causes the dumping of coverage. A fact you obviously know since you think the number will “uptick”. Here’s a link describing what that uptick might look like:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/134016.html

  13. Travis says:

    Thanks, Jeff. You have made it a lot more clear to me. I don’t know how I missed this while listening to Beck, Limbaugh, and Dobbs (Oh wait, I don’t do a lot of that). I just realized from your discussion, that the Liberals want the companies to drop it. Not just so that you can form a single payer program. But it’s more than that. You want to be able to blame the business for their evil ways. You want government to look like the savior that it isn’t. And in order to do that you need a plan that paint business as the evil one’s and government as the heroes. I am all the more opposed to this plan now.

  14. JM Bell says:

    Travis – that’s adorable.

    I don’t want companies to drop their insurance. All I did was point out that if a company drops their carrier – it’s their choice.

    I have no problem with any company making a profit, but, I do have a problem with insurance companies making hundreds of billions in profits and yet still denying coverage to people who need it and jacking up the costs to those who already have it.

    If the free market were actually acting as a free market, then there’d be no reason or need for reform.

  15. Travis says:

    the free market isn’t acting as a free market because of too much government involvement and regulations. We need to cut the government bureaucracy and get back to a real free market.

    Just like your link above (or the source, as you like to call it in order to belittle us), you conveniently forget to mention that it is the varied government control on the health care industry that is lead to the problem that we are in. Because if you admit that, then you have to admit that any government involvement in health care is bad.

  16. Cameron says:

    “If the free market were actually acting as a free market, then there’d be no reason or need for reform.”

    Yes! Wait, we wish health care was more of a free market, so we’re going to create what the New York Times calls “possibly the most complex legislation in modern history” to make it more free?

  17. JM Bell says:

    So – one of the health insurance companies just posted a 130 billion dollar profit … and you blame government intervention for impeding the “free market”? Gotcha.

  18. Travis says:

    How is that a “gotcha?” This isn’t about failing health insurance companies. It’s about failing health care.

    The problem is that the laws that exist benefit the health insurance companies more than they benefit the consumer. These laws exist because of government bowing down to the health insurance lobby and appeasing them so that they can get re-elected.

    It has made it harder for doctors to provide care, and harder for patients to receive care. Because the Health Insurance companies have been protected by government bureaucracy.

  19. JM Bell says:

    No, it was Gotcha as in – Ah! I understand the depth of your delusional belief that mega-conglomerates will magically behave as if people were more than two legged ATM machines for them them to ass-rape the minute they need to use their insurance.

    Not “gotcha” as in I caught you at something.

  20. Cameron says:

    See, that’s just it. No one is claiming we have a free market. There are myriad reasons why we don’t, including the fact that insurance is tied to employment as well as that government programs pay for 47% of medical care in this country. Unfortunately, the current reforms being bandied about don’t make the market more free – which is what we want, since “If the free market were actually acting as a free market, then there’d be no reason or need for reform.”

  21. Travis says:

    Jeff, It’s interesting how in ever one of your comments you have belittle Cameron or I. You have yet to keep the personal slurs at bay. It tells me that you aren’t about having and intellectual argument with people. You refuse to let history and facts play out.

    Rather you would like to believe that your party is more accurate than mine. I on the other hand am willing to call my party to the table when they are wrong.

    Government run health care for everyone will ultimately lead to a single payer program. It has been the goal of the socialist movement for decades. And it is getting scary how close it is coming.

  22. Ronald D. Hunt says:

    Until Everyone can buy insurance from any provider they want without premium subsidy from their employer you will NEVER have a free market. AKA your free market solution which could work has already been shot down by you because it would interfere with your current insurance plan. Not that I believe that would solve the cost issues in the insurance side of the health cost equation.

  23. Travis says:

    Ronald,

    Based on your assessment there can never be a free market economy. You are using faulty reasoning on this.

    In a free market a company has the right to deny a service as much as it has a right to provide that service. Just like I have a right to shop where I want or not shop where I don’t want.

    Freedom goes both ways, for the service provider and the service receiver. Both parties are free to do as they please. That is a free market.

  24. JM Bell says:

    Travis – my party is stacked with a bunch of chicken-shit sell outs who don’t have the spine to fight for what they believe in.

    Your party only supports “reform” when it will hurt and/or disenfranchise as many working and/or middle class citizens as possible.

    Cameron popped in here and called me a liar, you came in and backed him up. I called you both ignorant and delusional. Now, if I hurt your feelings, I’m sorry about that. I would suggest, however, that whoever told you I was a cuddly, polite, spineless, chickenshit (like Jim Matheson) is having a nice laugh at your expense.

    I’m pissed and disgusted with the utter and absolute bullshit you Republicans are spreading about reform. You can’t win with information, so you fight with bullshit or fear.

    I will only admit that the “type slowly” line was rude – but I still think it was funny as hell.

  25. JM Bell says:

    And I don’t “have to belittle” – I do it because it’s how I write.

  26. Ronald D. Hunt says:

    Like the right to refuse coverage to the sick, The right to rescind coverage at any time for any reason, The right to exclusive customer access via employers completely preempting any concept of competition.

    Wait wait they already have those rights, I wonder what regulations they are under right now that you see as being so evil as to prevent the free market? They currently enjoy a very regulation free environment, And we can see where this has landed us.

    A Free market is a More then one entity competing with each other on a level playing field with a substantially similar product with open and equal access to customers seeking this product.

    Certain parts of health care can never be a free market Emergency care for example. Many parts of health don’t function like a market in any way due to the nature of illness, No one chooses to get cancer, I can’t go down to the hospital and have my arm fixed because i am going to break it next week but the broken arms are on sale this week.

    Free market in health care is an illusion. Their are parts of the health care system that can work as a market but only limitedly so.

  27. Travis says:

    No one told me you were nice. I am just pointing out that rather than fight the debate with ideas, ideologies, information, and reason, you have opted for belittling and banter.

    It’s interesting to see that you say Cameron called you a liar. He never did that. The only person in this conversation to use the word liar is you.

    My point in saying what I did was to point out that you aren’t really helping your cause. You simply belittle those who argue with you, because you can’t make your point. Enough said.

  28. JM Bell says:

    I think your wrong – I think we did debate with ideas, ideologies, information, and reason, and that I also used the tools of banter and being belittling.

    Just because I’m a prick doesn’t exclude everything else. Your inability to make your case and be somewhat less than bland isn’t my fault.

  29. Cameron says:

    I would just caution everyone to watch their rhetoric because it can get you labeled an extremist unamerican mob.

  30. JM Bell says:

    HA HA! See? Cameron can be funny.