« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Republicans’ Pre-Existing Condition

By: hogan (Diary)  |  March 25th, 2010 at 05:34 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Republicans are scared to death of opposing a mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions. They shouldn’t be. Americans would be better off without such a mandate.

But, despite knowing this, Republicans run scared because they suffer from a dangerous pre-existing condition of their own – and it is fear. The primary symptom is paralysis, resulting from fear of being labeled as hateful when saying “no” to legislation they know full well they should violently oppose.

The healthcare law is the latest example – despite the supposedly masterful efforts by
Republican leadership to “hold the Conference together” in opposition (insert reference here to Chris Rock – “you wanna cookie?”). In reality, most of the talk and most of the opposition by Republican leadership has been based on things they don’t fear – fighting tax increases, fighting spending and fighting “government bureaucrats.” But then, their fear kicks in – and they fully embrace a flawed, failing medicare system that is on the verge of bankruptcy, because they are afraid of making the point that medicare itself is a total disaster, and instead promote it to try to scare seniors.

And here we find ourselves today. Certain Republicans – particularly “leadership” – are scared to death of the “repeal and start over” message because they don’t want to be labeled as against sick people with pre-existing conditions – a key part of the healthcare law.

Yet, this whole issue is totally absurd.

Healthy people don’t need significant healthcare coverage. Sick people do. It is entirely illogical (not to mention unconstitutional) to require private entities to insure someone against something they already have at the same price. They have it. They are now inherently riskier.

Setting aside – you know, freedom – someone has to pay for free insurance to sick people who were uninsured. The result will be an individual mandate because you must increase the number of healthy people in the risk pool to even ATTEMPT to pay for such coverage, and because if you don’t have a mandate, it’s obvious that people will simply wait until they are sick and then get coverage.

This isn’t that hard – yet everyone walks around acting like it’s magic. The goal for anyone who values both high quality healthcare and freedom is to make sure that as many people as possible are covered BEFORE they are sick. And Republicans have numerous proposals to accomplish this goal – to reduce costs and cover more Americans, and should not run from them. In the end, if some people cannot afford coverage – then we decide how to handle that problem, through the combined efforts of private enterprise, charity, local/state governments, and as a last resort – the national government… something, I might add, we already do today.

The healthcare bill is now law. We must repeal it. It couldn’t be a more clear, concise and effective message. Recent polls demonstrate massive public opposition to the bill, such as this CBS poll showing 62% of Americans want the GOP to continue fighting the bill. And many Republicans understand this – indeed, in the Senate, for example, Senator DeMint has offered a bill to repeal Obamacare, and it has 15 co-sponsors. Great.

But where is Senator McConnell? Alexander? Thune? Murkowski? Republicans have to move past this irrational fear of being labeled mean for opposing some feel-good bill or issue when standing on an entirely defensible and important principle. Else, we will never stop the growth of government as program after program is built on the back of that fear.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.laborunionreport.comandhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

    In sum, (to borrow a phrase) ‘what we have here is a failure to communicate.’

    Moreoever, they’re afraid of the 10-second sound-byte.

    • JX12

      Many of the Democrats who voted for the health care bill did so knowing they would most likely lose their seats in November for it – yet they did it anyway. This is not to say they’re principled – far from it. It’s just that they want it that bad, and they don’t care who they hurt to get it. Sad to say, but I suspect some author down the road will do a profile in courage on them for this.

      We, on the other hand, are standing on principle. The Republicans in Congress should do no less. If they truly believe this bill is bad for the country, then they should vote to repeal, regardless of whatever fears they may have about how they’ll be perceived (I think it’s called “bravery”). If they’re inclined to do otherwise, then they’re cowards, and should be given the boot at their next primary election.

      If Republicans in the next Congress (or any future Congress who takes up a bill to repeal this thing) think they’ll lose subsequent elections over voting to repeal, so what? They had better decide (like the Democrats this past Sunday) that THEY DON’T CARE if they lose – because it’s just that important. They can rest assured they WILL lose if they chicken out on this.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

        Please? Just expand it to make sure there is context.

