governor schweitzer- the opposite of max baucus
by problembear
i’ve been saying this for quite awhile. it looks like brian schweitzer has finally figured it out…….. if montana provided businesses with an alternative to private health insurers, our small and large businesses tired of being gouged by parasites could free up much needed capital to provide workers with plenty of new jobs.
of course, it is all just discussion at this point. but it is a discussion long overdue and very welcome news to all of us who are tired of paying blood-sucking private insurers who keep jacking up their rates while providing fewer and fewer benefits.
it is just refreshing to finally hear from a montana politician who is not in the pocket of big pharma and the health insurance conglomerates in this country……
Advertisement
-
Recent Comments
petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ingemar Johansson on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Rob Kailey on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
September 29, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Amen!
September 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm
I think that you are counting chickens that haven’t even laid eggs.
Schweitzer is the guy who tried to hold back DPHHS payments in 2009 (written about somewhere here in this blog) and then did this year when I don’t know how much $ was ‘returned.’
As if there weren’t services in DPHHS that could have used that money.
He also tried to cut payments to medicaid providers, lower than what the legislators of this past 2011 session negotiated. And given this last session, I can’t imagine that medicaid providers were being paid anything exorbitant and most likely, far from it.
Then there was holding stimulus money hostage thing (even though that wasn’t healthcare related $)….
There was also the prescription drug fiasco. Hooting and hollaring and we all come to find out 6 years had gone by and he hadn’t done a thing.
I’ll say I was pleasantly surprised when I heard this But only for a second, and then I remembered the reality the history that is.
I mean, here’s a guy with a bully pulpit – how much did he stand up (which would have been in start contrast to Max?) during the prolonged healthcare debate? Think of what that would have done.
September 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Wow !!! ppl from everywhere are getting wind of what’s going on (not yet down) in MT!
i’ll bet Brian doesn’t get Max GE Baucus’s blessing for re-election.
Posted this to my FB ~ more is to be had elsewhere…
Crushing Capitalism one State at a Time !
September 30, 2011 at 8:51 am
It’s well-known in many circles that Max and Brian do NOT like each other. That said, Brian can’t run for re-election so there’s no blessing to give. Max is too old to run for re-election and who’s likely to make a run for his seat…you guess it…Brian Schweitzer. There’s much speculation about a possible Schweitzer 2016 presidential run. I’d venture to say that he’s a little too independent for the national party.
September 29, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Well i may have seemed estatic above, but i know full well what a condesending jerk, BIG COAL man Brian is…and stuff i didn’t even know exposed here… thank you jhwygirl.
Hopefully this will help undo the Dem pty here under Baucus.
How do these guys get elected?
September 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm
I’ve known Schweitzer for a long time. I liked him the minute I met him. He’s old school. He don’t abide no corporate bullshit because he ain’t beholden and he ain’t for sale. And those are rare qualities in a politician now days. But I don’t consider him to even be a politician. He’s simply a guy using what he’s got to make life better for everybody. And what he’s got is PLENTY of talent. And you’re right, He AIN’T no Mini B.
September 30, 2011 at 8:47 am
I’m conservative, but I’d actually like to see more about this proposal. A national healthcare system would be an absolute failure, but the state may be able to put together a program that spends less on healthcare than we current do and free small business owners from footing the bill by themselves.
One thing I’d really like to see is a program that includes more preventative healthcare and reasonable responsibility requirements. If taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for problems like liver failure if someone is an alcoholic or lung cancer for a life-long smoker, then we would be able to cover our responsible citizens at a minimal cost. It’s important to set the system up so that health care is the privilege of responsible citizens and not an entitlement to all.
September 30, 2011 at 9:36 am
So, you’re going to weed people with genetic predispositions to certain diseases out of the insurance pool, eh?
September 30, 2011 at 3:14 pm
The irresponsible citizens get death panels.
September 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm
we already have hundreds of individual death panels. each private insurer sets it’s own complicated policies regarding each and every medical treatment. reading and understanding the small print in each and every company’s policy is enough to kill us all with incurable neck pain……
at least with single payer there will only be one policy to figure out. enough with the excruciating shell game that is inflicted on us. the last thing anyone should have to worry about when facing life threatening disease is to further stress themselves over complicated health insurance policies.
October 4, 2011 at 9:26 am
No, but you’re going to pretend I said that so you can further your political talking points. I said weed out flagrant irresponsibility, not genetic predisposition. If you want to shoot up smack, blow coke, drink yourself silly and binge on fast food then you’ve given up the privilege of having someone else pay for your healthcare.
October 4, 2011 at 10:30 am
You ever get a speeding ticket, rawr? Then according to your criteria, you’ve exhibited “flagrant irresponsibility” as speeders have a far greater risk of auto accidents and injuries than people who aren’t speeding.
According to your criteria, probably 100% of the population wouldn’t qualify for insurance, because everyone at some point in their lives exhibits one form of flagrant irresponsibility or another.
You just want to extend your concept of the nanny state to monitoring people’s personal and private behavior to your set of norms in order to offer up health benefits (and probably any and all other state and federal benefits).
I don’t want my taxes paying for health benefits of people like you who rant and rave about right-wing moralistic politics, because it is flagrantly irresponsible, as it raises your blood pressure, greatly increasing your chances of heart attack and stroke.
October 4, 2011 at 8:27 pm
sounds to me like rawr is for big government in the kitchens of America. Soda pop tax anyone?
October 4, 2011 at 11:09 am
Why, rawr? The cost of excluding people is greater than the cost of covering everyone. Why do you want us to spend more money?
September 30, 2011 at 2:53 pm
You have a point.
September 30, 2011 at 5:20 pm
the amount of money that is spent in this country to provide health care is 60% more than most countries spend on their citizens per capita.
most of it is going to profit health insurers.
we could all pay at least 50% less for health insurance and cover everyone with decent affordable health care if we pooled our money into a non-profit single payer system. this is not fiction. we are the only developed nation in the world that plays this profitable shell game with our health.
the only reason we haven’t seen reason in this country yet is because lobbyists for the medical industry, pharmaceuticals, and health insurers spend billions to bribe our congress to allow them to gouge us for obscene profits.
our health industry in this country is filled with corruption, just like our government. while you worry about a few poor people who make bad decisions, who is worried about the wealthy companies skimming off 60% of our money to give us lousier and lousier health care?
October 2, 2011 at 10:24 am
Great photo pbear! I’m really going to miss Schweitzer.
October 4, 2011 at 9:34 am
Rawr: so who is stopping you from a new medical start-up? I have the perect name for it- ersatz health insurance