Is America ready for single payer healthcare?

July 17, 2009

diana-furchtgottroth–- Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed are her own. –-

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”

But America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, the bill under discussion in the House of Representatives, would result in the demise of private health insurance in America.

The 1,018-page bill would result in unprecedented regulation of America’s health sector. Among other provisions, it includes an 8 percent tax on employers who do not offer health insurance to employees, a mandate for everyone to have insurance, and requirements on whom insurers must cover, what benefits must be provided, the extent of variation in premiums, and how much profit is permitted—with excess profits returned to enrollees.

This would solidify government control of all health care in America, force most private insurance companies out of business, and lead to a single payer health system, like Britain or France.

The bill’s focus is to drive people to the new public health-care plan or to Medicaid, the federal-state plan for low-income people. It would motivate many employers to drop insurance and pay the 8 percent tax, effectively steering employees to the new public plan.

The bill would create a new Health Insurance Exchange, where “qualified health benefit plans” are allowed to advertise their health insurance plans to individuals and firms. Only qualified health benefit plans are permitted to participate. In order to achieve the status of a qualified plan, an insurance company has to offer a certain package of benefits, meet guidelines on who can sign up, and agree to limits on profitability. It is unlikely that insurance companies can meet these requirements and stay in business.

The basic benefit plan for insurance companies who want to participate in the Exchange comprises inpatient and outpatient hospital services, as well as physician services and equipment and supplies used for treatment. In addition, it includes services that can by no means be considered basic, such as dental, vision, and hearing care for children, and mental health and substance abuse services.

Men would have to pay for maternity services and baby and child visits even if they are single and childless. People who do not abuse drugs would have to pay for substance abuse. This basic plan is like making everyone pay for a Cadillac when they would be glad to drive a used Ford.

Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, no matter how sick, and would be always required to renew coverage. With the exception of age, everyone, no matter how sick or healthy, would be charged the same premiums. When pricing by age, the highest premiums could not be more than twice as high as the lowest.

This means that in order to stay in business the prices charged by insurers would necessarily have to be very high. Companies would be required to cover a broad range of services, to accept anyone who applies without regard to sickness or health, and to keep premiums within a narrow range.

In addition, if companies were to make more than a certain level profit in a particular year, they need to return funds as rebates to enrollees. This prevents insurance companies from building up a reserve in some years to guard against losses in other years.

This pricing mechanism would quickly force private plans in the Health Exchange out of business—and leave consumers with the public plan.

In order to prevent insurance companies from offering plans outside the Health Exchange, Americans who receive financial help in paying for insurance would be required to buy plans in the Exchange. They could not select “bare bones” or catastrophic insurance plans sold on the open market.

Some Americans would be given “affordability credits,” credits to lower the price of their insurance, to be spent only within the Health Exchange. Individuals would be eligible if they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid—over 133% of the poverty line, now $29,000 for a family of four—but less than 400% of the poverty line, now $88,000.

Hence, health insurance assistance would be extended well above the median income for American households, now $55,000. These individuals would be forced to join plans in the Exchange in order to take advantage of government assistance.

Employers are also driven towards the Exchange. Beginning five years after passage of the bill, they would either have to offer health insurance comparable to plans in the exchange, or pay an 8 percent tax specifically designated towards subsidizing coverage in the Exchange.

Although President Obama repeatedly says that Americans who are happy with their medical insurance plans will be able to keep them, the House bill will make these plans disappear. Then, it’s a short step to a single payer system. Is America ready?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

We need to learn what private insurance companies sell as a health insurance package, review insurance offers and than talk about health reform. Private companies sell what they want and consumers cannot regulate their health plans in the way they want. Consumers think that they have great plans because they do not understand insurance packages. Companies make money on selling insurance packages that not needed or hiding disadvantages of health insurance packages. Let’s invite health economists to have debate about health plans and packages and their regulations.

Posted by Tatiana | Report as abusive

The last time I checked United Kingdom had national health and private health care running in parallel, with the advantage for those with private.
Is it possible that Ms Roth didn’t get the facts straight ?

Posted by allan reid | Report as abusive

Typically muddled screed from a senior fellow of the neo-con Hudson Institute. Maximize freedom of the insurers to sell whatever they want at whatever price they want. Maximize “personal responsiblity” of the individual to be victimized by these insurers, and bear the consequences of their “choices”.

