Morning Call letters to the editor

Well we didn't think the Allentown Morning Call would print our letter to the editor. The letter we sent clearly demonstrated the outrageous dishonesty of Barack Hussein Obama. The editors at the Morning Call are left-wing ideologues so of course they would not publish something so critical of their little Stalin.
The Morning Call did publish many letters in support of Obama's health care coup.
Here is a letter from a George Soros funded Center for American Progress hack.
The questions are from Josh Drobnyk. Softballs is what he gives her and the counterpoint argument gets condescension and challenging questions from Drobnyk.
Nothing like having a weak reporter ask questions.

Fans describe health insurance provided by the federal government as necessary for competition under reform. Foes decry it as a step toward socialized medicine. Washington correspondent Josh Drobnyk talked with both sides for their views.

JUDY FEDER: Fed plan setting the prices it's willing to pay kills competition

Why do you support a public health insurance option?

The reason we are talking about a public health insurance option as one of a choice of plans is that the health insurance industry does not function well. It is one of the few industries that makes more money the less service it provides. It is an industry that is not at all competitive. The markets are dominated by a single or a couple [of] insurers throughout the country. At the same time, our premiums have doubled, health insurers have increased their profits. Â…

To make sure the health insurance plans are delivering services and there is competition so insurers are forced to keep those premiums low, we need a real competitor in there.

The big government programs such as Social Security and Medicare drew broad bipartisan support. Do you worry that a bill passed that includes an option but is a party-line vote would hurt the effort in the long-run?

We want policy to be about what we need not about partisan gain. But reality is sadly that sometimes one party wants to hold back what is needed to avoid giving the other party a victory. That was part of the political discussion in '93 and '94 when conservatives advised Republicans not to let Bill Clinton have a victory. Â… If one party is the party of no then that can't hold back the [other] party from doing the right thing.

The way the program has been proposed, the public option would be one of many alternatives to choose from within an insurance ''exchange.''

Doesn't establishing that exchange, alone, ensure more competition?

It helps and that is a big part of the reform that I am and others are advocating. Â… But even with an exchange we are missing some important elements. We are missing an insurer that is committed to keeping costs low and will be given the authority and opportunity to be innovative in changing the way we deliver health care. Moving us from paying on a piecemeal basis and placing so much emphasis on high-cost, high-tech procedures and not on preventive care and managing chronic illness. A public health insurance option that is empowered and charged with getting us better value for the dollar and giving us better health care can truly lead the field.

Some fear this will lead to socialized health care -- how do you convince them that it won't?

Anybody expressing that fear needs to be reminded of what we are stuck with -- with private insurers running the shots. What we've got is unacceptable. What we are talking about is a choice. With that choice, private insurance would actually grow under health reform.

-- Judy Feder, fellow, Center for American Progress

Here is my reply to Judy Feder.

Hey Judy from Center for American Progress, which is a George Soros left-wing group, first off insurance companies profits are 3%.
That is much less than bottled water/soda companies make.
You want more competition Judy, how about allowing health insurance to cross state lines? How about allowing individuals to purchase health insurance just like car insurance or home insurance? These two ideas alone will increase competition dramatically and it would not require giving the federal government control of individual's health insurance.
I love your comparison with Medicare. Originally Judy, Medicare was to cost only $ 5 BILLION and today it is almost $ 500 BILLION. So much for the government cost estimates.
Your talking points that the Center for American Progress sent you are weak Judy. As Obama mentioned in 2003 and more recently during this last campaign, his goal is single-payer government controlled health care. He said it Judy. Now he lies and says he didn't say that and that people are lying about him when they say that. He is the liar Judy and you are just intellectually dishonest.