« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Against Partial Repeal

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 16th, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There are a number of conservatives clamoring to begin partially repealing Obamacare. Some are misguided, thinking we need to have a series of partial repeal votes to go on and get rid of the bad everyone can agree to get rid of and also keep the issue alive with the voters.

Others are useful idiots. They claim to want to get rid of parts of the bill about which there is bipartisan contempt. In reality, they actually know that each time a part of the bill is repealed or “improved” the harder it becomes to actually get rid of the whole.

Both those who naively think we should keep nibbling away and those who think we should improve it as a back door way to keeping some semblance of “reform” are misguided at best and deluded at worst.

Full repeal is the only tactic the GOP should take for very legitimate reasons.

Partial repeal, of course, will get rid of the things everyone hates now that they have all read the bill. Each piece partially repealed from Obamacare without a full repeal makes it less and less likely the GOP will then advocate for full repeal instead of “fixing it.” It bears repeating that there is no way to fix Obamacare.

Remember, one of the Republican concerns with fighting against Obamacare at all during this election year is the potential for the Democrats to attack the GOP for repealing popular portions of the law.

McConnell may also want to shield his Senate GOP colleagues from voting to repeal popular portions of the healthcare law, such as the provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26 or another barring insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

Once the bipartisan fixers have gotten rid of all the stuff on which there is bipartisan agreement, every additional point of repeal becomes a full on partisan fight just like a full repeal vote, but with one big difference: a full repeal vote has the American people on the side of the GOP. Each additional partial repeal vote will have the public breaking off back and forth between the GOP and the Democrats, making partial repeal a mine field for the Republicans.

If the GOP will not commit to repeated votes on full repeal with the American people so clearly on their side, prepare to be nickeled and dimed into an even more costly form of Obamacare where all the stuff both sides agree they hate (the stuff that typically was designed to keep costs down) goes away and all the stuff the Democrats love stays because squishy Republicans are too scared to vote with the rest of their party for repeal.

Republicans have never shown the will to lose for the cause that Democrats have shown. The Democrats were prepared to lose Congress to pass Obamacare. They did both. Republicans will not ever be so brave or so bold. The only way to get the GOP to fight for repeal is to push them to repeal the whole without ever letting the Democrats fix the bad parts. Full repeal is the only time the public will be absolutely with the GOP and the GOP will only proceed with the public’s support. Put bluntly — making the public suffer through the logical outcomes of this disastrous Obama legacy will only build public support for full repeal.

That is also why fixing the 1099 provision was a miscalculation. The individual fixes do not improve the legislation, they just bandaid the suck. But fools are easily fooled into thinking otherwise. Republicans should not be foolish when it comes to this issue. Too much is at stake.

Full repeal is the only acceptable strategy and repeated votes on full repeal the only acceptable tactic this Congress.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikelindell2

    in 2010. He said that he wants to “keep the good parts” of Obamacare and repeal “the bad.” He also argued for the original bill, as most people on this site know. Santorum has no experience dealing with an issue of this magnitude, wouldn’t know how to tackle it, and more importantly could never be elected. He’d be toxic for the whole Republican brand as our nominee. The only person who could handle this issue, that we could trust to take it on, and that we know could get it done is Newt. It’s not too late to make the right choice.

  • davesinsanantonio

    everyone running for either house of Congress.

    And, maybe even for state attorney general and governor. We will need lots of state support to get repeal past the Dims and their fawning lapdog media.

  • anjinconsulting

    GOP politicians would have to ignore the tremendous cash flow from lobbyists and special interest groups like AARP who supported that bill, and who will spend everyone elses money (and maybe even some of their own) to protect that garbage since they stand to gain tremendously from it.

    You would have better luck standing in front of Dracula with a severed artery and asking him to quaff a V-8.

    It is more likely than not that Mitch and the invertebrate GOP “leadership” in the senate is waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on it rather than confront Captain Zero and his minions directly.

  • atillathehun

    OBama and dimocrats in general are prepared to lose elections if they can succeed in furthuring the cause of Marxism. Such is the case with government health care. The reason that Lenin said that government controlled health care is the lynchpin of socialism is because it is. The ideological fervor of leftist should be emulated by the conservative element in society but as Eric has indicated, it is not. The lesson to be learned is that as Rush so eloquentlt repeats day in and day out partisinship when we gain control of the Senate and keep the house should be the order of the day. Unfortunately we have candidates that are not conservative. That is the reality. Santorum yesterday began talking about abolishing pornography as we sink into insolvency. I swear to God that that there is something in the water that these people drink. I dream of the day when we have a candidate that will state that he is a one term President because the pain will be so great as to preclude a second term I want the debt fixed and constitutional government at least partially restored. Doing away with agencies is the only way to begin.

  • swi2522

    he and romney are both progressives who like this big gov. idea on healthcare
    ANYONE CAN BEAT OBAMA NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE GOV AND MSM FALSELY REPORT WHAT THE STATE OF THE CONDITIONS ARE IN THE USA
    santorum is the only candidate i trust a little bit.

  • duanej

    I am beyond the point of believing ANY of our elected officials are “fools” or that they are “poor negotiators” or even “fearful” of constituent backlash. Our leadership is not dumb, they are not inept. Once you realize that, there is only one other possible explanation. They are acting with full knowledge of what they are doing and have lost the fear of the people who put them there. Why should they be afraid of us? Even when fired, they will have bangin’ retirement plan and a b*tchin’ health care plan. They will draw salaries all the rest of their lives once they step down and will never have to enjoy life as we know it when they return.

    Meet the real .01%.

    If we fail to primary these folks out of office, we have only ourselves to blame.

  • renl57

    Erickson: “The Democrats were prepared to lose Congress to pass Obamacare. They did both. Republicans will not ever be so brave or so bold.”

    That’s because the Dem agenda doesn’t require that they always win elections, but the GOP agenda does.

    It’s much harder to get rid of an entitlement than to create one or reinstate one.

    Hence the Dems were prepared to trade passing ObamaCare for losing the 2010 election. They knew that despite numerous GOP victories at the polls including Reagan’s, Medicare–once enacted in 1965–could never be repealed.

    So the Dems figured that the voters would never accept losing guaranteed issue from ObamaCare once it had been passed.

    They’re probably right. Polls show that guaranteed issue, at least, is one aspect of ObamaCare that voters do NOT want to get rid of.

    Whereas it’s easy to get rid of freedom in pursuit of some other agenda. It’s happened throughout world history all the time. Many of the tax cuts and budget cuts enacted by various conservative Administrations and Congresses were undone years later by more liberal regimes.

    So even if the GOP succeeded in repealing ObamaCare, some future Dem administration and Dem Congress could reinstitute it (or even worse, institute single-payer).

    Hence the Dems’ Social Democracy agenda can win despite losing elections–but the GOP’s Freedom Agenda can only win if the GOP keeps winning elections. Because any time the Dems win big gives them another opportunity to restrict freedom in the name of Social Democracy. Whereas even when the GOP wins big, by then such huge constituencies have formed around the entitlements that they become practically impossible to get rid of.

    So what about ObamaCare? What would it take to repeal it?

    It would take a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate–60 seats.

    Right now, it does NOT look like the GOP will get that. In fact, it’s dicey even if they could get one or two Dems like Manchin to vote with them.

    And since many in the GOP base don’t even want to support Republican candidates for the Senate who can cut deals with Dems–considering that a cave-in or sell-out–the chance that the GOP can get to 60 Senate seats all by itself is approaching nil.

  • edintexas

    The Democrat machine and MSM (I know, repetition) portray Santorum as a right winger who wants to impose his religious beliefs on the country. So what issue does he take up, why the one which is #1 on the citizen’s wish list – pornography. Oh, wait – I left out a few zeroes on that number.

    I could be mistaken, but I doubt the Evangelicals are teetering on the fence and leaning toward voting for Willard. So there was no need to raise this issue. It will probably gain him no votes and potentially lose him votes from the middle (and absolutely cost him votes from the Libertarian leaning Republicans).

    Inexplicable.

  • virginiahiker

    We have gone down the partial reform rabbit hole with tax reform in 86, welfare rfeorm in95, budget reform in74, medicare payment reform in 98 etc. etc. It never works. You need a clean foundation to build a solid legislative structure. First completely repeal the old legislature all the way back to and including the organic legislation (in some cases more than 100 years old). Next determine if there really is a need for a new structure at all. Often the best course is to just stop at full repeal. If there is a need for government action, design the optimal solution. Identify the critical components and do not bargain them away to gain votes for passage (the major mistake of the Bush years). Be willing to walk away with nothing rather than counterproductive legislaition. Identify the nice to have but not critical components of the optimal solution and hold them close. Be willing to bargain but do not give them up easily. Load up the initial legislative package with all sorts of meaningless externalities that will attract opposition and trade them away easily to gain support for the core solution. This is not rocket science but it all begins with getting to a clean foundation by full repeal which clears away the debris of the previous legislative structure.

  • citizenoftheworld

    The idea of partial repeal, meaning push the Law back to the States was Romney’s. He appointed already a “Health Team” to work out the details. Pam Bondi, the AT for Florida gave the secret away a few month ago. She is herself one of the members of Romney Health Team. We will have Romneycarex50.

  • lightspeed

    Unless the Supreme Court overturns it, Obamacare is here to stay, thanks to all the delusional people voting for Romney. Romney will only repeal the unpopular parts. That’s if he can beat Obama, which I highly doubt. In what Bizzaro World do Republicans nominate a guy that takes away the biggest winning issue of the campaign?

    But wait, Romney’s strength is the economy and that is the biggest issue, right? Well, what happens when the economy is improving by November and the media narrative is all about Obama engineering a booming economy (falsely, of course)? What will be Romney’s selling point then? I can’t believe we are throwing this election away.

  • tnguy

    Whether thru legislation or national bankruptcy,along with SS and medicare, it’s destined to fail. Our choice isn’t between left and right, it’s between dramatic reform or doom.