The central issues are that: [1] private insurers want to make a profit and will configure a system that guarantees such profits regardless of the insured individuals actual health care needs; [2]private insurers as a whole do not engage in full disclosure of their insurance products – you generally can’t tell what kind of health care coverage you have until you discover that you are not covered under the plan that you purchased – this is an essential design feature of health care insurance – it is not an accident; [3]the mantra of “personal responsibility” is nonsense in the context of a complex, modern society, and the scientific understanding of disease processes.

Posted by bill muffin | Report as abusive

Ms Roth did NOT get her facts straight. In England the government controls health care delivery, and nobody here wants that. A single PAYER should (in my opinion) replace the insurance companies. But the hospitals, doctors, nurses, clinics all would remain private. These lies just proliferate! Single Payer / Independent provider. No laws against insurance for profit, just an option to avoid them, which Americans will do as soon as they get the chance. Why should we have a system that supports the parasitic insurance industry?

Posted by Amy | Report as abusive

Boy, you are really good at buying what the private insurance companies are selling. The private insurance companies are in the business of making money. In order to do so, they drop customers, raise their rates and deny claims. They admit this. This is their PUBLISHED official business plan. Would the demise of this kind of company really be bad for the citizens of the United States? The insurance companies say we won’t have the same choices if the government is involved. Excuse me? So, I won’t have the same terrible choices under the government that I do under my insurance company? GREAT!

Posted by Peggy | Report as abusive

Yes I’m ready to have the government take over ALL of my adult responsibilities so I can live my life as a 49 year old toddler. I want the government to be my new surrogate mommy and daddy now that my real parents are no longer living. I want health care, mortgage payments, transportation, food defense and anything else that I need to be government supplied so I can just pursue the things that make me happy. Like 52″ HD tv’s, Ipods, SUV’s and clothes.

Posted by Brian | Report as abusive

Who says American are happy with their health plans? Every year it costs more and more and the service level goes lower and lower (as far as I remember for the past 30 years)

Posted by Mason | Report as abusive

1. All European Union countries have public and complimentary private health care. So, Mrs. Roth again starts with a bold lie…

2. I’ve never heard of private “care”. I know what “private insurance” is, but that is a huge difference from a health “care”, i.e. no insurance, and that is btw the fundamental difference, will provide complete health care coverage for chronic conditions, which occurred prior the insurance set up. Said, on a macro level, Americans will be the less healthy nation among all the developed countries, because of the simple fact that there is NO unified macro policy towards continuous and uninterrupted health “care”.

3. Let’s say average household income is 55k, and average health insurance premiums are 10-15k annually. It does seem to me that is roughly equal to an 20% and above tax burden, not considering the co-payments per visit and hospitalization. I.e. 6 to 8% taxes instead of 20-25% taxes is effectively REDUCTION of taxation, not increase. However, it will make wealthier households pay too, essentially the effect is a shift of wealth through taxation.

So, in general, health care reform is just a way to decrease the income disparity. The question here is actually does America want a social environment and living standard similar to the European Union, or America wants to become more India and Pakistan, for example, alike? Mr. Roth simply suggests that living like a Central African is a joy :)

Posted by Ananke | Report as abusive

I think we are missing the point. I am a young health adult that pays 10% of my salary to health insurance. My company pays another 10%. This is pure insanity and makes the USA less competitive globally. Administration accounts for anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of health care costs. One only needs to spend a few hours in a hospital to see this. Three or more admins to one doctor or nurse tracking equipment or filing paperwork. Smaller offices having 50% of staff processing claims. HMOs and the like are adding little value other than as a payer, but they are making huge margins.

The insurance industry knows their days of fat and happy are coming to an end. The campaigns to show how much they have save participants are futile attempts to undo decades of solely profit driven agendas. Shame on any media that try to prove otherwise. This is not capitalism, but rather a fear driven drain on society. Lies and half truths. They will meet their fate as did the tobacco industry.

Posted by Matt T | Report as abusive

This article is extremely one-sided – not objective or comprehensive. Think about it – American businesses cannot compete abroad or do so under a grave handicap – they have to provide health coverage where in our major competitors like England, France, Canada, Germany etc. health coverage is provided by the government at no cost to the corporations.

Here the greatest cause for bankruptcy is not the housing woes but medical bills.

Lastly people with jobs are free to pick any doctor they wish but if they have a pre-existing condition forget quitting and getting a new job.

Study after study have proven that government run health care (Medicare) is highly efficient with an overhead way under 5% and its what the people want in poll after poll but the media (you guys) constantly pump the private solution.

