Obama’s Ridiculous Rhetoric
President Barack Obama said Saturday he is ready to compromise with Republicans on health care if they are serious about it, but that an overhaul must go forward. “Let’s get this done,” he said.
Was President Obama listening at the health care summit? The Republicans made perfectly clear that they were willing to negotiate and compromise. They also made clear that they expected the Democrats to do the same, which they have been unwilling to do. Obama just looks like an child with his fingers in his ears responding to his internal caricature of Republicans instead of the actual Republicans across the table.
Then why are so many republican ideas already in the bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1017 hrs
Yeah. woohoo. Six things, only two of which are real, in a bill that includes hundreds of other bad ideas. That’s compromise? I’d love to be your car dealer.
Posted by Owen on February 27, 2010 at 1044 hrs
I feel like Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now….“Do these people ever give up?!?”
Obama told us back in July this thing had to be passed immediately. And he’s repeated the same garbage for the last 8-months. He has no clue about what is in this bill and what the major economic and business ramifications are with this thing.
Wake me up when Obama and Ezra Klein create their first private sector job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1048 hrs
@djheru ...Moreover, these six ideas are watered-down versions/interpretations of what the Republicans have been pushing for. Case in point, the concept of Interstate Compacts (agreements between a small group of states) vs. actual cross-state marketing of insurance policies. And the tort reform provision? Please!
HUGE differences here. Either Ezra Klein knows this and is guilty of avoiding this truth, or he doesn’t know that and is guilty of writing out of his ...hat… on something about which he is ill-informed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1315 hrs
Wow - 6 watered-down sorta-ideas out of over 2700 pages of dreck… and then dj calls that “so many”
That’s real compromise alright.
sarc
The whole thing is BS Owen. I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would be living in an Orwell novel. Steny Hoyer telling us that the Dems are listening to the American people. David Axelrod telling us that the people want this. Nancy Pelosi and her “simple majority” rules. Nevermind that over 73% want them to either start over or drop it completely, 53% are completely against recociliation, and the President’s approval rating is down to 43% today.
The founders set up the Senate to do expressly what it has been doing. Slowing down radical change. We are NOT a democracy, but a republic and we do not have majority rule. Obviously for a reason. Obama won with about 53% of the vote. Hardly a mandate to run rough-shod over everyone else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1321 hrs
Obama has political capital and he intends to use it. What’s wrong with a president doing that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1427 hrs
A 43% approval rating with polls showing huge majorities hating this bill is really not so much political capital.
At best, its blatently ignoring the people, not working on their behalf. At worst, the progressive statists are willing to commit political suicide because the ends of their progressive state justify their means.
They will decide what is good for us and we will like it!! Even if we don’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1450 hrs
The most ridiculous accusation the left has hurled at Republicans during this whole mess is that they’re obstructionist. For crying out loud, the Dems could have passed this bill last summer if they actually had the D votes.
The simple truth is, this bill is a crap sandwich, and most everyone knows that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2010 at 1603 hrs
I am not exactly thrilled with the Legislation either, but mainly because it does not create a single payer system or even set up a public option. So out of all the items in the bill the Republicans only support six http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf
Which six are those and why do they oppose everything else. The way I see it is the Republicans have no intention of giving Obama any kind of victory on healthcare no matter how much is removed.
A link to NRO, that was a joke right? Because i’m sure you take The Huffington Post criticisms of Republicans seriously.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 0222 hrs
Why is it that we should be concerned with giving Obama any kind of “victory” when it is a big loser for - you know - us? This isn’t political, its personal.
Personally, my taxes will go up. My premiums will go up. My high-deductible plan with an HSA that we are quite happy with and my parents and in-laws Medicare Advantage plans that they are quite happy with will all go away.
Yeah, I’m all about giving Obama that victory - NOT!
Its OK to say No! to the crap sandwich and I am proud to do so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 0905 hrs
No is an excellent position here.
NO, we won’t take a very effective health care system and replace it with one that won’t work and was created in a smoky back room.
