Most critics of private health insurance (especially the President) have tried to make the case that government-controlled health insurance will avoid the drawbacks of denied and/or limited coverage, exemptions, and well, corporate greed. But will it? Reality says no.
Just take a look at this video of the chairman of the Oregon health plan as he explains why the state-run "public option" can deny life-saving medication to cancer patients yet approve the cost of receiving doctor-assisted suicide.
Credit YouTube user AlreadyKnownAsX2
His answer to the question "is it cheaper?" to pay for ($$$) end-of-life care rather than pay for ($$$) cancer treatment is astounding. He ultimately affirms that the issue is about ($$$) money while denying that it is about money. Ohhhh. Heads up, people, the bottom line is still the bottom line whether it be public or private insurance no matter what the motivation.
If it be not corporate greed, it will be some other rationalization. Brilliant.
(Many thanks to Frank Beckwith at WWWTW for the heads up on this one.)
When private health insurances deny a patient some medical procedure, it's called corporate greed. When govt health insurance (socialized medicine) does it, it's called "saving money." At the end of the day, if you're that patient, do you care WHY you're being denied or BY WHOM? Tell your politicians not to implement the 'public option' that screws the public's options.