Posted by Dan Burnstein | Report as abusive

If you ever wanted to be completely brainwashed, read and try to comprehend the numerous articles published about health care reform. Do you think that each author has carefully sat down and read the contexts of the new administrations proposals, developed their own analysis, and now expertly bring their opinions forward so that we can all be protected from the evils of universal health care? My god can you imagine that under this new plan a single man will be forced to share in the cost of health care for someone with a family? So what if he drinks like a fish, smokes like a freight train, and will need a liver transplant and cancer treatments at a cost of three million by the time he’s forty. Forget that this amount of money will take care of four healthy families for a lifetime. And what are we going to do without health insurance companies? They are so honest, they would never leave a policy holder to die who is sick just because he is sick? would they? Nooo way. They would never spend 4 million a day to defeat a free universal health care program that every other civilized nation enjoys. I say free because it should be free for me and every other citizen of the U.S. who makes under a gadgillion dollars a year. Tax the corporations and individuals (health care tax)who raped this country into a depression in the first place a measely 3%, Make it unlawful for drug companies to make any profit like they do in parts of Europe and voila!!. All the anti uhcare writers in this country have to do is make it appear as though they have done enormous research on the subject, use the same old scare tactics targeting the groups who live securely (in their minds), unliterately, or in fear (75%)and the tetering 2% vote Obahma needs will never materialize. If you want to know what the new health care system could look like, look at medicare (over 65) We already have a universal health care plan for the eldery and only 7% goes to administrative costs. It works for them, and there is no reason it won’t work for everyone. My dad had 2 by-pass surguries at no cost to him (other than his small supplemental insurance premium). Before coporate tax was slashed (along with the tax breaks they received from investing in America) a much larger portion of their wealth went to our government. Geuss what? they have stopped trickling down. (raise their tax a smidgeon)

Posted by alan hess | Report as abusive

I used to buy into the rhetoric of private health insurers, but a Bill Moyer podcast interview of former VP of Communications at Cigna Health, Wendell Potter enforces my new belief that we should have government run health care effectively taking out the selfish motives of Wall Street out of our health care.

In the intervew Wendell discusses the malicious tactics of the private Health industry. Wendell Potter discusses how the industry uses double talk and threats to government representatives to support them. Unfortunately our reps are gutless wonders. He mentions scare tactics to make people think that a government beaurecrat will ruin our health care; but guys, seriously think of how the private heatlh care industry that we have now that is run by Wall street investors? Seriously, do you really think Wall Street is going to give us heatlh care we desparately need that might be too costly for thier bottom line? It’s not happening now! Wendell also discusses the double talk the industry organizations are promoting to call the increases in our co-pays and out of pocket expenses.
The private insurance industry is also saying that the cost of government run care is expensive. Wendell points out 20% of private insurance revenue goes to over-head. The comparable medicare only takes 3% for over-head. Point of this is, think critically, realize the private health insurance industry is an entity that is living for survivial of itself. The people that run them, do not have any idea what is going on or they have turned their back on people for the sake of pay. Few people like Wendell Potter who are in the industry who wake up from their trance stand up for what is right. He quotes Dante’s Inferno from Kenedy’s “Profiles in Courage that changed his life that says;”the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who know what is morally right and don’t do anything about it.”

If private insurers want to stick around; then they should be a minority stake in health care as a premium choice out of many options, not the only choice for so many of us who are working and Medicare is not an option.

Posted by Rich | Report as abusive

It looks like all of the cogent arguments have been made, so I wish to make an observation.

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth needs to realize that millions of people cannot afford any of the current health care “choices”. Well, she probably does, but does not care. Profits and business are more important than the faceless, invisible proles whom make these things possible.

Professionals and business leaders can easily forgot the struggles of the working poor and write them off as having made poor choices.

In my humble opinion, this attitude is arrogant, self-serving libertarianism.

Posted by Kevin Redcrow | Report as abusive

Comment to Mason’s entry: I agree! For single coverage, I went form $ 387/month to $ 662/month in five years! My coverage is fine, my premium is ridiculous!!!

As for the writer’s comment, “This means that in order to stay in business the prices charged by insurers would necessarily have to be very high.” —That’s BULL. With more insured, the risk is spread, thus lowering everyone’s premium. This new system is a heck of lot better than facing monstrous premium increases to cover those NOT insured and providing free care to illegals in this country – and there are millions of the. I say, “YES! We ARE ready for a single-payer!” It’s about time insurance companies quit profiting off our health and denying us service to improve it!