NO, we won’t let the Democrat Party steal your health security.
NO, we won’t ignore the will of a vast majority of the voters.
NO, we won’t have excellent ideas to improve health care ignored by Nancy and Harry and Barack.Yeah, I’m very proud to be associated with the party of NO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 1021 hrs
Healthcare bill will help our society a lot.
Posted by Rahul on February 28, 2010 at 1045 hrs
The way I see it is the Republicans have no intention of giving Obama any kind of victory on healthcare no matter how much is removed.
For me this isn’t about partisanship at all… It’s about preventing the our healthcare system from being pushed down the road toward the economy draining, unsustainable systems that are carried out poorly in western Europe and Canada. About remaining free to choose my course of treatment in the future, whatever the cost to me personally. About not having a government that can tell me what products to buy, and how much of it is appropriate for me in particular, especially when the government knows nothing about me….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 1114 hrs
“no is a wonderful word. When your child is misbehaving, you say no. When someone’s stealing liberty, you say no…Saying no at the right time saves lives. Saying no at the right time saves money…Saying no at the right time saves liberty.”
Tom Coburn
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 1211 hrs
The insurnace companies deny expensive life-saving surgery…money saved, according to Coburn. One single senator holds up passage of the Veterans’ Caregiver and Health Benefits Act last year….lives saved? Coburn took a pass on serving his country during the Vietnam War…saving his own arse.
No courage to wear a uniform…standing up for monied interests…denying critical assistance to wounded veterans. A legacy only Tom Coburn could be proud of.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 1451 hrs
Joe is once again stuck in anecdote-land. Only without any real anecdotes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 1518 hrs
No courage to wear a uniform…standing up for monied interests
Sounds like Barack Obama to me. Or Harry Reid. Or Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2010 at 2247 hrs
Sounds like Barack Obama to me. Or Harry Reid. Or Nancy Pelosi.
Sounds like virtually all of them to me. As much as I am happy the free spenders are actually out of favor with the majority of the public, I do not forget that Republican majorities spent just as freely, because they could always count on ‘bipartisans’ getting enough of the pie to pass the legislation. Now Republican party reps are fiscal conservatives? HA!
I highly doubt there 10 national Representatives or Senators combined that voted against spending for fiscally responsible reasons. Yet here they are, the Republican faithful lining up to vote ‘conservative’.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 1154 hrs
neomom,
Joe is once again stuck in anecdote-land.
That’s amusing, coming from the person who wrote, “I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would be living in an Orwell novel.”
Orwell was strongly against war and government surveillance, and he would have vehemently opposed the Patriot Act. Politically, he was a democratic socialist who believed in things like industrial regulation and safety nets for the poor. In fact, he would have been far to the left of the American Democratic party.
In other words, the things that you think are “Orwellian” are far closer to the right than the left. Read 1984 for yourself and see. Or not. You’re free to be ignorant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 1421 hrs
NYTexan…So let me get this straight. You think when someone uses the term ‘Orwellian’ or something similar that they are referring to Orwell’s beliefs? Personally, I have only ever heard or used terms like that to describe the position of the Government in his book 1984. The key idea was heavy handed Governmental control. That does describe the Patriot Act, but it describes just as accurately the taking over of Private businesses, the desired form of the Democratic health bill, and most every other bill Reid and Pelosi support.
If you are denying that this situation is ‘Orwellian’ because the left is for it or because Orwell would also be for it I would think you were foolish. That does not make it less heavy handed Government.
Now if you are saying that Orwell was actually arguing against ‘rightist’ (as long as we are making up words..) Governmental control only, and that a similar Government to that in 1984 would have been perfectly acceptable to Orwell as long as they were only forcing what they thought was ‘good for you’ from a leftist point of view, your statement makes cohesive sense, but then I disagree with your interpretation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Orwell was strongly against war and government surveillance, and he would have vehemently opposed the Patriot Act. Politically, he was a democratic socialist who believed in things like industrial regulation and safety nets for the poor. In fact, he would have been far to the left of the American Democratic party.