        • JX12

          Thanks.

      • ihateliberals

        If they don’t get it then in Nov we will explain it! We conservatives will not support anyone that is against the repeal of the worse piece of Law ever passed by this government. we are stead fast in this position. If they are not willing to listen to us conservatives then they will be trough.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    does not know what is coming for them from the left and their partners in the MSM and is not capable of dealing with it then why are they the ones either in/running for office?

    • GenEarly

      This is exactly the situation in FL 10(Pinellas County Florida). Bill Young(R) a 79yr old long time incumbent who has brought home the Pork for years and supported a Big Federal Government is in danger of being re-elected. With a huge campaign fund he represents the Republican Establishment voting “conservative” against Democrat Socialism, but in favor of Republican Socialism. What’s the difference? Sure he’s better than a democrat,but is that good enough for what we face ? Not in my opinion,We can do MUCH better with Eric Forcade. Look for yourself. www.forcadeforcongress.com

  • romeg

    Given what has gone on in the last 72 hours, perhaps another ‘V’ word would be better. Vehemently, maybe. Oppose, absolutely but violence is not what is required.

    But what we don’t need is the acquiescence that the current leadership seems to be contemplating. Leadership, after all, is hard work. If Senator McConnell isn’t up to the task, then perhaps someone else is. Perhaps Jim DeMint or perhaps someone running for the Senate for the first time would be better suited to LEAD the charge against this usurpation of sovereignty.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      Let us go to the thesaurus that doesn’t stink.

      Energetically. Vigorously. With Strength. Resolutely. Advantageously.

      These work for me.

    • leehazel

      This is how it works. We must not say what we mean or feel. We must ever be aware of other peoples feelings and their interpretations. And under no circumstances stray from the party line. Hogwash

      To h**ll with what you are trying to say, the point you are attempting to give depth to. Don’t be graphic whatever you do.

      Vehemently, stoutly in liew of “violent”, Give me strength.

      PC is THOUGHT CONTROL
      LEE

  • SCSoxFan

    of pre-existing conditions. I could be insured and have a heart attack. If I lose my job or there is some other reason that my present insurance ends I am now uninsurable. Do you leave those people out in the lurch?

    Or, there is a child with an inherited disease or condition. Would you permit the insurance companies to deny that person coverage when he or she reached adulthood?

    Americans will reject a solution if they perceive it as penalizing someone who is sick through no fault of their own and can denied coverage. I’m no lib and I can see that. There has to be SOME answer that addresses both concerns — freedom and no mandate AND making sure that people who are vulnerable, again, through no fault of their own can be covered.

    • kdoc

      If we had a truly free market in health insurance, this would not be a problem. If you have a heart attack and then lose your job, if there were many insurance companies competing for business, there would be one (or some) of them that would take your business. That would become their niche market. Look at auto insurance — there are companies that advertise they will insure you even (especially) after you have had problems. But that’s because there is true competition in auto insurance.

      Or take the other scare tactic – you have the heart attack, then kidney disease, and then your insurance company decides you are too unhealthy, so they drop you. In the current situation, you are pretty much out of luck – you have a limited number of health insurance companies in your state, and it’s not in their best interests to insure you. They can drop you and basically say, “Who are you going to go to?” But let’s say it’s a totally free market (like auto insurance) – if Company A drops you, you either go to one of the many competitors, and/or Company A gets a ton of bad publicity and then changes their practices to meet market demand.

      In a free market, companies that don’t turn a profit by meeting the needs of customers will not survive. That would also happen in health insurance, if the government would get out of the business and let the market take over.