Posted by Irish | Report as abusive

How is the fact insurance companies may go out of business an argument against health care reform? I’d rather have the government between me and health care than a profit driven HMO. If they can’t compete then let them go out of business, isn’t that what the system is all about? If they can’t keep making their unrealistic and immoral profits then I say HOORAY! Who will cry but those on their executive boards making ungodly sums by denying claims and dropping customers. I fail to see why I should care if the biggest most immoral thieving bottom feeders go out of business. In fact it makes me more of a fan of reform.

Posted by Edward M. Blake | Report as abusive

Why does everyone ignore the obvious solution? Do what several doctors are already doing: charge a flat fee per month based on age. Have the patients sign a one year contract and during that time they can have any test/procedure they feel they need. Access improved, coverage extended, costs cut, insurance companies circumvented, emergency room visits decreased, amount taxpayers spend to pay for the uninsured to get emergency care reduced. No need for the government to get involved. But I guess that makes too much sense.

Posted by Mike | Report as abusive

Why are Republicans so pessimistic? If the first iteration of the plan has shortfalls or unintended consequences, we will keep working until we get it right. The system we have now is so badly flawed that it would be hard to do worse.

As to the issue of paying for what you don’t need: You pay for public schools, whether you have kids enrolled in them or not. You pay for roads, whether you drive or not. You pay for the police, fire, and rescue, even if you’ve never called 911 in your life.

This isn’t a “pay as you go” society.

Posted by Lisa | Report as abusive

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS GOTTEN INTO AN UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT> Obama promised that if we passed his $787 billion dollar stimulus unemployment would max out at 8%. We passed his bill and unemp[loyment will soon go over 10%. Now he says his health care plan will save us money even though he is promising more services.

WHY are we trusting him again.

Lets look at Meidcare and the VA hospitals both government run. Medicare is broke and the VA is known for sub-standard care because they can not attract good doctors and staff because they do not pay well. My guess is they will fail at this health care program as well.

If they want to control costs they need to limit malpractice suits so doctors do not have to carry huge insurance policies passing on costs to the consumer. Obama will not touch the attornies because he is one of them.

Posted by frank pontillo | Report as abusive

YES! Diana, yes. The problem is Congress and their propensity to help protect the profits of their financiers. Alas, real reform is probably unachievable. The real problem is cost, not the public or private debate. We used to be not for profit. Why is no one talking about that as an option for health care? Or are profits more important than the health of the People? Come to think of it, a good number of the People need to get off their butts, exercise and eat right. That would certainly help reduce health care costs.

Posted by Anubis | Report as abusive

I am sick and tired of listening to all of you people cry and whine about how nobody should make profits. Do you realize that enacting this bill will basically seal the fate of the United States? The person who said Medicare has only 3% administrative cost is terribly wrong – the real number is over 25% administrative cost. The United States is already on a collission course for bankruptcy prior to the idiotic stimulus plan (which has not moved the needle at all, I do have to say) – this will only make it worse. This is one more step toward socialism in America. The people that don’t have means for insurance – the real number is only 8 million people that are actual CITIZENS and cannot afford it. The number being thrown around is 50 million. Of that 50 million, more than 1/2 are immigrants who are not US citizens – SO I DON’T CARE ABOUT THEM!! and the rest are people who can afford insurance and choose not to have it. That is their right, I don’t agree with their choice, but they have that right to do so. Our government need not overtake this issue and was never set up and intended to do so. Obama is going to destroy us with the large government that he is creating and the wasteful spending that will occur. You all say to “tax the rich” – do you realize that each percentage point of taxes levied against corporations and “the rich” will proportionately lead to that percentage drop in salary and jobs for people. You get into business to make money, not lose it. The purpose of a business is not to create jobs, but wealth for the people that took the risk to create the business through investing THEIR MONEY. If everyone would put their hands back in their pockets and stop looking for a handout from UNCLE SAM and take some personally responsibility for these issues, our country would get back on track. If you cannot afford insurance, that is a choice that you have made. You could get another job – or find a way to make more money – but you have chosen not to educate and train yourself and often times have instead structured your life around government subsidy to get you by. You have lost your way – and unfortunately you have probably seen your circle of friends and family do the same thing for years. Our welfare state is awful and embarassing – and I believe FDR enacting Social Security and the furthering of his idealism with Medicare, Medicaid and such down the road led us to this point. Trust me – GM is only a foreshadowing of the United States soon…mark my words – but who is going to bail out the US?