  • redcal

    Once they get a few years of momentum, they never go away. SS, medicare, medicaid….how many decades have we recognized the fiscal imbalances with these, and yet nothing has been done. The same will happen with Obamacare with either Obama or Romney.

    Obama will preserve his legacy with the left and strengthen it, and if it’s Romney, he’ll immediately (from his first hour as president) be on defense imagine how he can tack to the center and grab the center against Hillary in 2016. Hillary’s approval ratings are around 65%; 35% of all Americans wish she had been elected instead of Obama, and Romney’s approval ratings look like they will start in the low 40′s and sink down, as they did when he was gov of MA. He has no other political choice but to cover his left flank, as he has this whole primary season (and political career).

  • Common_Cents

    Especially the Dems, blaming big business, big oil, “rich” Repbulicans etc….

    DC is largely becoming homogenous in being against the American people.

  • jqcitizen

    Obamacare is a cancer on both our health care systems and our economy. And this doesn’t address the Constitutional overreach of our federal government. This law must be replaced in its entirety.

    We can not allow a government to dictate our heath care availability, We can not allow 159 plus unaccountable, expensive, ineffective and political agencies to govern an area representing 16% of our economy. Federal involvement should be reduced to an absolute minimum, limited to providing advisory services and analysis to the States who are usually more responsive to their citizens and closer to the problems. States should coordinate basic insurance policy standards and coverage for all policies issued within their states to prevent insurance company abuse.

  • rednation

    “Santorum yesterday began talking about abolishing pornography as we sink into insolvency.”

    Uh, no, he DID NOT. This was a hit piece, picked up by Romney shill Matt Drudge, referencing the SAME position held by BOTH Mittens AND Newt, 8 weeks back,

    It has been up on Santorum’s site for MONTHS. He has not decided to suddenly start talking about it or making it a stump issue.

    The liberal media wants you to think that, and sadly, many here who are naive or lazy and on Hot Air and elsewhere bought into this instantly.

    Ask yourself why.

    The media wants to portray, by force, a Pope Ricky, to fool libertarians into division for conquer, and to install a run to Mitt fear of losing indies in the general election.

    It’s called brainwashing propaganda, advocacy journalism.

    And you fell for it, instantly.

    Read:

    http://www.punditandpundette.com/2012/03/tired-of-talking-abour-contraceptives.html

    And:

    http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/15/pornographic-politics-did-the-daily-caller-pull-a-media-matters-on-rick-santorum/

  • rednation

    Romney has no candidacy outside of economic issues, if it DOES significantly improve, he’s toast. His own side does not even like him except on that and perception, not even a true one, on electability.

    Worse, he fathered Obamacare AND urged Obama to adopt the nationally applied mandate (so much for his 10th amendment and states rights arguments as a defense) applied to all US states in a one size fits all configuration.

    With Romney and even Newt, the seminal issue of our times, national health care, is off the table because he is almost the same as Obama on it and cannot contrast himself.

    They do not call us the Stupid Party for nothing.

    Heck, our own side and libertarian factions are falling for a media generated fake “story” over Santorum going after internet porn, which speaks volumes as to why so many are voting for Romney.

  • rednation

    Santorum is our only shot.

    Romney will bend over and compromise every chance he gets, then claim victory when it’s still here and he “improves” Obamacare. Kind of like Boehner and McConnell and Cantor, who p*ss on our legs and tell us it’s raining on budget deals, walking out of the loss from the room claiming we “won”…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    via reconciliation.

    We need to be prepared to have a small program to deal with the uninsurable after repeal. more later

  • mikelindell2

    Just look at what they did in office when given the chance. Santorum spent like crazy, voted for every new government program, voted for things like teapot museums and bridges to nowhere, repeatedly talked about how much he loved to earmark, and is now proposing a sham of a tax plan that would lead to massive fraud by creating different rates for different industries. Santorum was part of the Bush-era Republicans that spent like Democrats, that’s why he lost his last election by an historic margin.. Newt actually led the charge to cut gov’t and did, led the charge to balance the budget and did, and led the charge to reform an entitlement program and did. He’s now only one proposing a flat tax and his energy plan is forcing the White House to respond to him. Santorum criticized the tea party a few years ago, saying he didn’t like that new era of conservatives. It’s cute that he has recast himself as a true conservative this time, but unless your only concerns are banning porn, banning condoms, throwing out the separation of church and state, and attacking Christian groups that you don’t agree with, he is far from being any kind of small government conservative. The state of the country won’t be an issue with Santorum because he’ll be too busy explaining all of his wacky positions and statements.

  • Juggernaut

    so they can foment enough stupidity to pass right wing socialism while thinking voters will ride on the roof of the Romney Suckerbus.

    Do you want to be strapped on Romney’s roof? I bet more than a few partial repeal politicians endorsed Romney.

  • cbartlett

    I talked with friend last week who is a health insurance agent. He has been studying this stupid law in-depth since before it was passed and has become somewhat of an expert in the field – he has other agents all over the region calling him about the ramifications of implementation. He made two major points: (1) The law, as passed, had very few specifics. Detailed policy statements are STILL being, and will continue to be, written by the Health and Human Services agency. These are unelected people with liberal, big-government-control agendas, no one to answer to except Katherine Sebelius and many of them have absolutely no expertise in the field and have no clue what unintended consequences they may be creating. (2) The law, and consequently the policy statements still being written, are extremely intertwined and therefore “tweaking”, “changing parts”, or any version of trying to “salvage” any of this horrible piece of legislation is next to impossible.

    He also told me that the few, possibly-sort-of-kinda, “good” aspects that the law attempts to accomplish (like allowing kids to stay on policies ’til age 26, etc), are already incorporated in a state law here in Texas that we passed in the late 90′s. Hence, reinforcing the conservative position that the STATES should be working on this whole issue – NOT anyone in Washington DC!! We MUST get this repealed and very, very soon. If the components go into affect in 2014, we will never take it away. Even if we do not get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, it needs to be brought up for vote and get everyone on record. Put those votes on billboards and internet sites across the country – make sure those legislators know that we will ruin their career over their vote. We, the people, are going to have to fight this war for the sake of our kids.

    (We can always hope & pray that the SCOTUS will take care of this…)

  • steeltube

    Short of some dramatic judicial intervention the GOP has only 2 elections (2012 and 2014) to scuttle the law.

    Once Americans start getting something (Medicare, Social Security,etc) it’d over. The train has left the station and is not coming back.

  • fishgod3

    Sandra is a giant FLUKE-up for Obama

  • downstateray

    Those who will stand for complete repeal or nothing are barely countable. And looking to beyond the Nov 2012 election, the count is not likely to get much higher, especially in the Senate. Our only out is a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.

    Where are the plans that target reduction in medical cost, NOT reduction in premiums? Insurance exhanges are a joke. We ALL must get past the idea that we can lever a few hundred dollars per month against tens of thousands in medical bills. So long as the doctor/hospital is guaranteed payment, there is no incentive to hold or reduce the price. We must be willing to refer the uninsured to charity. Too many ride it out as long as possible, and never manage to get insured in time. We must stop paying for that $10 box of kleenex and the $20 water pitcher.

    Here is one idea. Flood the market with primary care physicians (internists/pediatricians). Use the Walter Reed Hospital as a medical school to pump out more doctors. Establish doc in the box clinics for the routine physicals, screens, vaccinations, flu, colds, mumps, measles, sprains, strains, aches and pains. Trade 5 years of service for 8 years of tuition (not room and board) college to medical degree.

  • steve962

    I don’t want to see a partial repeal of Obamacare. But neither do I want to see a full repeal *without* a replacement. This is my problem with the stance of some conservatives, who seem to think that they have to repeal Obamacare at all costs even without a replacement.

    The problem with not having a replacement is the side effects. We’ve already seen the side effects of passing Obamacare. We saw huge side effects simply by the *discussion* about passing Obamacare. Both of them caused major upheaval in the medical and insurance industries, and had repercussions which affected many other sectors of the economy.

    But this thing has been passed already and a lot of changes have already happened. Anyone who seriously believes that repealing Obamacare won’t have equally (potentially even more) massive and seriously problematic side effects is fooling themselves. The passage of that monster will cause tangles which will take years to unravel.

    So any serious discussion of repealing Obamacare *must*, IMHO, include and be directly tied with discussion of replacement legislation which should be passed at the same time, to minimize, or at least spread out over a longer period of time, the side effects of it’s repeal.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    night here in Birmingham, Newt said if is the nominee, he will ask all GOP candidates down the ticket to pledge to pass legislation to repeal Obamacare, Dodd Frank and Sarbanes Oxley. If Congress did nothing else, repealing those 3 pieces of legislation would help get us turned in the right direction.

    Of course, Newt has a plan posted on his site that lays out everything else he would do on Day One and beyond.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    1) We’ve passed this messy 2,000+ pages of stupid regulations.
    2) It was predictably destructive.
    3) But people have adjusted to just how stupid and screwed up this puppy was.

    So therefore you can’t undo the stupid because….

    1) People won’t be able to adjust to not having the stupid.
    2) You have to replace the 2000+ pages with something equally retarded.
    So as a result.

    1) Government can never, ever get smaller
    2) Government can never, ever get smarter.

    If that’s what you intended to argue, you’ve just summed up the reasons why Barack Obama is such a destructive and ineffective president.

  • dajeeps

    Because SCOTUS strikes it down. Not holding my breath, but there is a possibility. I’ll consider who is going to do what if that doesn’t happen, which will help shape the debate in November since we should have a decision by the end of June. Right now, it’s more of a “what if” kind of scenario, and there could be shifting around of positions based on what the supreme court does.

  • danno86

    .. “Obamacare” hasn’t “destroyed” their economy or their morale. Maybe it’s time to stop speaking about everything in extremes. Does anybody really think Romney or Santorum will deal with this properly? Terrible candidates.

  • danno86

    So the backlash should be expected. When you say some of the moronic stuff he says on a daily basis, the media will have a field day. That’s just the way it is.

    Still think it’s funny that people think contraception shouldn’t be covered, but that Viagra should. Um, I’m sure everyone using the latter is doing so for procreation.. right?