Thats the problem, you can only go so far left before you arrive at the very same authoritarian dictatorship… Orwell would also have opposed the society we are creating. It is what 1984 was about… Give it a read…. Be careful though, the Proles are coming, and we all know that they want to take your Victory Gin and Chocolate rations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 1607 hrs
Actually guys, Animal Farm was more about what I was going for - both anti-big-government. But 1984 works too. Both of them are about the march toward totalitarianism, Animal Farm starts out at the beginning, 1984 already is to the oppressive state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 1734 hrs
You think when someone uses the term ‘Orwellian’ or something similar that they are referring to Orwell’s beliefs?
Of course I do. That’s what it means. Just like Keynesian and Freudian and Machiavellian, it has a specific meaning. How can you not think so?
Your comment makes me think back to the 80s when there was a pervasive argument that certain minorities didn’t value education. What’s ironic is that the same can be said far more truthfully today about the extreme wing of conservatism. It’s the kind of thinking where there are no definitions and words mean whatever you want them to because to be educated is to be “elite.” It’s the kind of thinking that values repeating blog memes over true understanding, so that saying “hockey stick” carries more weight than trying to reading source material about climate science. It’s the kind of thinking that harbors a feeling Obama just might be an Islamic man born in a foreign country, despite birth announcements in Honolulu newspapers and decades of evidence to the contrary.
I bet you and I—and lots of so-called liberals and conservatives—and more closely aligned on issues like welfare and immigration than you might think. And that’s probably because we can admit those issues are more emotional than rational.
But when it comes to facts, things break down. When you reject climate-change science, for example, I know you haven’t read the science; you’re quoting blog posts. Just like I know your comeback about Orwell is based on a quick Google.
By the way, one of the major themes in 1984 was the way in which language can be turned against the people and used to limit thinking. And that’s precisely what happens when you blindly repeat what other say and post.
btw, I don’t mean this as a personal attack. I’m railing against a mindset, not you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 2045 hrs
neomom will happily use her typical smugness to encourage us down the road to status quo strangulation. Without health care reform we will see health care eat up our wages, our benefits, our jobs and 25% of GNP in short order according to the Commonwealth Fund. But of course this isn’t NewsMax so why take them seriously.
Oh yeah. The Canadians and Europeans are going to economic hell because you say so. Fools. Why don’t you capitulate. Also sprach mom.
If we would have enacted Carter’s or Nixon’s or Clinton’s reform we would have been way ahead of the real crap sandwich we in fact munch on in the here and now, including mom’s high deducible plans which have driven people into poverty. But mom gladly pays to fatten up health care executives. What is wrong with us? mom has the answers.
But hey. Why should we stand between you and your fleecing though many of us want the shears to stop. But you cherish the nonsense that a majority are against this plan, neglecting to factor in a mass of liberals who are profoundly disappointed in this plan and no, don’t think we have the greatest health care on earth. We’re number 37.
Also sprach mom!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 01, 2010 at 2232 hrs
NYT, Do you read anything that I write? A quick Google, repeating memes, you think that is me? Heh, you didn’t even read the comment you are railing on…
It’s the kind of thinking where there are no definitions and words mean whatever you want them to because to be educated is to be “elite.”
Right, like the term marriage. Let’s make it mean ‘union between two beings’. Put it in the Dictionary, first as an alternate, then drop the original… Conservatives are at least not the only ones changing the definitions. The true irony is that is exactly what I am accusing you of doing, changing the meaning of Orwellian to suit your comments.
I guess I wasn’t direct enough. Let’s try again. First, I will admit that I was required to read this novel and as a kid, if it was required, it had to be boring so I skimmed it just enough for class discussion and testing. That said, I remember the discussions because they were interesting. The discussion centered around Government taking freedoms more than how. In the 70’s the teacher compared it to the Cold War primarily and how the USSR was already very Orwellian, but that laws pertaining to CIA practices were used on the Soviets now, and later those practices could be turned against US citizens, blah blah blah.