Get off your laurels – take responsibility for yourself and your family – and get health insurance. You cannot sit and wait for Obama to bail you out. GROW UP AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

Posted by Seth Dudley | Report as abusive

There were no questions asked when 800 billion dollars were given away to banks to do what they wished. The reckless – and oh so quick – way in which that was made possible stunned the whole planet.

But! there are all sorts of questions raised about a national health care plan, all kinds of unachievable goals and unsurmountable obstacles to take care of public health. Surely a global problem like the financial crisis dwarfs the regional health care needs?
Surely the needs of 350 million people can easily be taken care of?

As a Nation, citizens can’t be fair weather friends to each other and expect to survive united. The key to longevity of nations – of internal peace – is how well their members take care of each other. The most advanced nations are those who are consistent in their approach to social needs.
Who doesn’t want to work unburdened by the thought of losing everything they have to a medical emergency?
How about employers? What employer wouldn’t want to drop the current system that punishes their enterprise?

The current President’s administration is sending out the message that the needs of a very small minority outweigh the needs of the crushing majority. The meaning is clear, it’s a nation deeply divided.
It explains why no clear objective will ever be achieved.

Posted by Dan | Report as abusive

Why are people so concerned that 15% of GDP or 20% of household income goes toward healthcare? Most people agree with the phrase “you get what you pay for”, but not here? Never before in history has anyone rich or poor been able to survive catastrophic illness and yet we complain that we have to pay for it?

Now, the system as it stands today in the U.S. is hardly private. Medicare and medicaid contribute a large proportion of healthcare revenues already, hospitals are forced to provide charity care and regulations touch virtually every corner of the healthcare industry. So this is not an argument against this new government plan proposal, rather it is a reality check on the cost of the healthcare system. We can cut costs, for example in Pharma, but the result will be less development (and more unemployment), hardly a “free” lunch.

Posted by Jeremy | Report as abusive

Dan asks, “Why so few Q’s about TARP (and the stimulus package), and so many about health care?” I’d guess there are three factors (at least): [1] TARP was essentially bi-partisan in nature; [2] Obama’s grace period is bleeding away as folks understand the TARP and stimulus packages — and so are quicker to question the health care proposals; and [3] Health Care hits home for most folks, whereas loans to banks are more impersonal. As to working unburdened over paying for major medical, what about having a job, period? The current House plan taxes small businesses 8 percent if they fail to offer health care. That 8 percent tax will likely translate into small businesses (which apparently employ about 70 percent of all American workers) having to let go AT LEAST 8 percent of their employees — that could well mean an added 30-40 million lost jobs, on top of the 9.5 percent unemployed already.

Posted by mike smith | Report as abusive

I am a working American, I do not have health insurance.
So am I just supose to make everyone else around me pay for my health care just because of it? Nope… I could go out and get healthcare if i wanted to. there are plenty of options out there. I tell you what I will refuse to do, accept money stolen from other hard working people to cover my expenses. Obama you are out of touch with America. I dont care how popular you are with gays, black, illegal imigrants and any other country in the world you protect at my expense!

Posted by Dibledable | Report as abusive

Dear writers,
As a well wisher, i have completely analysed,listened Mr.Obama!s new health care for Americans is to be appreciated by all.
Please read,watch all Socialist ,European countries Health care benefits to many deserving citizens.
Just,rich corporates,rich people to contribute to State for health care from their pockets are not sins.
Their contributions goes to uninsured Americans.
You can not have the cake and eat it too.
Generally, his new move on major health care is for good to many poor Americans.

Posted by krishnamurthi ramachandran | Report as abusive

With private insurance, one supposedly gets what one pays for. Under the OBAMA plan some get what others pay for. For myself and family, I choose to keep my current group coverage.

Obama Plan supporters need to get real comfortable with the dollar limit on heroic measures and drugs used keep chronically ill/terminal patients alive. I understand that certain ultra expensive treatments/therapies WILL NOT be provided. Maybe, pain management and hospice care will be.

Posted by waltonr | Report as abusive


So when the banker’s were in crisis it was alright to bail them out with billions in what I’m guessing you would call “stolen money”. But fellow american’s who can’t afford health care all you can muster is that he’s a thief and has stolen your money.

I guess he’s not BIG enough to matter if he/she fails..
Get a grip.