  • garfieldjl

    I’m not a Santorum supporter, I’m a Newt Gingrich supporter.

    That said, I’m getting sick of this dishonest attack towards Santorum.

    Santorum has flatly come out and said he wouldn’t try to force his beliefs on anyone, because that’s something Left Wing Democrats would do, and he isn’t going to behave like them.

    He will talk about his beliefs campaign for his beliefs, but he will not resort to trying to impose his views on others.

  • Agelaius

    about beliefs, sincerely held?

    Santorum isn’t able to single-handedly restore the role of women in this society to their Godly mission of centering and nurturing and caring for the family. But he can change the conversation. He can work to appoint judges that will give the power back to states and communities to decide the proper role of communities in setting moral standards, especially with respect to matters of the family, marriage and reproduction. Santorum doesn’t want to get the government into the role of policing women – he wants to get the government out of the way so that communities can define their own standards and do their own enforcement. Big difference. We are an individualistic society, but not everything revolves around the individual. Santorum recognizes this. Many women (I am one) recognize it too.

  • streiff

    what exactly is either wrong or moronic about what he believes?

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    isn’t helpful.

    As for the Viagra comment, I already made that mistake which was quickly corrected here. Neither birth control pills nor Viagra should be covered by insurance unless specifically prescribed for a medical condition.

  • streiff

    will they knock down the mandate? or will they declare the mandate isn’t severable and knock down the whole thing? Big difference in the outcome.

  • streiff

    for surgery. Unfortunately, if we adopt your system we have no where to go for actual medical care.

  • streiff

    great strategy there.

    One which cannot be implemented without an individual mandate, btw.

  • garfieldjl

    I don’t trust congress with a partial repeal, it needs to be scrapped.

    If there were some things in Obamacare that were actually good, they can be put up for a vote individually after Obamacare has been sent to the nearest metal trash bin and lit on fire.

    I would have said nearest shredder, but that bill has so many pages it would probably break the shredder.

  • avagreen

    Flood the market with primary care physicians (internists/pediatricians)
    One problem: Docs are leaving the field, and/or the U.S.A. because of the looming axe of Obamacare and the already present cuts in Medicare payouts. Medicaid is already so stupidly low ($13 for a social work visit, regardless of the content of the visit) only the incompetent are willing to sign up to be a provider.

    So long as the doctor/hospital is guaranteed payment, there is no incentive to hold or reduce the price.

    Neither are “guaranteed” payment. Hospitals are closing down daily because they can’t stay open on the present payment schedule. You can research this issue. Here is one example, written in 2008. It’s become worse. How do I know? I’ve worked in hospitals for a major part of my career:
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/healthcare/burden-of-uninsured-now-closing-non-profit-hospitals/845

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Hammer, meet nail.

    Until the (mythical?) “center-right base” of registered Republicans and conservative independents can demonstrate that they’ve figured how to “do” politics locally, and begin uniting and organizing politically locally to actually retire the incumbents (as Utahans did in 2010, denying incumbent Sen. Bob Bennett a spot on the primary ballot), they will do whatever the hell they want.

    Nothing will change until “we the people” change the people who are supposed to be serving our interests and protecting our liberties. Will that ever happen. Doubtful. Everybody’s just too dang busy with more important things.

    Thank you.

    CW

  • avagreen

    Another story about hospitals

    http://hospitalstay.com/2012/03/californias-vanishing-community-hospital-an-endangered-institution/

    One doc that I knew said he was considering quitting because he worked the first 3-4 mos free (no profit) because of his rising malpractice insurance rates.

    Texas has helped in this area since Gov. Perry passed the tort reform bill. As a result, Texas is being flooded with new doctors.

    (And, this is the man that the Establishment didn’t want to get his hands on their $$.)

  • norris

    There are many hidden things ,like change paragraph 620 of the US code from may to shall. This kind of language will haunt forever. The law is not good for anyone. Bury it and bury the shovel.

  • rsgp

    One aspect of this issue that seems strange to me is the concept of “severability” — that a court (Supreme Court or other) could decide that one element of a law is unconstitutional, yet could (if I understand correctly) strike down only that one element, while leaving the remainder of the law in place.

    That seems bizarre to me, given that (1) on a practical level, there are often interactions among elements of a law that are needed to provide the intended results (and avoid other, adverse effects), and (2) laws are often the result of political compromise, such that it is at best highly presumptuous of the judicial branch to assume that the remainder of the law would have passed Congress and been signed by the president without that one element in question.

    So it seems to me that a court should strike down an entire law as unconstitutional if it sees any element of the law as unconstitutional.

    Maybe someone here with insight into this subject can enlighten me on how “severability” can be appropriate.

  • westcoastpatriette

    What the he** were the socialist-leaning Congress thinking in 1986 when they passed EMTALA? They all should be arrested for passing laws that aid and abet illegal aliens to stay here. That law needs to be repealed along with Obamacare. I wasn’t paying attention to politics back then, but why wasn’t that law challenged as unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to order every ER in America to treat anyone who walks through the doors whether their illegal aliens or not? Not asking you to answer, just ranting. I don’t want to research it right now, but I wonder if there was any pushback at the time Congress came up with that doozie.

  • garfieldjl

    1. If someone is brought in with a gunshot wound, the ER should treat them then worry about the insurance.

    2. If someone has a disease that is communicable it needs to be treated. You want to see an epidemic? I don’t.

    I could go on an on.

    The real issue is that we don’t see enough community clinics, and religious charities that used to handle this have been forced out, plus the frivolous lawsuits need to stop. Big issue doctors have is what they need to pay for insurance.

    Also if the Feds would get serious about enforcing immigration law, we wouldn’t have the mess concerning illegals using services meant for people that are in the country LEGALLY.

  • natedogg

    I can see why people would be concerned about the cost of forcing private insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. So, assuming that everyone agrees it’s a problem that folks with pre-existing conditions can’t get coverage, what’s the solution? If Republicans neither want a guaranteed minimum level of coverage for everyone (socialized medicine), but they also don’t want to force private insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, is the answer that we should do nothing? What is the practical realistic solution for this very serious problem?

  • lapert

    This is a pretty stupid ‘rant’. Treating emergency medical conditions regardless of who they are should be a no brainer for anyone with the least bit of humanity in them.

    And for the record EMTALA is perfectly constitutional because hospitals voluntary accept its requirement when they sign up to accept medicare payments.

  • bayareamj

    You dont give the President enough credit. Anyone can beat him? Newt is polling more than 13 points behind Obama according to RealClear average poll data. None of the Republican candidates are polling even or ahead. Romney or the convention are the best shots at stopping the reelection of the President.

    Don’t blame the MSM, that is a tired fallacy.

  • demsaresatanic

    .

  • garfieldjl

    Have it so the person with the pre-existing has to cover costs of that pre-existing for 5 years before insurance has to start picking up the tab.

    If they are switching insurance or coming off their parent’s insurance, the old insurance company gets the bill for 5 years.

    Makes it so people can’t suddenly get insurance because they just got diagnosed with something.

  • jamesm

    Anyone who supports Romney, whether they acknowledge it or not, is functionally not making getting rid of Obamacare the foremost issue. Supporting Romney is fundamentally hanging this noose of Obamacare around all americans.

  • natedogg

    What you’re saying is logical. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like your concern is that people will go without insurance and all of a sudden run to an insurance company when they have a problem. That way, insurance companies only get the sick people. Is this right?

    If that is what you meant, then why are you not for a mandate? The whole point of the mandate is to get rid of free loaders. Even if you’re young and healthy, you are forced to be insured, and hence you are no longer a free loader. When you finally get sick, then you deserve the coverage that you receive.

    Also, you agree that as long as we get rid of free loaders, or as long as we use your specific solution of 5 years on your own, then insurance companies should be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, right? So, why not reform Obamacare instead of repealing it? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Lord knows too many people are suffering or going broke because of our health care system. Some reform is better than nothing. We could probably add tort reform in there too to bring down costs for doctors.

  • garfieldjl

    To those of you that agree that Romney isn’t serious about repealing Obamacare, if you can’t stomach Santorum VOTE FOR NEWT, do not stay home.

    Santorum will have a hard time wracking up delegates, the objective is to deprive Romney of as many delegates as possible. If Romney can’t cross the finish line, then we win.

  • demsaresatanic

    driving up costs so high that people will accept a complete government takeover, but that is not a failure from the leftist America-hater democrat point of view.

  • garfieldjl

    I don’t believe Government has the right to tell me or any other American to buy a particular product simply cause I have a heart beat.

    If people choose not to buy insurance and they end up getting sick, they should pay for their own medical costs. Not the insurance companies and they shouldn’t suddenly go get insurance and expect them to pick up the tab.

    What I suggested isn’t a mandate, I’m not proposing any fines, I’m not forcing them to buy anything. If people think they don’t need the insurance fine that’s there decision, but I would seriously suggest they put money in savings in case something does happen.

  • bassethound

    My husband’s company sent out a letter upon the passage of ObamaCare that they will likely drop coverage, eat the fine and push us into a government run state collective.

    My husband is 50 and is taking blood pressure meds.

    We are SOOO not looking forward to this.

  • demsaresatanic

    baby-killing parasitic democrat vermin.

  • natedogg

    I’ve seen people get banned here for a lot less than this. Isn’t this kind of an unacceptable way to talk to other people who are trying to have a conversation?

  • garfieldjl

    It’s Romney that can’t go after Obama on Obamacare.

    Newt has said that his past support for mandates was a mistake, and uses Obamacare as an example as to why they are bad.

    He’s just as credible as Santorum on this issue if not more.

  • natedogg

    I’m also concerned that the personal mandate may be unconstitutional. That said, I’m trying to figure out how we deal with the significant lack of coverage in this country. That becomes a problem for everyone when people show up in emergency rooms, and it hurts the economy when people go broke because they get sick. In a perfect world, I would agree with you about personal responsibility. But unfortunately people’s own lack of planning or even just bad luck, affects every one of us. There’s gotta be some happy medium between doing nothing and going European.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Why don’t you do a little research before you make bigoted, stupid socialist arguments?