Of course I do. That’s what it means. Just like Keynesian and Freudian and Machiavellian, it has a specific meaning. How can you not think so?
Let me answer your question. I do not think ‘Orwellian’ means Orwell’s beliefs. Look it up anywhere you want, even Google. ‘Orwellian’ virtually always refers to Orwell’s theme of Government control usually referring to 1984. Orwell did not believe that a controlling Government was a good thing. His belief wasn’t that 1984 was some sort of perfect society. Thus, whether neomom’s comment was accurate or not, her use of the term was correct because she feels that Government is taking more and more control over private lives and businesses and that is what Orwellian is defined by. That has not really changed either so I believe your ‘changing the definition’ demagoguery is misplaced in this case.
If you ever want me to go through my rant (Again. I have done it on B&S at least twice) on the difference between ‘elite’ and ‘elitist’ I would be happy to, but talk about listening to memes until you believe them… You really think conservatives are against education because it means elite? LMAO!!!! Liberals commonly misuse the term elite to bash a conservative and feel superior, but let me set you straight. Obama is not an elite, neither is virtually any elected official on capitol hill nor liberals in general. They are elitists, and that is what any conservative who knows what he is talking about will tell you. It is liberals who have taken the word elitist and changed the meaning to elite. Going on about how conservatives embrace stupidity or ignorance is just plain offensively ignorant. Again, however, the irony is sweet for those who see it. Do you?
If you still think Orwellian means Orwell’s beliefs we won’t get very far in this conversation. If you admit the possibility that I, and my 8th grade english teacher, are right in this, re-read my first comment before you answer anything back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 1034 hrs
Keith calling someone else smug then calling everyone who disagrees with him fools. Simply laugh-out-loud funny. Also gotta love how he tosses in how I said something when I didn’t - like his stating that I don’t want any reform of the system. But hey, don’t let any facts get in the way of a good screed, eh Keith? Bonus points for the fancy language.
Regarding the high-deductible, low-premium policy with the HSA. My answer is: Don’t knock it ‘til you try it. I was skeptical, but since our switch over from a plan with co-pays, not only does it cost less, we have gotten a lot better at asking questions of our doctors regarding our care. Like questioning if an MRI was really needed for my husband’s sore hand. The answer was - No, not really. What a concept, a patient and doctor making a determination over what care is best and most cost-effective. The travesty!! As far as bankruptcy… Well, the deductible for our family is $4000. I highly doubt that amount would send many to bankruptcy. That’s less than most have on their credit cards.
To NYTexan - speaking of facts, if you look at my comment 6, I also said “Orwell novel”, not “Orwellian”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 1805 hrs
Has anyone opposed to universal health care ever been to a country with Universal health care? I have been to France, Spain and Canada, they don’t lead lives any different from ours. They are not living under some oppressive or controling government, they have the same freedoms as we do and they will never loose their health coverage. There is no bugeyman who will come and take all your freedoms away just because we have universal healthcare.
Does anyone know what happens when an uninsured person cant afford to pay thier med. bills in Wisconsin? I believe they have a few options: one, they can file bankruptcy and the hospital passes the cost on to the insured, two, the state can pick up the tab leading to, thats right, higher taxes, or three, a good samaritan can pay the bill. With universal healthcare everybody pays and everybody is covered.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 02, 2010 at 2249 hrs
Yes.
France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Is that your criteria for having an informed opinion?