      • persiflage

        with what is commonly called health insurance, in that it really more closely resembles pre-paid health care services than an insurance instrument. I have homeowners’ insurance that doesn’t pay for wear-and-tear repairs, or fixes my screens, or paints my back porch. I pay for those things out of pocket. My auto policy doesn’t pay for car washes or brake adjustment, routine diagnostic services or oil changes. I pay for those things out of pocket. The homeowners and auto insurances I purchased are for catastrophic, unpredictable losses. I don’t believe that real health “insurance” for catastrophic injury/disease events would cost a family anywhere near twelve or fifteen thousand dollars a year. Am I wrong?

        • jeffreywturner

          Whatever happened to the days when the doctor see you for a routine check-up or a tummy-ache, and then just send you a bill, which was a reasonable price, and then you would just pay it rather than file a claim with an insurance company? Heck, the doctor would even come right to your house with his little black bag and give you the remedy in person! Am I the only one who ever watched “Leave it to Beaver” on Nick at Nite?

        • rascott

          A middle aged couple, with some minor health issues, say high blood pressure, buying insurnace on their own could easily pay $12k/yr for a policy with a $4-5k deductible.

          • janis

            If they are middle-aged, then both are probably working and can afford the coverage. For now.

    • janis

      A pool for high risk people could certainly be established in each state, but first we need to get rid of this whole monster and just start over with individual items. I talked to an orthopedic surgeon last year about the health “reform” bill that was then in the works in the House. He was all for giving part of his high income to see to it that those who couldn’t obtain or afford insurance would be covered.

      What he wasn’t in favor of was being taxed more so that the government could just get their hands on more money to throw around as they pleased. That’s what the tax portion of this miserable bill is for– to give the government more money so they won’t have to continue to borrow from the Chinese and Japan, etc. to pay for MediCare and SS. And that’s why the part of this bill that actually has to spend money is deferred until 2013-2014.

    • Scope

      which I believe was setting up high risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions. It was ignored, just as all other Republican ideas. There also has to be a sense of personal responsibility. BTW- No one is denied medical care in the US, even if you have no medical coverage. The government should not be responsible for cradle to grave care for all it’s citizens. To think otherwise is to agree with the leftists.

      • rascott

        “BTW- No one is denied medical care in the US, even if you have no medical coverage.”

        Exactly. So medical costs are already socialized in the US. Uncompenstated care is paid for via cost-shifting to those with insurance. If you can accept that HC costs are already socialized, then you can move on to determine what the best structure is to create the greatest efficiency.

        • janis
          • rascott

            extending the use of HSAs. Promoting greater price transparency for HC procedures (ever tried to get a quote for an MRI?). Utilization of catostrophic insurance plans. Eliminating employer-based HC and/or the corresponding tax treatment of health benefits (stop treating wages and HC benefits differently).

          • rascott

            extending the use of HSAs. Promoting greater price transparency for HC procedures (ever tried to get a quote for an MRI?). Utilization of catostrophic insurance plans. Eliminating employer-based HC and/or the corresponding tax treatment of health benefits (stop treating wages and HC benefits differently).

        • Christine (Trelaina)

          Under what insane definition of socialism does “cost-shifting” apply?

          • rascott

            for you? Society at large paying for the cost-shifting of uncompensated care.

            I said that those costs were “socialized” under our current system, meaning they were shifted onto the premiums of everyone who had private insurance.

          • Kyle-MI

            And it is confusing to boot.

            Here is the correct definition:
            Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

            The key term is “centralized government”, and thus saying that society is paying for cost shifting is way out of bounds.

          • rascott

            but isn’t it true to some aspect since its the goverment that requires hospitals to treat patients as they come?

          • Christine (Trelaina)

            is “shifted”? I don’t see that definition anywhere.

            If I get a service and I don’t pay for it, someone else does. It’s a common theme. If you get a coupon in the mail for a free burger at McDonald’s and you redeem it, who paid for that burger and all the other free ones? Everyone else who buys food there, that’s who. Is McDonald’s a socialized restaurant business?

