From a Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large - giving support to my earlier post about the incestuous relationship of the Insurance Co's to our 'elected gubmint officials' - and the TREMENDOUS profits that the Insurance Co's are making off of hussein.Ø-care.
As I said- Reps and Senators (including repug-like-kins) have been bought and paid for.
“Here’s the problem with what goes on in Washington, DC, today: you’re not going to get enough support in a lot of instances for major reforms that are going to cost large corporations a lot of money,” he said.
“In this particular case, one of the big myths that’s spread by the left, for example, is that the big healthcare companies didn’t want Obamacare. That’s false. Many of them lobbied for it and supported it. The health insurance industry did, for example. If you look at the bill, it kind of makes sense, right? Who would not, as a businessman, who would not want a law that required people to buy your product, that said you have to buy health insurance?” he pointed out.
“That’s the problem with the repeal, and there’s some pretty clear evidence here that one of the chief headwinds that Republicans ran into were health insurance companies who were opposed to the reforms in this bill,” Schweizer said.
The above gem was the lead-in on an article supposedly about something else entirely.
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/07/20/schweizer-jack-mas-deal-jared-kushner-raises-legitimate-national-security-concerns/
Schweizer: Jack Ma’s Deal with Jared Kushner Raises Legitimate National Security Concerns
(mt note: Come-on Breitbart - This is just damn poor editing - putting two completely unrelated stories together into one artice.)
by JOHN HAYWARD20 Jul 2017195
Peter Schweizer, Breitbart News’s senior editor-at-large and head of the Government Accountability Institute, discussed the state of healthcare reform and the growing presence of Chinese billionaire Jack Ma in Washington on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.
Schweizer said the failed Senate healthcare reform bill is “a classical example of being halfway pregnant.”
“You cannot have a repeal of Obamacare that really retains half, at least, if not more, of the fundamentals of Obamacare,” he elaborated.
“Here’s the problem with what goes on in Washington, DC, today: you’re not going to get enough support in a lot of instances for major reforms that are going to cost large corporations a lot of money,” he said.
“In this particular case, one of the big myths that’s spread by the left, for example, is that the big healthcare companies didn’t want Obamacare. That’s false. Many of them lobbied for it and supported it. The health insurance industry did, for example. If you look at the bill, it kind of makes sense, right? Who would not, as a businessman, who would not want a law that required people to buy your product, that said you have to buy health insurance?” he pointed out.
“That’s the problem with the repeal, and there’s some pretty clear evidence here that one of the chief headwinds that Republicans ran into were health insurance companies who were opposed to the reforms in this bill,” Schweizer said.
“Look, I think that this bill was a terrible one. I think that it would not have done nearly enough to reform the system, and I think you have to put before Congress and the American people the opportunity to have a healthcare system that is robust, that is free market-based, that meets the needs that people want. We have not had a truly free market in healthcare economics in probably 40 years. We need to have one because that’s where we’re going to have the best health care,” he contended.
Schweizer disputed the conventional D.C. wisdom that “you can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good,” and passing any bill was better than passing nothing.
“In some cases, that’s true, but I think when you’re talking about the healthcare system and the fact that people have so much widespread corruption within it, I don’t think you can approach reform that way,” he said.
“You’re really only going to get one chance to fundamentally correct this system that is going off the rails. If you passed this bill and this bill became law – it’s marginally better than Obamacare, no question about it, but the problem is in the eyes of most people then, ‘Okay, the issue is solved. We don’t have the time or the inclination to go back and make other major reform.’ And, of course, the problem is, with these reforms the problems would not be solved. They would be marginally better, but you’re still dealing with a fundamentally flawed system that does not have a free market,” said Schweizer.
“The only way you can have a free market in health care is if you allow, for example, people to buy and companies to offer high-deductible insurance,” he continued. “If a 25-year-old says, ‘I want to buy a health insurance policy that only offers catastrophic care,’ they need to be able to buy that because the only way you keep costs down is by allowing multiple types of insurance policies to be offered. If you say to insurance companies, ‘You all have to offer health insurance that includes all these bill of goods,’ that’s not really a free market, and it’s not going to effectively keep costs down. That’s the problem.”
mt-note: BUT - the Insurance co's are NOT concerned about keeping the costs down to we-the-consumers - THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN IS MAXIMIZING PROFITS - and the more the gubmint mandates this and that, the more profit they make.
(rest of article about Kuschner-Ma ties- which are extremely concerning, imo)
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 