Posted by Owen on March 02, 2010 at 2259 hrs
It’s a good start. It is better then believing everything you are told about these scary socialist countries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1049 hrs
I have family (all but my own wife and kids) living under a government health care regime. It’s a great system… until you get sick or peek at your paycheck. It’s astonishingly expensive, and often quite restrictive and arbitrary. They are amazed that America intends to scrap it’s system to adopt something similar. Germany has, in fact, had to reform it’s own system 15 times in the last 30 years. An average German pays 15% of gross income for health care, though the SPD (Social Democrats) are forwarding the idea of a Paul Ryan type plan that would utilize mandatory private insurance as a cost saving measure… yes, private insurance to SAVE money… not exactly the same as our private insurance (more along Swiss lines), but still a major change. Apparently costs are skyrocketing and rather than ration or refuse care (as the UK and Canada do), the Germans want to save money while still providing some useful level of care. At 15% already, they can hardly raise the rates.
Having “been” to a country does not mean that you understand it’s health care system. Yes, people in Spain and Canada still go about their lives… till they get sick. Then, if they afford it, they come to the US if their treatment at home is denied (like that Canadian government minister recently did).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1332 hrs
Its also a bit difficult to compare the US to those countries for some other reasons as well. First, they all have much smaller populations. Second, they have incredibly high income tax rates and also VAT taxes. Third, the US has been mostly been providing their national defense for the past 60 years at little to no cost to them. Fourth, they have largely had slower economic growth and higher unemployment rates.
I don’t think we can do anything about the first. Nobody else could do number 3 for us, and numbers 2 and 4 aren’t exactly what I think we are going for in a recession (or ever).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1807 hrs
Do you have some links for those figures or should I just take your word for it? The richest 10% can opt out of the sickness fund and choose from a private insurer, 75% of those still choose to contribute to the sickness fund. http://www.allhealth.org/BriefingMaterials/CountryProfiles-FINAL-1163.pdf
That 15% is a little misleading since 8% is employee and 7% is employer. So if you want to compare find out how much your insurance premium would be if your employer didn’t contribute and add medicare tax. Universal healthcare isn’t without its problems but I would like to see all citizens covered some way.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 1838 hrs
Nice job googling, LM. Yes, the really rich in Germany are allowed to purchase PRIVATE health insurance that provides an excellent level of health care not allowed to most people. It is quite expensive. Most pay the rather large sum required by law and then purchase supplemental insurance at an additional cost to provide quicker access in some cases, and small niceties like private rooms. Again, only those who are better off can afford this while the common people are herded into the general population of hospital wards and waiting.
That 15% is not at all misleading. Don’t tell me that you are naive enough to think the employer fronts the money from his own pocket in a gesture of benevolence. No, it comes from employee compensation and is passed on to everyone else by higher costs… much like the magic 7.5% of SSI that you must also believe your employer does not wind up taking out of your salary.
Try not to overlook the fact that all social systems are besieged by things like soaring prices, lack of sufficient care, rationing, and reduction in standards of care due to budgetary constraints. Just check out the Indian Health Service for an example of how the government runs health care:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376981533298534.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
There are plenty of ways to cover the small number of people who can’t afford coverage without nationalizing 20% of our economy. There are plenty of ways to keep the high quality of available care and cutting edge research that the US currently enjoys and still reduce costs. Why is it that Mr. Obama and his handmaidens in Congress choose to completely ignore them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2140 hrs
There are plenty of ways to keep the high quality of available care and cutting edge research that the US currently enjoys and still reduce costs.
Do tell?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 03, 2010 at 2155 hrs
If you haven’t heard of, or been able to locate any alternative health care plans FoO, then you are either a kool-aid drinking supporter of the Obamateur, a rabid Democrat Party member, or badly in need of googling lessons… perhaps Liberal Marine can help you with that, he seems to be smart enough to look things up before forming arguments. Gotta have some respect for that… it’s certainly not common to the left.
Oh, wait… one other alternative… you might just be a troll looking for an argument. Ok, that’s all the possibilities I came up with then. Feel free to add to the list.
“Do tell” indeed. Just ridiculous to say that at this point in the process.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1059 hrs
I have heard plenty of alternatives.
There are plenty of ways to keep the high quality of available care and cutting edge research that the US currently enjoys and still reduce costs.
I was just wondering which one(s) you thought actually accomplished that and maybe were politically viable.