            The only difference between McD’s and the health insurance business (in this example) is that McD’s isn’t required by law to feed you if you show up on their doorstep. Picture what would happen if that law were passed tomorrow, and you see why government control of an industry is a BAD THING, generally speaking.

          • gekster

            you are NOT forced to buy thier burgers.

          • rascott

            in the example would be the hospital, not the insurance policy.

            The proper example I already posted: McD’s is requrired to feed anybody who walks thorugh the door.

          • Repair_Man_Jack
          • rascott

            in that comparison is that the prouducer is making rationale economic choice to provide you that coupon…i.e. in the hopes that you’ll buy something else, or be a repeat customer.

            Hospitals do not have that choice. They are required by law to take everyone who shows up. So a proper comparison would be that MdD’s would have to provide free hamburgers for anybody who came in their door, at any time. How well would that work?

          • rascott

            in that comparison is that the prouducer is making rationale economic choice to provide you that coupon…i.e. in the hopes that you’ll buy something else, or be a repeat customer.

            Hospitals do not have that choice. They are required by law to take everyone who shows up. So a proper comparison would be that MdD’s would have to provide free hamburgers for anybody who came in their door, at any time. How well would that work?

          • Christine (Trelaina)

            I said exactly that.

            MY point is that you are using the word “socialized” to describe something that isn’t socialized. Socialized means the government (or a “collective”) controls access, cost, distribution, production, etc. It doesn’t mean society pays….not in any definition I’ve ever seen anyway. I’m no scholar so if that definition is out there I’ll offer retractions as needed.

            Hospitals that are required to take care of anyone who shows up shift costs to paying customers not because they are forced to but because it is the only way to handle the cost and still make any kind of profit. That’s the last thread of free markets, not socialism. When the government then steps in and says “costs must be X, profits must be less than Y, you must offer these N services to these people” THAT is socialism.

          • rascott

            I posted. I don’t mean to use “socialize” in the manner of gov’t controlling the resources and distributing them as they see fit. The only thing that is inherently socialistic is that the gov’t requires hospitals to take anyone.

            How about we just say that “society” already currently pays for uncompensated care in the current system?

          • gekster

            All for the GOOD of the people. Russia, China, So many others.
            For example only, in China, they tell you what Catholic church you can attend.
            You can still choose to go to church or not, but if you do go, it must be state approved.
            You can pick a Catholic church to attend, but it must be government approved.
            You can’t attend the wrong ones and under penalty of state.

            (Please, I’m not argueing religion here.)

            Now with this HCR, you will/must get insurance, and the government will tell you if it is the correct one to attend.
            You now have no choice.
            Under penalty of state.
            And you ” have” to pick a policy.
            You can pick your own policy, but it must be government approved.
            I thought this was the kind of things socialist do.

      • rascott

        “BTW- No one is denied medical care in the US, even if you have no medical coverage.”

        Exactly. So medical costs are already socialized in the US. Uncompenstated care is paid for via cost-shifting to those with insurance. If you can accept that HC costs are already socialized, then you can move on to determine what the best structure is to create the greatest efficiency.

    • izoneguy

      Obamacare Is Going to the President’s Desk–What Comes Next?

      http://www.aei.org/article/101818

      In the end, there will be only two places for consumers to get health coverage–through a large employer (most likely a union plan) or through the new state-based exchanges. Many large employers with a preponderance of middle-wage employees will move their workers into the exchanges, since the subsidies are richer than the tax exclusion they get through worker-provided coverage. Only employers with sticky union contracts, or those that employ a lot of high-wage workers (e.g., Goldman Sachs) will continue to offer workplace coverage.

      Eventually, the federally regulated exchanges will be the only game in town. That was the idea behind Obamacare from the start.

