Beware of compromise by politicians; it usually doesn’t turn out in favor of the people who vote for these clowns.

Senator Grassley (R-IA) is the GOPs chief negotiator for healthcare reform known as socialized medicine. Mr. Grassley is about to be had and taxpayers will pay for it in spades and lives.

Don’t worry; the politicians will continue to get their separate healthcare policy, the gold standard of real healthcare. To hell with the masses, you’re nothing but a Bolshevik preparing for your grave.

Democrats throw out the bait like tossing bloody chum into the waters to attract fish, then real the poor things in and gut them in the halls of Congress. Rahm Emanuel then wraps the remains in a fresh Chicago Sun-Times and the end result is loss of freedom, liberty and choice.

We have Senators from farm states modeling a healthcare option similar to a co-op except they leave out the detail of government ownership. OOPS!

North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad confirmed this week that the current plan is to have the feds provide $6 billion in start-up cash, then appoint an “interim” national board to set policies for a network of state or regional co-ops. Mr. Conrad said this new network could attract 12 million people, making it the third-largest health insurer in the country.

Polls show the American people do not want Obamacare. National Public Radio found that likely voters disapprove of Obamacare 47%-42% with 39% strongly opposed compared to 25% strongly in favor.

Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that 42% of Americans called Obamacare a “bad idea” while only 36% said it was a “good idea.”

Finally, the New York Times/CBS News poll found: “Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests.”

With co-ops, the government role is more subtle, if nearly as corrosive as the taxpayer subsidized “public option.” Mr. Conrad’s starts with $6 billion in “seed money,” which is more than the total annual revenue of all but 20 of the nation’s private plans. This would provide a lower cost of capital than private firms and an implicit claim on any other money the co-ops need. The feds may then exempt co-ops from the taxes that private insurers pay, which average about 1.2% of premiums. This would let co-ops offer lower prices and poach customers with government-subsidized premiums.

The Wall Street Journal writes:

These co-ops sound a lot like a health-care Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Congress created because there was supposedly no secondary mortgage market. The duo proceeded to use their government subsidy to dominate the market and drive out private competitors. And all of this is before Congressional liberals get their hands on these co-ops.

Democrat Mary Bevering of Fort Madison Iowa, told the NYT:

“We need to fix health care but if the government creates the system, I’m afraid the quality of care will go down and costs will go up: We will pay more taxes.”

Maybe Ms. Bevering can get her Iowa colleague Mr. Grassley aside and talk some sense into him.

Heritage Foundation VP for domestic policy Stuart Butler writes in today’s Washington Times:

If the U.S. health care sector were a separate national economy, it would be the sixth largest in the world – bigger that Britain’s entire economy. Imagine five bickering congressional committees trying to redesign the British economy successfully in just a few weeks. No wonder people are getting nervous. … [and] the congressional majority wants to revamp the huge health care economy using the doctrine of central planning. So we have thousands of pages of legislation, with potentially hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and dozens of boards and “czars.” These will regulate prices, reorganize hospitals and doctors, and decide what health care each of us should and should not have.

The Heritage Foundation offers a Conservative reform plan for healthcare:

Expand coverage by reforming Medicaid: Millions of uninsured Americans are eligible for programs such as Medicaid, yet they don’t sign up. Policymakers should focus on approaches that are patient-centered instead of system-centered. The current Medicaid structure is based on a system that reimburses providers for the services that they supply to beneficiaries. A patient-centered approach would direct Medicaid funds to the patient and reflect the individual needs of that patient.

Incentivize Americans to make their own health care decisions: Rather than micromanage the health system via central planning, we need to get the system’s basic incentives right. Under the current system, with tax-subsidized, third-party insurance, everyone has the incentive to spend more of someone else’s money. No wonder costs are exploding. Getting incentives right means things like pushing employers to show their employees how much of their compensation comes as health insurance. That would encourage all of us to look harder to see if our insurance is good value for money and to opt for fatter paychecks and less costly fringe benefits.

Make it easier for Americans to shop for health insurance: But even if Americans were incentivized to make their own insurance decisions, it is still currently very difficult for them to find the right bargains for them under the current system. “Health Insurance Exchange” is the generic name some have given such administrative mechanisms; Utah recently enacted health reform that creates a “Portal” for this purpose. This is exactly the kind of state level experimentation that the federal government should be encouraging.

Congress has around 17 healthcare options from the private sector and paid for by the taxpayers. We should absolutely demand no less for ourselves, our families, for all American’s. Congress does not use the “public option” they would force upon us.

Killing Obamacare and the “public option” for US healthcare would not only be the humane thing to do, it would be the patriotic thing to do. Indeed!