If you have "no place to go," come here!

Mary Landrieu admits that she is an immoral person

DCblogger's picture

Landrieu: Under "Very Few, If Any" Circumstances Would I Support A Public Option

"I'd like to cover everyone -- that would be the moral thing to do -- but it would be immoral to bankrupt the country while doing so," Landrieu said. The public option as currently conceived is expected to be a deficit reducer.

Now as we know, HR 676 would save the US Treasury $400 billion a year. That is $400 billion a year that Landrieu and others are willing to spend to prop up health insurance parasites.

The health care situation in Louisiana is nothing short of desperate. Hundreds of people in Louisiana are going to die because their Senators care more about CEOs than they do about their own constituents.

No votes yet


gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Or is that the total savings from switching to single payer? Its clear how removing private insurance admin costs would save the *system* $400 billion, but how much does the Treasury currently pay? It seems to me that the current costs to the system as a whole is much different than the current cost to the Treasury. (The capital "T" implies the US Treasury dept.) It seems disingenuous to deliberately conflate the two.

Personally, as a Rawlsian liberal, I don't consider monetary costs more important than saving lives so these arguments don't sway me either way. But honesty in debate is very important.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

but as tax payers we pay for the health insurance of federal workers, and there all sorts of other costs to the Treasury because health insurance parasites and their bureaucracy are sucking up all the money.

Fredster's picture
Submitted by Fredster on

Landrieu is walking a delicate line in a state which is turning more and more red-state. Plus, she's gotten some hefty contributions from the health care industry.

Regarding Big Charity (as it's known in NOLA), it flooded during Katrina, but the building is physically sound. Electrical and a/c infrastructure would have to be replaced, but the building didn't blow down or anything

What's happening is VA is building a new facility further down in the city in the Mid-City area. VA and Charity were back-to-back in their old locations. It was envisioned that they would build a new Charity hospital and share the plot with the VA hospital. Charity is also the teaching hospital for LSU.

Enter FEMA. FEMA decided Charity only had about $150 million in damage and hence was less than 50% damaged. LSU contents it's totaled and they want $450 million, or about half of what they need for a new hospital next to VA. Further complicating things was that Charity was also used as a teaching hospital by Tulane's Medical School along with Xavier's pharmacy school and other allied health training facilities. LSU wanted to hog the seats on the Board of the proposed new facility and the other schools balked at the idea. It took Jindal to strong arm LSU to agree to a board configuration that gave LSU some of what it wanted.

In the meantime there sits Big Charity, a beautiful art-deco building doing nothing. I really think LSU could have done some repairs and partially reopened it but that would not have fit in with their argument that it's totaled. LSU does have University Hospital open but it has much less capacity than the old Charity hospital.

In sum, it's typical Louisiana politics. LSU is wanting to be part of a medical corridor a la Birmingham AL and Houston and to hell with the people who need care now.