I was asking you to elaborate.
As usual you can not.
Just more gibberish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1126 hrs
I was just wondering which one(s) you thought actually accomplished that and maybe were politically viable.
That quote pretty much sums up the futility of this argument. ‘Politically viable’... If there were politically viable solutions they would be imposed. Governmnet officials know the Government is going bankrupt. It is not poltically viable to fix it, though, because the people making money with the status quo are the ones in power and will be even after bankruptcy, because they will have the money and it will be protected in foreign banks and investments even if our economy or areas of our economy collapse.
Keep voting Dem or Rep people!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1217 hrs
I’d go for any solution that DID NOT involve putting peoples health care into the hands of the same folks who developed the DNR or the Post Office. A private insurance solution.
I like the idea of having nationwide competition among insurance companies. Creating state insurance exchanges where folks could go to buy insurance is a great start. The states can regulate the companies to insure that they are obeying the law, and individuals could go and buy into whatever group, cost, and level of coverage they might like… from just major medical to full blown Cadillac care if they like. By using the whole state as a group, there would be few worries for those with prior medical conditions.
I like the idea of removing the burden of insurance from your employer too. Offer a reasonable tax credit to everyone and let the market go gangbusters. People will be more attracted to companies that provide good service at low cost while more expensive companies will fall by the wayside.
With such massive competition prices would surely go down for similar service. Just look at any major product and you’ll see that companies spring up to service every aspect of the market. Cars, Cell Phones, Electronics, Auto Insurance, Home Insurance… there is always a deal to be had there. Same would hold for health-care, if only we could get Nancy and Harry, and Barack to stop salivating over the thought of how much control they could get over the people by holding health care hostage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1531 hrs
You mean like the health insurance exchanges included in the bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1604 hrs
The problem with the “exchanges” that are in the bill djheru is that the feds set “minimum” standards and then mandate the purchase. Which for many of us are far more than we need or desire and also causes the cost to go up. It should not be up to the feds to decide for me what my required minimum coverage must be and then mandate me to purchase it.
The state-based “exchanges” in the alternatives proposed by the Republicans are set up quite differently.
Personally, I’d like to see true interstate purchasing allowed with the elimination of all mandates along with the decoupling of the employer-based coverage. Then I could choose as much or as little coverage as I need and I would own the policy so that it would be truly portable if I changed jobs and/or moved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1620 hrs
You mean like the health insurance exchanges included in the bill?
Nope. I mean like private health care market places free from Nancy, Harry, and Barack’s corrupting influence. Freely purchased private insurance plans… exactly like auto, home, or life insurance, but with the added assurance of massive group purchasing power.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1642 hrs
I am against the mandate too, but we do need to remove the limitations on pre existing conditions. Without some kind of mandate, people will just wait until they need the coverage to purchase it which will cause insurance costs to skyrocket. It would be like waiting until you have a car accident to purchase the insurance and then still being able to make a claim.
One way to get around this is to have a mandate, but allow people to decline to participate. If you decline to participate, then you will waive the tax subsidy for a certain number of years. That way, people wont be able to “drop in” to the insurance system only when they need coverage, but they also wouldn’t be forced to participate in a program if they choose not to. If they chose not to participate, they would still be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges at regular cost.
Basically, I see government’s role as facilitating exchanges and providing subsidies. I think a nationwide exchange is preferable to state exchanges because insurance companies will simply relocate to the states with the lowest levels of coverage and regulation. People shouldn’t need to become lawyers to sort thru the legalese and understand their insurance policies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1647 hrs
I mean like private health care market places free from Nancy, Harry, and Barack’s corrupting influence.
Have any specifics you’d like to address, or do you just want to keep with the ideological masturbation of calling out your favorite bogeymen?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1649 hrs
I really don’t think the mandate will pass the constitutional challenge even if this passes. Because no matter how hard they try to spin this, it isn’t the same as mandated auto insurance. I find your “decline to participate” idea intriguing, but I don’t see it working. If someone opted out and then got seriously sick or hurt, nobody would let that person go un-treated, just like we don’t let the uninsured die in the street today. Folks are just too “bleeding heart” about that stuff.