  • garfieldjl

    Part of the reason why the costs are so high, is so the doctors can pay for their malpractice insurance.

    Yes some doctors have some high price sports cars, but they tend to be specialists, so they should be paid more.

    Texas has had an influx of Doctors after they implimented TORT reform.

  • natedogg

    That definitely has to be part of any reform and it should have been part of Obamacare. But that is just one aspect of it. Another is that modern medicine is expensive. Docs, nurses and equipment cost money.

    Also, insurance companies lose money through fraud, and people who don’t have insurance (the free loaders I was talking about). Insurance companies have no guarantees of a share of the market as they do in countries where there is socialized medicine. At the same time, they are profit driven, which means they have a responsibility to their shareholders to increase their bottom line. That often means denying legitimate claims or dropping people without reason. It’s capitalism, so okay. But we’re talking about people’s lives and we’re talking about how this affects all of us in the economy. At the end of the day, the poor get insurance through government programs and the rich get insurance, but the middle class ends up getting squeezed.

    Here are some stats:
    “Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 where linked to medical expenses … Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.”
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html

    It’s going to take a lot more than TORT reform to address this issue.

  • garfieldjl

    Some insurance companies do have guarentees in the market, they like government, have little reason to become more efficient, they don’t care about the fraud.

    Competition would make things more affordable.

    Say there are only 3 insurance companies allowed to do business in a particular state, then said state is opened up to 1,000 insurance companies.

    Those 3 that were there first can’t continue to take advantage of their customers. They either have to shape up, or they get ran out of business (which more likely).

    A lot of competition keeps the companies honest.

  • natedogg

    But an insurance company can’t remain solvent if it is expected to pay out big claims without a having a larger risk pool. They need some kind of guaranteed income to cover the sick people. If an insurance company has to compete with 1,000 others for the same market it absolutely has to cut corners in providing care to remain in business. If you’re a toy manufacturer and you have competitors, okay, you cut costs by going to China or Vietnam for production. Again, that’s capitalism and that’s the name of the game. But when you are talking about people’s lives, then we have a problem. It’s no different than regulating utility companies. We can talk all day about how theoretically competition is always good, but at the end of the day there is no business model that works for unregulated utilities. Either you regulate, or people end up paying too much, or they get really crappy (or no) service. Both Dems and Reps have to put aside economic ideology and focus on what model for health care works in other countries, because we are not number 1 in this area. Far from it. There is probably something we could learn from Germany, which has a combination of private insurance with strong regulations. It’s like a privatized version of medicare, but for everyone. I’m sure there are other good ones.

  • ghostship

    The GOP did not want to fight Clinton on welfare reform or balancing the budget. It was Newt who twisted arms and stepped on toes to make the GOP fight and for that the GOP was happy to see him go.

    That’s why I’d much rather have Newt than Mr GOP estahiblement and status-quo Romney or Mr Theocracy Santorum who’s just fine with big government as long as it’s done in God’s name.

  • garfieldjl

    Especially since many of them want Obama to have a second term.

  • garfieldjl

    Just this particular state only allowed 3 insurance companies to compete in that state.

    I’m sure it would be bad news for those 3 insurance companies, but to the other ones, they’d be getting more customers.

  • jakeofalltrades

  • lastgopinillinois

    As the congress stands right now, repealling any democrat sacred cow is out of the question with harry reid as majority leader in the Senate.

  • davidmadison

    While I heartily agree that Romney cannot be trusted to carry the ball for a full repeal of Obama-Pelosi-Reid care; (believing he would, if elected, either punt, or opt for a field goal of “fixing” this socialistic monstrosity ), I do believe you fail to appreciate Santorum’s qualifications for the Office of President. I too favor Gingrich but, Would not feel as if I were having to hold my nose, to vote for Santorum. Even Gingrich thinks well of Santorum, He just thinks he’s better skilled at leading and able to force the party elietists… uh, I mean establishment members, who think RINOs like Snowe and Quayle are just fine), by using popular public support for repeal. Gingrich knows how to persuade and, would be the best able to use the Bully Pulpit to advantage in motivating popular support to pressure Congress into following through on the conservative promises made which got them into office.

    I think Santorum could accomplish everything Gingrich can… given a little more time and, a more vocal and enduring constituent pressure on Congress members than we have seen of late. I just would want to see all of the things needing to be done accomplished in the first term of office: (Really, we can’t afford to drag our feet on things so seriously threatening our economy and future as a free people.)

    Never Romney!

  • davidmadison

    You must be a liberal. Romney is wish-washy! Gingrich will solidify the Republican party and get way more done than any other R-candidate in the race. I think it is just tragic that so many people are swayed by negative campaign ads from Daddy Warchest (and friends.) Romney is corporate crony-ism friendly… Gingrich is barely scraping by on meager donations from little people like me; (and I’m unemployed – without benefits.)

    I swear, if Romney gets nominated, I’m looking for a third party… Republicans seem to be getting too liberal for my taste.

  • lapert

    You obviously have no idea what EMTALA requires – and of course that one link of ‘research’ (it is worth noting that someone who thinks researching consists of finding a random internet article is the kind of ignoramus that shouldn’t be allowed to vote) doesn’t provide you any details to fill you in.

    All EMTALA does is not allow you to not treat someone in the state of immediate emergency when he shows p at the ER – that isn’t socialism it is humanity. Anyone who thinks that is a travesty has no right to talk about being pro-life in any context. It was completely uncontroversial in passing congress and being signed by Ronald Reagan – who is now a socialist in your mind? It was targeting a growing problem of ERs literally sending people away with the knife still in their backs – only an idiot who cannot think for themselves, has no basis of knowledge other than the rantings and ravings of other lunatics and has no humanity whatsoever would think that EMTALA is a bad thing.

  • avagreen

    1. I posted these two articles to provide proof that hospitals “aren’t guaranteed payment, nor are docs”, which I think prove that point amply.

    2. Concerning westcoastpat’s reply…….You’ve completely glossed over the problems with EMTALA (a bill with good intentions as most FEDERAL mandates supposedly are) which strongARE present and the problem is that it is often abused, with the hospital left footing the bill, and ARE CONSEQUENTLY GOING BROKE. Your “no humanity” comment is a little over the top, doncha think?

    3. Here’s another article pointing out the problems with EMTALA, with some possible fixes.
    http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2008/03/health-cares-broke-emtala-and-inappropriate-care/

    One fix suggested is that the feds start paying the monies for these services, which MIGHT result in some fine-tuning of this bill, which problems are now lost within each hospital’s account ledgers.

    2.

  • avagreen

    1. I posted these two articles to provide proof that hospitals ?aren?t guaranteed payment, nor are docs?, which I think prove that point amply.

    2. Concerning westcoastpat?s reply??.You?ve completely glossed over the problems with EMTALA (a bill with good intentions as most FEDERAL mandates supposedly are) which ARE present and the problem is that it is often abused, with the hospital left footing the bill, and ARE CONSEQUENTLY GOING BROKE. Your ?no humanity? comment is a little over the top, doncha think?

    3. Here?s another article pointing out the problems with EMTALA, with some possible fixes.
    http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2008/03/health-cares-broke-emtala-and-inappropriate-care/

    One fix suggested is that the feds start paying the monies for these services, which MIGHT result in some fine-tuning of this bill, which problems are now lost within each hospital?s account ledgers.

    Not sure if I approve of that “fix” nor that the feds would correct the loopholes that allow the abuse, I think the costs would just be passed off onto the citizens in even further high taxes.

    BUT, this bill is a problem and has been fine tuned several times in an attempt to clarify what the government usually does (messes things up).
    http://www.ena.org/government/emtala/Pages/Default.aspx

    Something has to be done, or none to quite a few of us aren’t going to have hospitals in our towns to take care of us……at any cost.

  • lapert

    Of course there are challenges with it from a funding perspective. Though your last sentence is quite a big exaggeration – there are plenty of profitable hospitals out there and the cost of uncompensated emergency care is but a small piece of bigger challenges as even your original article makes clear.

    But Westcoastpatriette didn’t talk at all about how she was disappointed in the funding challenges, or the difficulties in balancing our needs as a society to provide emergency care with the increasing cost as technology has allowed us to do far more than even a few decades ago, or how the unintended consequences of good legislation make solutions always less than perfect.

    No, she called the congress that passed it socialist (which would then include Newt who voted for it and Reagan who signed it) for codifying what has long been accepted practice in the medical community (and happened to be increasingly ignored by a small number of bad actors), she insisted they should be arrested for passing a law that requires one to treat the gun shot victim before deporting him – a very basic human act – even though the bulk of the law was about not letting the poor die on our door steps, and she questioned the constitutionality from a position of ignorance about the what the law actually requires and how. That she makes it all about illegal aliens, as if they are somehow less entitled to live, is what makes her ‘rant’ and position one which lack humanity and also divorced from the real compliance issues that arise here.

    By the way, your link in #3 doesn’t work but most article I’ve seen that blame EMTALA mischaracterize what the requirements are and the examples they give are primarily about the extra work done to avoid malpractice suits (which have nothing to do with EMTALA and are set at the state level) after stabilization when EMTALA no longer applies (this has been established in the courts).

  • avagreen

    Your answer that this bill was passed in the Regan administration avoids the issue of whether or not this is a “socialist” policy. I would agree that it is, or is at least a corporatist one (when private businesses are controlled by the government or governmental laws/regs, which makes corporatism halfway between capitalism and socialism)….. regardless of who was President when it was passed. NOTE: When administrators and CFO’s become more powerful than the docs in setting health care standards, which this law requires in order to comply with governmental standards, that……. is corporatism.

    Further, your saying that EMTALA is a ” choice” when a hospital signs up for Medicare payments shows a complete unawareness of the financial aspects in today’s healthcare. That’s like saying that a person being blackmailed has a choice of not paying the ransom. I won’t go into the long, long particulars.

    I don’t know of one hospital that can survive on private pay or private insurance alone, especially with the aging baby boomers, and I’ve worked for more than few in my career. This isn’t a new problem. Hospitals are closing right and left. I’ve provided one link above on this issue, and more can be easily found.