Posted by dabledible | Report as abusive

I guess the article says it all, right upfront, “The views expressed are her own”.
Certainly aren’t mine or millions of other Americans happy to pay LESS for EVERYONE to be healthy!

Posted by Amy | Report as abusive

We have had “socialized medicine” in this country for generations. It’s called the Emergency Room. Who do you think pays for the legions of poor people who turn to the Emergency Room when they get sick? Usually they put off treatment until they are extremely sick, and then we pick up the tab.

Posted by Bart Stewart | Report as abusive

This article is full of misinformation and lack any sort of logic, it is alarming. To highlight few:

>Men would have to pay for maternity services…
this is the definition of insurance – always have, always will be – and it is already this way. Your premium pays someone else care until you need some and they pay for yours.

>Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, no matter how sick…
Is Diana Furchtgott-Roth suggest we let people die ?!!

>… lead to a single payer health system, like Britain or France.
You know that France health care is the best rated in the world, don’t you ?

The hypocrisy of this article is staggering. Arguing that public plan will be terrible and at same time that private insurance could not do better ?? arguing public health care plan would kill you while people are dying NOW of lack of care.

This is not one shred of new idea in this editorial which is more fitted for a right-wing blog than a news website.

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

For Europeans ,American attitudes to setting up a universal health care system with strong state participation and management seem bizarre. The peace of mind that comes from knowing that in an emergency you will be taken care of and you won’t be financially ruined has no price. Why resist it?

Posted by mk | Report as abusive


>Men would have to pay for maternity services…
this is the definition of insurance – always have, always will be – and it is already this way. Your premium pays someone else care until you need some and they pay for yours.

Chris, do you pay for motorcycle insurance and car insurance? I don’t, never have….never will.

Posted by MikeC | Report as abusive

MikeC: The insurance company used your car insurance premium to pay for someone else motorcycle accident. In an insurance you never choose what your premium are used for, ever, in any insurance.

That’s why the way the author wrote the article is fallacious. She tries to confuse what insurance coverage you get with what premium will be used to pay for. Trying to create a fake outrage over what is the essence of insurance currently !!

Posted by Chris | Report as abusive

As someone who has experienced single payer systems (England, Finland and Canada) its a no brainer, they are the best way to go. Our current system is at best expensive, and grossly exploited by corporate profiteering. Single payer is the only way. Unfortunately fear mongering (paid for by the drug company lobbies and insurance pirates) is trying to block an intelligent debate. MOST Americans by far support it and politicians who block it will ultimately pay for the pay they took from the corporate outfits.

Posted by Philip Daughtry | Report as abusive

Yeh Seth Dudley! A true American! Hey Seth, I live in Northern California and you wouldn’t believe how Socialist it already is here. why, in the mornings i watch my neighbors drive off to work and every one of them just gets on the Interstate! A PUBLIC road! Now how Socialist is that? I’m sure in your part of the country everyone has their own private roads that they built themselves and, like any right-thinking american would never think of getting onto the pavement of some socialist road that our commie-loving government had their hand in building.
And not only that, but a while ago my neighbor’s house caught fire. Guess what that commie-loving socialistic America-hater did? Yes, exactly! He called the fire department!! Can you believe it? To allow a group of government run bureaucrats to put out the fire! Well, you can imagine the mess they made of that! When they were done half the house had Fire damage!!! I’m sure you’ll stand with me in this when I say that if my house catches fire there’s no way I’m asking some Socialist organization like the fire department for help! No Sir. I’m a true American and if I can’t afford my own private fire department { Something every real God-fearing American should own), I’ll just stand there and watch’er burn.
And this healthcare thing! How stupid can these liberal socialistic America-haters be? You know how the government can’t run anything! Just look at the fire departments! And all those Police departments! and the U.S. military for that matter!
No Sirrie Seth! I don’t want to live in that kind of world! Why, truth to tell, Seth, I’m originally from Canada and do you know how socialist they are there? Well, let me tell you! It was so bad that I had to leave. Why, when canadians get sick or hurt or whatever they go and see a doctor and they don’t even have to pay . Now how wrong is that!! No sir. I like your thinking, Seth! when I get hurt and can’t pay, or am denied care because it would too deeply on some businessman’s right to make money off my misfortune, why, I’ll just throw my family into the gutter and jump right after them! You won’t hear me complain, Seth, cause I’ve got my head screwed on right and I live my talk!

Posted by annieopsquatch | Report as abusive