Also, if they only thing they are trying to facilitate is insurance exchanges, it shouldn’t take 2700 pages. Seems they are sliding a lot more other stuff into this, like over 100 new, complicated, and expensive agencies. Talk about needing a lawyer to navigate things….
So if the feds are going to get involved and they want to help with that “pre-exisiting” condition issue - they could help by a) defining what a true “pre-exisiting” condition is and then b) provide a back-stop for catastrophic coverage.
I also don’t think the states should mandate any special coverage, but allow people to pick what they want/need. The mandated coverage also drive up the costs.
Toss in some limits on “pain and suffering” damages and loser-pays rules for some tort reform too. Not the “hey, we might get around to looking at that someday” language.
Go after Medicaid and Medicare mis-use and fraud now. Its not like they have to wait for ObamaCare to do that. How about legal and/or financial penalties for those abuses like calling the ambulance to use it like a taxi. And give ER’s the ability to triage patients and make appointments for non-emergent cases at urgent care or primary care docs or clinics.
Oh and leave the HSA’s alone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1711 hrs
It would be like waiting until you have a car accident to purchase the insurance and then still being able to make a claim.
Simple solution. Add a 30-90 day exclusion period when purchasing a new policy outside of some scheduled open enrollment time. That would make you responsible for your own care during that time, and would put a steep penalty of that sort of gambling.
If we mandate coverage, then we should provide some sort of self insurance HSA style coverage for people who choose to go it alone. See, that’s what I like… choice.
I think a nationwide exchange is preferable to state exchanges because insurance companies will simply relocate to the states with the lowest levels of coverage and regulation.
Simply remove the barriers to insurance sales across state lines. If there is money to be made, companies will will spring up to do so. If a state places ridiculous restrictions on insurance, and that causes the residents options to be minimized, then the state needs to change it’s rules.
The federal government is one of the problems with our health care system. More government will never offer a good solution for anybody. Degrading health care for 270 million people is not a good way to solve the problem of 10-15 million uninsured.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1712 hrs
Have any specifics you’d like to address, or do you just want to keep with the ideological masturbation of calling out your favorite bogeymen?
Oh, they are far from my favorites. I’d send them all to the moon if Barack hadn’t shut down the space program.
The 2500ish page bill that has been created by Nancy and Harry, and Barack is really just a massive power grab to institute socialized medicine. That scheme alone promises corruption. Want more masturbation? How about Barack making a judge out of the brother of a former no voting Congressman. Or the Louisiana purchase. Or the corn husker scandal. Or the Florida scam. If this deal is so honest and good for the people, then why would Nancy and Harry and Barack need to collude and buy votes with bribes?
No, dj, there is no masturbation there, but there is definitely a screw job in the making.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 04, 2010 at 1726 hrs
OK, so we all have our ideas and everybody is right to an extent. I don’t see anything wrong with a mandate, the under and uninsured are being subsidized by the insured taxpayer like you and I. What would be in the “required minimum” that you wouldn’t want to have covered? What I want is to have insurance from now until the day I die and not have to worry about losing it because I lost my job and cant pay the premium or I can’t find any because of some preexisting condition. Of course I have that at the VA, and Zablocki is one of the best hospitals I have ever been to, but my wife and kids do not. I know there is no simple solution or one that everyone would be happy with but its what I hope for.
Now don’t call me naive agian, but am I supposed to believe that if my wife dropped her insurance plan she would not only make more money because she is not paying a premium but her company would pay her more because they are not paying for her insurance?
I must say this is one of the more civil discussions I have had on a blog. Not to much name calling or hyperbolic ranting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 1433 hrs
am I supposed to believe that if my wife dropped her insurance plan she would not only make more money because she is not paying a premium but her company would pay her more because they are not paying for her insurance?