    And, despite your rosy statement that there are “many hospitals turning a profit”…….I’d like to know who/where. This Heritage article disagrees.
    “….Because it is an unfunded federal mandate, the provisions gov?erning EMTALA-related care have been predicated on the ability of providers to cross-subsidize care for the uninsured through revenues from other payers and revenue sources.However, research demon?strates that funding EMTALA through internal cost-shifting is an increasingly bankrupt financing strat?egy….”: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-crisis-in-hospital-emergency-departments-overcoming-the-burden-of-federal-regulation

    Questioning the “constitutionality” of this law has been done by more than one person. Why? Because EMTALA is an unfunded MANDATE that requires universal emergency hospital care to anyone who walks into the ER door, which forces (MANDATES) those, who can afford to pay for health insurance, to cover the cost for those who cannot.
    Just a few links. Again, more can be found (if one really wants to know):
    http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/03/challenge-constitutionality-emtala.html
    http://journals.lww.com/em-news/Fulltext/2003/05000/Repeal_EMTALA.4.aspx

    A JOKE ALONG THIS LINE: http://dinosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/a-modest-proposal-to-end-starvation/
    “Hunger is rampant in this country as well. It should be morally unacceptable for anyone in this great nation of plenty to starve to death. So why hasn?t anyone proposed the Emergency Feeding and Maintenance of Adequate Libations (EFMAL, pronounced ?Eff ?em all?) Act, which compels restaurants to serve anyone who walks in the door regardless of their ability to pay?”

    My third link worked fine for me??

  • westcoastpatriette

    now I am convinced you are nothing but a sleazy liberal plant spewing leftist doctrine like all those who hate this country love to do.

    Next time, would appreciate it if you would mind your own business and refrain from rudely butting into discussions I am having with friends — something you seem to love to do. But then, on second thought, I am sure you are incapable of that or else you would not be stalking people on RedState and periodically dumping your crap in their face when your hatred for all things conservative gets the best of you. Please don’t waste your time in the future as your thoughts mean nothing to me. And I mean nothing.

    Are you an illegal alien or something? You are nearly hysterical in your answers. Irrational and hysterical.

  • lapert

    First, wescoastpatrietter didn’t call it a socialist policy (which it isn’t by any decent definition of socialism anyway but that isn’t the point) she called the 1986 congress socialist-leaning, which is patently stupid. Particularly when you realize that this law was widely championed by Republicans who are known as among the greatest enemies of socialism in history (like Reagan).

    Second, whether your business can survive or not without taking Medicare patients doesn’t mean the government is forcing you to. From a constitutional perspective there is no question, that you found a blogger and a letter to the editor that want to question its constitutionality on extremely silly ground (1st amendment, really?) doesn’t change that. How about you find a single case that challenged its underlying constitutionality, even if it lost.

    Third, ever hear of food stamps? We do provide a mechanism to significantly reduce the likelihood of anyone starving to death in the US.

    Fourth, profitable hospitals are out there, some significantly so.

    Finally, your third link worked for me this time. Did you skip the first sentence where it says it is a good law? Did you miss the part where it says that the abuse of patients seeking care they don’t need is “a tiny percentage” of the costs to the system? Is the lack of payment from the feds a problem with EMTALA, I would say yes and part of why an individual mandate as a solution actually makes sense (just ask 1990′s Newt Gingrich) to solve at least part of the funding issues – but that is a discussion for another day and another thread as we have dug such deep holes in talking about real solutions as to make it unproductive here. Here, it should suffice that being outraged that the law requires emergency rooms not let people bleed to death at their doorstep simply because they are illegal aliens is neither a conservative nor Christian perspective.

  • westcoastpatriette

    See my post below as far as how I feel about lapert, He/she has rudely dumped on me before out of the thin blue air and he doesn’t merit the attention I would give to a rat.

    But back to the discussion at hand, since I live here in California, that article you linked to was really interesting. I also worked in hospitals here for twelve years and have watched the quality of care take a nose dive and have seen the results of EMTALA up close. Any time you walk into an ER, you would think you were in Mexico and they are not there for any emergency but for every upset stomach or snotty nose or headache that comes along. Also, in 2007 one of the hospitals in that article — that had been in business since 1849 — did a study right before they had to shut down their ER and the study found that only 41% of the ER patients were truly emergencies.

    People like lapert use leftist hysteria rather than facts and logic when the obvious failure of laws like EMTALA are staring us in the face. The answer is a return to free market principles in health care but the socialists and big government lovers would rather accuse us of being heartless. Can’t cure stupidity.

  • lapert

    And I am convinced that you are nothing but an ignorant fool who believes whatever soundbites you hear or read with no critical thought of your own. That you are hypocrite who quotes the Bible but has no desire to actually apply its teaching when when it comes to the ‘others’ you like to demonize because it makes you feel better about your life. My thoughts may mean nothing to you, but your thoughts are empty and void of content on an absolute level. They are the rants of evil. That you think there is any difference at all between an illegal alien and a citizen at deaths door speaks to the lack of God in your heart – no matter what other may have told you to make you feel better with your lack of humanity you are simply filled with evil, with hate the devil has planted in you that prevents you from even the tiniest bit of rationality in discussing this.

    You are not having a private conversation with friends. You are having a public display of your lack of humanity on the internet.I can hope that some day the hate that infects your soul is washed away and you are able to recognize how disgusting the thought you aired publicly are.

  • lapert

    You are heartless, and yep we can’t cure your stupidity. You should look at the judicial history of EMTALA and what it actually requires – it is not the reason that people come to the ER with the sniffles.

  • avagreen

    1. You’re picking at hairs when you try to parse a difference between calling a congress a “socialist organization”, and then try to exact some kind of difference between that term and the policies that are created by a “socialist” congress, which type policies are inferred by the term “socialist congress”. As far as ‘being championed by Republicans”……. so?
    I dunno who pushed this idea, but I said it was a “well intentioned law”. No points there for you.

    2. Again, your analogy about hospitals not being forced to take Medicare is the same as not being forced to pay a ransom. Your repeating it does not make it a logical statement.
    When a hospital’s and employees’ livelihood is incumbent upon getting paid, and the hospital can’t depend upon it’s patients to do so, that hospital is forced to do whatever is necessary to survive in order to serve those people, who don’t have the privileges of having the $$ to pay for their care themselves. Quite simply does away with your analogy of “choice”.

    3. Ermmmm…….Wasn’t talking about food stamps ( government sponsored program that can be spent at grocery stores, with the grocery store receiving $$), lapert. Money is being exchanged.
    Was talking about restaurants (private businesses) being     forced to feed people who walk in the front door for with no pay (free) …….
    Not the same analogy you just tried to foist here. Not at all. Tsk!

    4. Again, a misdirection from you.
    The hospitals to which I was referring are in a crisis because more and more patients are show?ing up for care without the ability to pay for it .

    The hospitals you used in your link as a reference have a different payor source, and a very rare one. An ability to pay for care, using private pay. Not the same analogy at all! You would fail a stats course for having different variables.

    From your link: “Profitability can be as simple as being in a protected market [with little competition] and having lots of privately insured patients, says Michael Millenson, a consultant with Health Quality Advisors in Highland Park, Ill. Private insurance usually pays more than the federal Medicare program.”
    Of course, this type hospital doesn’t have to choose to take Medicare, and won’t and it’s not as profitable as private pay, so this example you provide really doesn’t fit this discussion, either.

    Even this article states the hospital industry is in “a protected market” (why? private pay, which is rare today)
    AND
    “in an industry where four in five facilities are nonprofit charities.

    You are comparing luxury Cadillacs to junkers, and calling the results from the data the same. Nada.

    Not a good source for what I was asking for. Mixing apples and oranges, it would seem on several issues.

    5. Don’t know which link you are talking about. My third link from my post is from a nurses association with the changes that have been made to clarify this [horrible] law. No where is it called ” a good law.” It’s just a cut & dried discussion with pdf’s .
    ??

    6. Here, it should suffice that being outraged that the law requires emergency rooms not let people bleed to death at their doorstep simply because they are illegal aliens is neither a conservative nor Christian perspective.
    Guess I didn’t read where anyone is pushing this idea of letting people “bleed to death at their doorstep”
    BUT, I have seen some hysterics using this false analogy. ?? And, it is a ‘hysterical’ argument, and a logical fallacy which I see the Left using frequently.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html

    Are you a leftist?

  • avagreen

    and yes people do use it for sniffles, and coughs, asthma, flu, minor cuts, etc.

    It’s become the major doctor source in a poor community (most often a rural one), with repeaters that come in regularly.

    This is why people with a major problem sometimes have to wait 4 hours. It’s a first come, first serve situation.

    I also used to go to the ER when I worked for a rape crisis unit. The survivors of rape had to sit and wait for their turn to be examined……sometimes “hours”! (without a bath, without grooming, with bruises and cuts all over their bodies………obvious with what had happened) because of the workload ahead of them, usually sick babies and children with parents that didn’t have insurance. How would you like to have been one of them? Can you imagine the shame involved? Sheesh!

    Have you ever been in an ER? As a patient? As a worker?

    OK, I’m getting pizzed now. I need to stop. You just don’t know what you’re talking about! At all! Get a clue. Visit your local ER and sit and watch. Come back and give us a report.

  • avagreen

    just did to westcoastpat, but it fits.

    You’re not doing your side any good by talking the way you do.

    It’s obvious you don’t have a clue.

  • avagreen

    nt

  • demsaresatanic

    after all.

  • lapert

    1. Calling the 1986 congress socialist-leaning on the basis of a law that isn’t even socialist is asinine. Calling people who voted for it like Newt and signed it like Reagan socialist-leaning should be the first sign that the perspective you are taken might be misguided.

    2. It isn’t an analogy, it is a fact. The government has the Constitutional right to regulate any entity that takes federal money as a condition for recieving that federal money. Do you deny that? That the business may not be profitable but for the government payments is completely irrelevant.