Employer based insurance came about as a result of FDR’s wage control policies. When employers were no longer allowed, by law, to offer better wages in order to get better employees, they began to offer “fringe benefits” as a tool, in order to get around FDR’s restrictions. Employer paid health insurance was among those tools.
If that was no longer a benefit, businesses would be forced to offer higher wages, or some other sort of benefit, in order to attract the best and brightest. Now this assumes, of course, that this federally strengthened recession ends and we can recover from the damage of the first 2 years of Barack Obama’s changes. In effect, assuming a good economy, wages should increase without the need for insurance, and business costs should drop as the health care dividend is realized. Some of this will necessarily be sucked up by taxes to support the new health care system though… I think we all know that the Democrat PayGo thing is just a bunch of hot air…. they’ll have to tax more to offer health care subsidies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 1528 hrs
Are wage controls only imposed on certian sectors, because they don’t seem to apply to pro athletes or actor/actresses? If everyone was responsible for their own health insurance wages would go up and medical/insurance costs would go down? The only way I see costs going down is if everyone contributes and every remains covered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 1750 hrs
Government wage controls are a thing of the past, but like all unintended consequences, these have had a lasting effect on our economy and culture.
If we went with a private insurance plan along the lines of Paul Ryan’s, health care costs would certainlt stabilize. If it became in your best interest to shop around for a deal, you would. People are constantly switching their home and auto insurance to save a buck or two. It’s a free market, and if you can get similar coverage for less, why wouldn’t you? Same thing would apply to health insurance, provided that we set up a true free market system and not one with built in tax consequences for the rich, or incentives to move to a government option. The government is not the solution to the health care problem, rather the government is the CAUSE of the health care problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2010 at 1922 hrs
Family Guy - wage controls aren’t so much in the past anymore. See Obama’s “Pay Czar”.
Liberal Marine - the problem with Federally mandated “minimum” coverage is that someone else is deciding what should be in my minimum, regardless of my situation. This “one-size-fits-all” approach bends that infamous cost-curve up, not down.
A couple of examples…. Minimum mandates like autism therapy, or choclear implants like WI just put in place. What if you don’t have kids or your kids are grown? What if you are already deaf and are anti-implant? Or mandated chiropractic coverage and you don’t think they are real doctors? Obstetric coverage (different than GYN) and you are a man or post-menopausal?
Then to add onto the objectionable nature of the individual mandate to purchase, you are now not only forcing people to buy a product as a requirement of citizenship under the threat of penalty, now you are requiring them to purchase something they neither need or desire, or may have personal objections to.
Where is freedom or choice in that? And good luck with the Supreme Court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2010 at 0945 hrs
@Neomom: Obama is not instituting wage controls, he is simply deciding on a pay scale for the employees at all of the companies that he partially nationalized and now holds controlling interest in. He’s not only a president, now he’s a CEO too. Obviously he read a few chapters from that book that Hugo Chavez gave him.
Also, I actually support some sort of minimal level of coverage. It should be set by states instead of the federal government though. Perhaps some sort of HSA opt out plan would work to avoid the cookie cutter coverage problem.
Too bad that none of these ideas matter a lick to Barack and Harry and Nancy. What they want is control of our choices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2010 at 0956 hrs
@ The Family Guy -
FYI - they want to expand those pay scales and institute them onto all businesses in the sectors that they had dabbled in - whether that company took money from the feds or not.
Walks like a duck/Quacks like a duck = wage controls
But yeah, I certainly don’t see any concern with the outrageous salaries of the entertainment industry or professional sports…. maybe because they are all buddies with the cool and hip Prez. Note the pics of Jay-Z sitting in the Prez chair in the White House Situation Room….
Minimal coverage would be major medical/catastrophic with a high deductible. We have that as an option now. Certainly don’t need a State or Federal exchange for those - just some interstate competition.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 06, 2010 at 1006 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 41
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/23/2013 10:04 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).