    3. Food stamps are the government solution for that situation – they have a means to purchase food. Your hypothetical of a dying man needing food showing up at the doorstep of a restaurant demanding it is stupid for several reasons most notably that there is no such thing as emergency starvation – it is a long process which provides ample time for them to use their food stamps. If what you are trying to suggest is that the federal government should be paying for emergency services for the poor that is something different – but that doesn’t invalidate the premise that we don’t turn away someone from the ER who is in immediate distress because they can’t pay.

    4. That isn’t misdirection – it is the profitable model for hospital that you say is impossible. You deny that hospitals can survive without taking medicare, you deny that they can be profitable and then when shown some that do exactly that you dismiss them for it. This isn’t about failing stats class this is about you failing basic logic. You can’t simply ignore the examples that contradict your assertion because they contradict your assertion.

    5. This link you provided above: http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2008/03/health-cares-broke-emtala-and-inappropriate-care/ which says it is a good law int he first sentence.

    6.I guess you didn’t read westcoastpatriette’s post then. For her, the travesty is that this requires ERs to treat even illegal aliens when they come to the ER with an emergency – the consequence of that ‘rant’ is that yes, you would rather let them bleed at the ERs doorstep. This is no false analogy, it is the precise implication of her outrage.

    Seems here that you are trying to protect her by creating a strawman and ignoring her actual statements – quite the set of fallacies.

    Are you a leftist?

  • Scope

    who have ruled on Ocare so far avoided the severability clause? It seems, from my memory that only one ruling even touched the severability clause. From what I understand the lower court cases have fought for the unconstitutionality of forcing someone to purchase something.

    I don’t know if the bill included clauses, or fill in the blanks, where Sebelius was given the authority to dictate as the implementation goes along. Look at the contraception flap. Was that written into the original legislation? or was Obama and Sebelius allowed to keep interpreting and implementing the law as it goes along? At this rate, the O admin can add or take away anything they dang well please. Ocare has no controls, no definitions, and no authority to stop anything the libs want to add. God please in heaven, I pray the SC sees and realizes that this was something passed against the will of the people, and there is nothing stopping them from adding and subtracting any thing they choose to do. It is a bill that has no bounds or constrictions. It is even able to trample on first amendment laws. It is a wide open bill that gives this administration the ability to do any thing they want, even if it doesn’t include healthcare issues.

  • lapert

    Yes, we have a problem with medical service and people using the ER as primary doctors. But that isn’t because of EMTALA, Have you ever seen a suit based on EMTALA for not treating any non-emergency? And that is the point here – demonizing a law because it requires you to treat illegal aliens and poor people when in immediate emergencies that could result in death or serious injury is not a travesty for which the legislators who passed it should be arrested as westcoaspatriette sggested.

    You are the one without a clue who knows not what they are talking about because you are defending a different argument than the one that she made.

    How about a simple question, do you agree that the legal stats of your residency should be taken into account by an ER before deciding whether to treat in the case of an emergency that could lead to imminent death?

    If you don’t, then we on’t disagree on the actual argument being made. If you do, well then yes you are heartless and as a medical professional outside of the norm of your professions ethics going back centuries.

  • lapert

    Ms. Satanic – you are after all just the devil’s wife.

  • demsaresatanic

    What has happened to your standards?

  • lapert

    Not comedy. Sorry if it doesn’t measure up to your high standards Ms. Satanic.

  • demsaresatanic

    Weren’t you agreeing with Romney that cutting spending would slow the economy?

  • avagreen

    No one can be turned away from any ER. That’s what EMTALA states.

    If that law did not require that every living soul be seen at the ER regardless of cause (without any reimbursement to the hospital), there would be fewer crowded ER’s, fewer long waiting lines, fewer indebted hospitals going out of business, etc. (I have a thought>>>>>why don’t those “profitable hospitals” you listed do some charity work of their own? They can afford it.

    And now, as seen below, you are switching gears back to another argument in an attempt to keep from admitting you’ve been proven wrong on what we were talking about: hospitals going out of business, food stamps (you brought that up), reimbursement sources (private vs Medicare), profitable vs unprofitable hospitals, etc..
    You are the one without a clue who knows not what they are talking about because you are defending a different argument than the one that she made.

    Huh? Except for my first post to you, my latest responses to you are merely responses to your posts to me about hospitals and payor systems, etc.
    I did, in the last post, reply to your post about wcp’s statement about a “socialist congress”, but that’s about all that I did write concerning wcp. Don’t get confused now.

    Legal residency? Where have I even mentioned that in what we were talking about? Is this some kind of red herring that you are now throwing out……..apparently to have some type cudgel to beat me over the head with in order to accuse ME of something now?

    What is the norm of my professional ethics going back for centuries? Do you even know what my profession is? It hasn’t gone back for centuries.

    *curious*

  • stricia

    And no, I can’t prove it. How could I? Just wanted to let you know that you can’t fool all the people all the time. Cheerio!

  • lapert

    All that is required is that they evaluate if there is an emergency – it doesn’t require any diagnostics beyond that at all and certainly doesn’t require any treatment if it is not. It doesn’t even require that the evaluation meet any specific standard of care – only that it is applied consistently regardless of ability to pay.

    As for legal residency – that is what westcoastpatriette was ranting about – she was ranting specifically about its application to illegal aliens. Everything about this discussion is premised on her assertion that EMTALA was a travesty because it mandated treating illegal aliens when they come to an ER with an emergency.

    I’m sorry, I assumed you were a medical professional because you worked in an ER, if that was a mistaken assumption I apologize.

  • avagreen

    LOL!

    Certainly you can prove it……..ask one of the mods here what my ISP is and what the other person is using.

    **crazy times**

  • avagreen

    It’s what is known as an allied health worker or ancillary professional.

    I’m the guy they call when they have problems they can’t solve such as getting meds for indigents, housing for indigents, food for indigents, applying for hospital Medicaid to help with temporary needs in the hospital for people with no funds to pay, discharge plans (finding places for people to go/live [including the homeless] after they are discharged, house repairs if needed to make them liveable, getting medical equipment needed, etc. Durable Power of Attorneys and Living Wills signed and put on charts. Finding relatives to give permission for procedures if none exists.

    Since I’m also a licensed clinical social worker, I also help with immediate emotional needs when needed such as in suicide attempts, survivors of suicide and families of successful suicides, and appropriate referrals (and knowing where to refer to in each town these folks come from).

    Etc, and so on.

  • westcoastpatriette

    You sure make some weird enemies…LOL! :)

  • streiff

    you both post from related IP addresses. If you are, I’d suggest you knock it off. If our IT guys determine you are we will not only pull your account we will ban your IP.

  • avagreen

    All that is required is that they evaluate if there is an emergency ? it doesn?t require any diagnostics beyond that at all and certainly doesn?t require any treatment if it is not. Yes, but this takes time when there are 40 or more people lined up in the ER.

    Treatment is given: sprains are bandaged, x-rays are given, stitches are sewn, dislocated bones are put back into place with appropriate pain meds dispensed for aftercare; appropriate[ meds are scripted including for colds, asthma attacks, pain meds for sprains. I know becasue I was the one that had to find $$ for these if the folks didn't have the $$ to pay for them, and I also was required to make followup visits (either back at the ER [because they had no family doc......ER physicians can be sued, too, for malpractice and dropping care of a patient......quite a lucrative business if one has no money. The poor seem more litigious as a means of making money.......watch the TV court shows to see], or at a indigent care clinic if they live in a town where one is available.

  • avagreen

    Are you saying that I and……demsaresatanic are posting from the same ISP address???

    If so, you are flat wrong.

    What are you talking about?

  • avagreen

    What is interesting is that there is only one post under this person’s name and it is written today to me accusing me…….. of being a sockpuppet.

    What is going on?

    Who is this stricia? And, why so much weight in making accusations? Which is then taken up by a mod?

    I’ve been on this forum since Perry entered this race.

    This person is new today.

    What is going on?

  • avagreen

    What Is My IP Address – WhatIsMyIP.com
    Your IP Address Is: 75.111.143.51
    No Proxy Detected

    Read more: http://www.whatismyip.com/#ixzz1pQQYTEQl

    What is this other persons?

    I think I’m owed an apology.

  • Scope

    God forbid that sick babies should be thrown aside, all in favor of one that had been raped and had bruises and cuts.

    I am astounded that you would have ever supported Rick Perry. Did Perry’s comment about being heartless turn you off from him? With your position on let them die on the street if they don’t have medical insurance, do you beleve that Perry would have been in support of tge let them die position?
    our comment that rape victims, with scratches and cuts, had to wait hours for care, over serious medical conditions I believe, is ludicrous. Yet you supported Perry with his heartless comment. Isn’t it a little more than heartless to want to deny care to life and death issues in emergency rooms? Is your position really about the dollars, rather than a cold heartless position.

    How in the hell can any medical person, in any hospital position, go against the Hippocratic oath that you save every life that can be saved?

    There should never be ER care for sniffles, colds, flus and even broken arms and legs. They are not life threatening positions. But, in my opinion, you have gone to the side of the death panels when you have adopted the rule that anyone showing up with life threatening injuries in an ER without insurance should just blled to death on the ER floor. I do remember seeing the viseo of a lady that writhed in pain, on the floor of the ER. and got no help. Her last name was Rodgrigus?

    Ava, I woul;d never have expected you to go here. Then again there have been lots and lots of surprises. Sad that you are a part of the medical community that has bought the heartless crap.

  • avagreen

    Somewhere along the way.
    No where did I say
    “With your position on let them die on the street if they don?t have medical insurance, do you beleve that Perry would have been in support of tge let them die position?”

    what’s got into you?

  • avagreen

    There should never be ER care for sniffles, colds, flus and even broken arms and legs. They are not life threatening positions. But, in my opinion, you have gone to the side of the death panels when you have adopted the rule that anyone showing up with life threatening injuries in an ER without insurance should just blled to death on the ER floor.

    Where did I ever say this?

    For the last few weeks, I’ve been reading your posts, wondering where the Scope that I used to know has gone.

    You’re just making stuff up now. Has someone taken over your computer? You’re not the person you used to be.

  • demsaresatanic

    It is truly something to behold,

  • Scope

    that I’ve always been. You on the other hand ava have been such a disappoint to me with your cold hearted position it’s sad. I don’t particularly care what your medical experiences have been. I actually believe that you have been hardened by that experience. When the dollars become paramount to saving a life, any life, you have crossed the rubicon for me.

    I will say again ava, do you think Rick Perry, who you couldn’t promote more here at RS, would agree with your position that if you don’t have medical insurance you should just croak at the ER door? Give me a break ava. I would never in my wildest imagination believe you would get down to the dirty you have. That’s just my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.

  • demsaresatanic

    This kind of bs can crop up on the internet, anybody can accuse anybody of anything.

  • avagreen

    I’m neither “cold” nor getting “down to the dirty” or whatever you call it. Tell me: what “cold-hearted” positions have I taken? You made the same comments as I did right here:
    There should never be ER care for sniffles, colds, flus and even broken arms and legs. They are not life threatening positions. And, then went off on some tangent about my wanting people to die on the ER floor and “Isn?t it a little more than heartless to want to deny care to life and death issues in emergency rooms? ”

    Where did I say this? Give me the quote.

    What’s up with your making this up? You are flat making up stuff to complain about, with NO PROOF whatsoever.

    Frankly, I don’t think you are Scope. You sound completely different. I’ve noticed the difference in your tone in the last couple of months or so. You seem to be itching for a fight. With anyone.

    For that reason I’ve avoided interacting with you. But, now you’ve went out of your way to pick this fight over………nothing, despite whatever I say to the contrary. Just making up stuff to get offended about……. like someone else that used to post here.
    In fact, you sound more like a certain banned poster here that posts on DDR now, than the Scope that I used to know.

    Regading EMTALA, the last time I looked, the conservative viewpoint was to NOT support EMTALA. When did this change?

    Health Care Reform ? A Republican View

    Chuck Grassley
    N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2397-2399December 17, 2009

    Everyone agrees that something has to be done. But the reform proposals pending in Congress would make a bad situation worse. These bills would cause us to slide rapidly down the slippery slope toward increasing government control of health care.

    When did this change?

    At any rate, find someone else to fight with. I’m not getting into any cat fights over something I didn’t say, nor positions I don’t hold.

  • lapert

    Sen. Grassley was talking about Obama’s healthcare plan – not EMTALA at all.

    Please show me a single Republican who presented a bill in congress in the past 26 years that sought to repeal EMTALA, or even change its fundamental mandate.

  • avagreen

    accusation and it was immediately followed up by a moderator who threatened to ban me. Very strange. And, disquietening. I’m trying to find the contact page to see who/what is behind this.

    ONE COMMENT by ONE POSTER, and that’s the only comment that person has made. What gives here?

    One accusation and I’m being threatened to be banned. ???

    I’ve yet to hear back about your ISP. Apparently, we live somewhere close?

    Red State is getting to be really crazy. I’ve been absent while doing the Governor Wallace signature checking thing. Things have gone topsy-turvy and not in a good way.

    Probs with your speaking to me, someone will just take this as proof that we are the one and the same.

  • civil truth

    contact@redstate.com

    I don’t understand what’s going on either, but Neil or someone has the IP logs. I wouldn’t expect to receive an apology, but hopefully there won’t be any more insinuations.

    And once you send your contact e-mail, I suggest you let this rest.

  • lapert

    Yes, most hospitals go beyond the law in treatment. And maybe some of that is due to malpractice concerns (a state law not federal law issue), or there may even be some states that have greater mandates than federal law (I don’t know of any but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there). And maybe some of it is due the inherent nature of the medical profession and the value placed on providing care first, and yes we need to find a way as society to bridge this divide between a desire to provide the care and the ability to pay for it.

    But this is not the fault of EMTALA, and none of this challenges the basic tenet of that law that we as a society won’t tolerate letting people who can be saved die in an ER because they can’t pay or are illegal immigrants.

    And this is why westcoastpatriette was both severely misguide and all to revealing of her inner failings in how she views her fellow human beings when she went on a rant against EMTALA and those who passed it over 25 years ago.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I also found it bizarre when streiff said those things. And I am sorry you have had to take so much crap from lapert and Scope based on the things I initially said to you way back up thread. I consider you a friend and was being somewhat facetious to make my point when I said that members of Congress who passed EMTALA should go to jail for aiding and abetting illegal aliens (which is a federal crime!) because the bill mandated treating them in ERs. And lapert flipped out over that and attacked me. I have no relationship at all with him other than being attacked in the same identical manner one other time — and so I went off on him.

    But just for the record, I have almost zero sympathy for illegal aliens and the problems they cause and the expenses that Americans and legal immigrants are forced to pay for them while our government refuses to enforce the laws and they literally get away with all kinds of crimes. Scope and lapert can call me heartless all they want and all they will get from me is a yawn.

    The other thing that sends me over the edge is when people like lapert think they are conservatives and they attack people who don’t want to pay the bills of freeloaders, crooks and other assorted poor people. It shows their almost complete ignorance of conservatism and free market principles and they sound just like leftist liberals when they attack and accuse us of heartlessness. So, anyway, hope you have a good night.

    By the way, I was a Certified Alcoholism Counselor here in Cali and worked in private psych hospitals the whole decade of the eighties and saw what happened to the quality of care as a result of all of the government interference. And I have great respect for the work you do as I have worked with many social workers through the years. lapert and Scope are living in liberal utopia lala land so just ignore all their rantings.

  • avagreen

    That link was about Obamacare; however, the principle that I was looking at (w/o noticing the target of the article) was that the conservative stance has been against the slide rapidly down the slippery slope toward increasing government control of health care, of which EMTALA was the beginning.

    EMTALA, not doctors, are now making the health care decisions.

    And, despite the hoopla otherwise, I personally know of NO docs that will knowingly allow someone to suffer the harmful effects of an illness just to save some dollars for the hospital for which they work, or serve in. I’ve been called in on too many cases to keep just the opposite from happening.

  • avagreen

    I was the first Master’s level CD counselor that Texas had back in 1989. Both sides looked at me with suspicion. :) That was long before the LCDC certification that grandfathered anyone/everyone into certification, whether they had the proper training or not.

    Back in 1989, the certification was CCADAC. That was long before the LCDC certification came into existence, which I think weakened the field tremendously because of the lack of proper training.
    For my CCADAC, I was trained (on the weekends of my last year of Master’s work) by recovering folk and police officers who were certified themselves and had great, great insight into the disease theory. I was more proud of that certification than I was my whole master’s degree.

    Later, I dropped my LCDC after the rules changed when I could just use my LCSW to do alcohol/drug counseling. (And, I learned that a counselor that was an active alcoholic was teaching LCDC classes….based upon his master’s degree….long story….. at a nearby college who didn’t even believe in the 12-steps. I got out of that licensure and never looked back.) I enjoyed CD the most……love being around recovered addicts/alcoholics. They have to live a life of truth to retain their sobriety. They are among the healthiest of individuals I know. So many, many psych problems are caused by addictions….

    ,,,,glad to meet a fellow CD counselor. :)

  • lapert

    I would have guessed you were a certified alcoholic, ah well live and learn.

    Anyway it is quite amusing for you to suggest that I don’t know anything about conservatism, free market etc. .Your idea of conservatism is snippets from blogs and radio personalities – you have absolutely no understanding of its intellectual foundation.

  • lapert

    That not one of these people looked to repeal EMTALA in the past 25 years? Grassley was a Senator who voted for it, if he had come to recognize it as the problem don’t you think it odd that he never tried to make right that wrong of his?

    Is it just a wee bit possible that you are misinterpreting their perspective on EMTALA? Is it possible that it is in fact doctors who are making health care decisions that go beyond what is required by EMTALA because, as you say, all the ones you know would not knowingly allow someone to suffer just to save some dollars? Could it be that you are reflexively blaming government when it isn’t the root of the problem? Is it possible that medical service has never operated like other markets because of the morals involved in the profession?

  • westcoastpatriette

    I was CAADAC certified for the first time in1986 and got recertified (each certificate was for two years) twice and then walked away from it all. But I did my internship (2 years) while going to school at night and working as a Mental Health Worker in the day time. But yes, I loved working with addicts and alcoholics. I always said one of the reasons they become addicted is because they are awesome people (when clean and sober) and they just cannot take all of the true insanity going on in the world — and who can blame them for that?

    So fill me in. I don’t know what LCDC is. That’s how long ago I got out.
    ‘

  • stricia

    After all, she does have an advanced degree. Right, dems?

  • avagreen

    I DO have personal knowledge of how this works up close and personal as well as having seen real, live walking examples of how it works, and have talked to docs and have read literature on the subject. My graduate studies amount to something as I was being trained to work in the medical field. My bachelors minor was in Business/Accounting. Graduated Magna Cum Laude with two minors. I got my whole Masters in……..4 years instead of the usual 6, graduating in the top 1% of my class
    What have you got? What radio personalities?

    What have you got against drug/alcohol counselors?

    BTW, I’m an LCSW in addition to being an alcohol and drug counselor and have worked in/out of hospital since 1989.

    Your experience?

    Gotta end with an insult, I see. lapert, lemur, what is the problem?

  • avagreen

    to try to repeal this law. And, the mess it would create at this late date would be insurmountable. You can’t fix something this old w/o messing up the kaboodle.

    Can you imagine the hay that would be made by the liberal opposition if this was tried? I can.

    Just look at what happened to Perry…….the whole establishment of DC, liberal media and RINO’s like Fox & co.

  • lapert

    Why couldn’t it be done a decade ago? Why hasn’t it even been discussed in the past two plus decades?

    I think it is far more than political calculation. The essence of this law is right line with the expectations of the medical profession going back at least to Hippocrates and Plato. The tension that those expectations create are probably more acute today than anytime over the millennia, but that the right answer isn’t to turn away the poor from emergency medical treatment hasn’t changed.

  • lapert

    But I’m not sure I can think of any academic discipline that less instructs you in the intellectual foundation of conservatism than social work, can you?

    In any case, that comment was for westcoaspatriette who has shown herself to be even less capable than yourself at moving beyond the emotional reactions to a reasoned understanding of conservatism.

  • civil truth

    Two comments at RedState (both today), two personal attacks, one accusation of a capital offense…

  • stricia

    Do they even teach Sociology these days?

  • acat

    far more are converts.

    Complaining about the latter seems, to this cat, to be both counter-productive and short-sighted…

    Mew

  • avagreen

    I did use that link you provided and wrote an email last night.

    I couldn’t see that link at the top and I’ve looked and looked for it before when people talked about it. All I could ever see was a garbled line of words written over each other at the top, and wondered what was wrong…….with the site.
    This a.m., I used my Chrome browser and saw it.

    Apparently, I’ve had FF’s browser enlarged so long, I had no idea that it was enlarged, which was the reason that the line was so garbled and why I couldn’t see the link.

    Duh.

    Thanks, again.

  • rhclaryjr

    . . . incrementalism has been used, successfully, by the Obamanables and other anti-Americans. It’s kinda like union negotiations, where the unions don’t get all they want this time around — knowing that they’ll get a little more next time.

    Look at the UAW, for instance. Little by little they ran up the total cost of labor in their union shops to the point that GM could not possibly compete and stay solvent — and now the UAW owns GM.

    Then you might wish to look at the homosexuals’ agenda and how, little by little, they got to where they are now. It used to be “in your face,” now it’s in our pocketbooks and in our public school classrooms.

    I would certainly like to see ALL of Obamacare shot down, but I know that won’t happen. So I’ll settle for a little now and more — a lot more — later.

    Going for broke on this issue will get us just that. BROKE!

  • avagreen

    Actually, I grew up conservative.

    Did not plan on becoming a social worker. Just wanted to become a therapist to work with troubled/disadvantaged youth, and was told by a psychologist friend that if he had it to do over he would become an MSW, with a minor in business (which is what I did). As it the only degree that is a terminal degree at the master’s level (meaning this is the only degree that is intended for counseling licensure at master’s level; whereas, all other master’s are merely stepping stones to a PhD of some sort)

    I was a misfit: a conservative in a social work program, and gave my professors fits as one could imagine from reading my posts here.
    In fact, in one of my first doses of liberal “fair mindedness” (ha!), I was downgraded in two of my bachelor’s level classes from an A to a B because of my standing up to the professors on issues I didn’t agree with. With those two B’s being the A’s I would have gotten (as I did in every other class……even in accounting), I would have graduated Summa Cum Laude instead of Magna Cum Laude.

    One of professors in master’s program (a well-known author of books) even tried to sabotage my graduating with my masters on time by not turning in the grade on my final paper in his class, which was the final test for that class. I just fortuitously called his secretary to find out my grade (d/t his contentious and snobby nature in class) and she looked/discovered the graded paper was still on his desk and he just had not bothered to turn it in. (She ran that grade to the Office of the Registrar that afternoon, within about an hour of the the deadline). His “oversight” would have meant I would have had to go to school another semester in order to graduate. This guy writes textbooks for the social work programs across the country.

    My first exposure to the “human rights” beliefs of a liberal. ;)

  • steve962

    …and never actually *read* my posts. I’m apparently not blunt enough. So here goes:

    1) Just *discussing* the messy 2000+ pages caused the insurance industry to make changes, causing major problems.
    2) We went ahead and passed the messy 2,000+ pages of stupid regulations anyway, causing major problems.?
    3) Both the insurance and medical industries made significant changes in response – costing a lot of money and causing major problems.

    Net effect – cumulatively massive immediate and long term problems

    Repealing the stupid without consideration means:

    1) The insurance industry will likely make changes just as we discuss it, causing major problems.
    2) Repealing it eliminates a whole lot of regulations, and effectively reverts a lot more regulations, causing major problems.
    3) The medical industry will then have to spend a lot more money making changes to undo the damage done in the first place (without any time or a schedule to make those changes – since the old regulations take effect immediately), causing major problems.
    4) The insurance industry will also make significant changes to undo everything it did, whether it needs to or not, causing major problems.
    5) As soon as the Dems regain control of Congress, they’ll try it again and we’ll never end up with the stability we desperately need in our medical system.

    Net effect – massive immediate and long term problems – some as bad or worse than the original.

    Repealing the stupid after carefully crafting a replacement means:

    1) The insurance industry will likely make changes as we discuss it, but less changes because they see us considering things instead of acting irresponsibly.
    2) Replacing it means a *change* and reduction in regulations, not a reversion to the old regulations.
    3) The medical industry will need to adjust, but because the replacement can be phased in slowly over time, they can adjust slowly, spreading out the costs, and having much less impact.
    4) The insurance industry will hopefully be on board with whatever we come up with, and less likely to cause chaos in the process.
    5) It’ll be harder for the Dems to undo our work in the long term because we were *productive*, not *destructive*.

    Net effect – problems, yes, but much fewer, and in the long term, government is smaller.

    You’ll note I didn’t say a thing about what the replacement *ought* to cover or shouldn’t cover. Long term, it shouldn’t cover most of what Obamacare does. But it should be *carefully* considered, and designed to lessen the impact of the changes or spread them out over years. It better not be as “retarded”, as you described it, as the original – that would be just as irresponsible as passing the original was in the first place.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, the federal government shouldn’t be involved in most of this stuff in the first place, including things we’ve had long before Obamacare. But we’ve been growing roots into the concrete of the system for a long time, and withdrawing them without destroying the system is going to be a long and difficult process. You have to prune the roots one at a time, fill in the holes in with new concrete, and give it time to set.

    Government *can* get smaller — it just can’t get smaller all at once without causing chaos. Just as it didn’t get bigger all at once – without causing chaos. Government *can* get smarter, but it’s also not going to happen all at once — and trying to force government to change *rapidly* is a way to increase the stupid, not decrease it.

  • bayareamj

    The mandate is just a tax. You’re mandated to purchase things all the time. You’re mandated to pay for technology used in war. Taxes are mandated payments to the government.
    I didnt support the war in Iraq, but I was mandated to help pay for it. See how that works. A case can be made that good healthcare is part of the defense of the U.S. Broke and unhealthy citizens are under-performing members of society in-regards to productivity.
    Obamacare may or may not be the answer for the tens of millions of uninsured in America, but if we do abandon it, the Republicans better step up with an alternative plan unless they consider it a good thing that bankruptcies are skyrocketing due to healthcare costs.

  • lineholder

    has already been disproved more than once. The greater majority of it is rhetoric that is used by the left to try to induce a general state of fear. They use this tactic of fear-mongering quite a bit.

    However, I do happen to agree that because of the policy decisions that were made via O-care, and due to the Secretary’s methodology in implementation of those policies, Repubs will have to come up with some solid ideas that might undo some of the damage that has been done.

  • garfieldjl

    National Defense is referring to military capabilities.

    Saying that Government has the right to tell us what to buy, what to eat, how to act, etc. is saying that we’re property of the Government, not people. That sounds more like slavery.

    One of the main reasons for skyrocketting healthcare costs is lawsuits, we need TORT reform, which isn’t in Obamacare. The reason why Obamacare was pushed through was to grab as much power as possible, not deal with health care costs.

  • lineholder

    is that with our current malpractice laws being what they are, doctors often have to practice defensive medicine just to protect themselves from malpractice law suits.

    This can include test duplication, consultation visits, etc., all of which contribute to a systemic increase in costs.

  • bayareamj

    There has to be a way to either bring the cost down, or spread the cost among so many as to mitigate the destruction of personal savings.

    I support sensible Tort reform, I think everyone does. Tort reform is not going to bring down medical costs.

    The ball is in the Republican court. Propose an awesome healthcare plan and watch voters get in line. Stumble out of the gates with nothing or, worse, a plan that does not control costs or help the uninsured, and watch the Dems rise to power.

    Heath care is the number one priority because it is intertwined with the economy in so many ways.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Lefty Obamashills come in and we’re all on the same side.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Don’t get them here very often any more; but I guess that it’s been long enough since the last time we fumigated the site.

    Now scram, freak. And remember: not only did George W Bush save all those brown people in spite of your best efforts, but Barack Obama ended up slavishly imitating Bush in his basic GWOT policy. Only not as competently.

  • lineholder

    If the American people knew what lies ahead in regards to health care and the path that Dems have put us on (which is likely to have significant economic impact where taxes are concerned), they’d snatch back any power they’ve given to Dems, even if Repubs don’t have a solid plan. O-care truly is THAT badly constructed.

    The number of people that Dems have claimed would be covered under O-care has been reduced. And the legislation has a ‘gap” in it that will eliminate a swath of middle-class citizens from having any options to health insurance under the public health insurance exchange. The cost of supporting subsidies for the public health insurance is going to be much, MUCH higher than was originally projected. The methodologies being used by the Secretary of DHHS has triggered a chain of events within the health care sector where we could soon be looking at “too big to fail” with conglomerated health care entities. It’s a mess all the way around.

    Using a capitated payment system for reimbursement may seem to keep costs “under control”, but it also prevents any true competition between providers from taking place.

    Plus the way our government via O-care approaches the issue of reimbursement in general doesn’t exactly promote incentives for health care providers to invest in development of new procedures that are safer, carry less risk, and decrease inpatient admission costs.

    There are plenty of things that need to be addressed, and just about any approach that has been presented by the Repubs at this point (with the exception of Romney’s continuing insistence on supporting the individual mandate) is better economically than what the Dems are trying to put into place.

  • civil truth

    He was shilling for Obama since he first came by last Wednesday. He just let too much slip today.

  • ariyosef

    Bummer-Care is sure to be worse than Canadian health care.

    Waiting months to years for needed life saving treatment is NOT
    a positive component of Canadian citizenship.

    Danno must never have met a Canadian in need of timely Health Care.

    With Bummer-Care, all will be treated with “Bum” waits with many dying before treatment. Ask a few Canadians Danno. Oops!

    Sorry,They can’t speak from 6′ under. Ask their next of kin and widows.