      What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare

      http://www.aei.org/article/101473

    • Scope

      Cavuto today saying that she is no longer accepting any insurances. She is on a cash basis, and, said that her patients are supporting her with the decision. She said she explains to them that if she continued with the insurance companies, that will now be even more regulated by the government, she would not be able to make the best decisions for her patients. She would have to treat her patients according to insurance or government rules. I do believe there will be more and more of that. I wouldn’t care if someone paid them in greenbacks, and they put it in a secret box, and didn’t report it on their tax returns. The Obama admin. is encouraging alot of under the table kinda stuff.

    • SCSoxFan

      for sending me the links. I will read them and hope a solution lies within.

      I do have a related questions (although they may be answered in the links). Here in coastal SC we have a high risk pool for wind (hurricane) insurance since many insurance companies will no longer write policies in coastal counties. But, there is the liklihood that the pool will be larger than the outflow since it is unlikely that all (or even most) of the payees will be hit by a hurricane. But, in a health care high risk pool, isn’t it a given that the majority of members will end up requiring more in services than they pay in premiums, with the pool ending up being a net loser financially?

      That same question applies to the commenters who suggested opening up the insurance market — why would a company deliberately take on a customer who had a good chance of costing them money? Unless, of course, they were willing to take the financial hit for the good will that might generate.

      Anyway, thank you all, again.

      • izoneguy

        As I understand it – they won’t have a choice. And that is the rub. Insurers will just shut down. This is Obama’s goal. And the state’s will be struggling to meet the mandates of Medicare & Medicaid.
        Everyone will start being pushed into the exchanges. Costs will
        necessarily skyrocket and care will decrease. Of course Obama’s timing is such that the emergency this will create will mandate that MORE federal intervention is needed….More taxes, fees and regulation. Welcome to the USSA…..

        Now a smart company would start shutting down now. Move everything offshore until January 2013 and then come back to the USA when the all clear is given.

        • Scope

          filed by the state Attorneys General, are to fight the federal unfunded mandates to increase medicaid funding. That means that not only will we all be hit with higher federal taxes for Obamacare, it would make it necessary to increase state taxes as well, and, by a large amount. Most of the states have huge deficits now, and, don’t have the ability to go to the basement and pick money off the tree, or to run up huge debts with China or Japan. This breaks the backs of each state, not only each citizen.

          • cabanon

            I just learned about the Wyden amendment which essentially lets states opt out of the health care reform.

            The catch is that whatever system they adopt has to meet the same Federal standards as health care reform, essentially cover the same number of people.

          • hickorystick

            The issue with the AG’s, at least mine, is that the bill is mandating individuals purchase a product. Current law does not allow interstate commerce in the health insurance industry. Lacking interstate commerce, there is no constitutional basis for Federal Government mandating behavior.

          • cabanon

            First, the state can opt out, if the state can opt out then its not a mandate. That doesn’t seem right to me though as it would be dependent on your state taking the action.

            Second, take for example the tax breaks you get if you buy a home vs. renting. So if I choose to rent instead of buy, I essentially pay a higher tax rate. If you choose to not buy health insurance you pay a higher tax rate, sorta the same thing.

            I think the government can use taxes as either a carrot or a stick to encourage or discourage behavior, I think thats been long established.

          • hickorystick

            or anywhere else. The AG’s are attorneys, I’m not. The idea is they can’t force you to buy a home or rent. Basic freedom. Does the National government have unlimited power, or can it act only on the power it was given. This is one reason courts exist, is to determine if the Fed has the power they claim. It has been told No, many times. Every forest the Bush Administration authorized to be harvested, greenies held up in court. Happens all the time.

          • cabanon

            They’re the lawyers, I’m not one either.

            But the Government has the authority to determine taxes, its been doing that for sometime. True, the Government can not force you to buy or rent but they can give tax incentives to encourage one option over the other. Thats the rational they’ll use for Health Care, they won’t force you to buy insurance, they can’t! They’ll just tax you more if you don’t. I pay more in taxes because I choose not to buy something, a house. See what I mean?

          • rascott

            The others do not get it. There is really no economic difference between the insurnace mandate and the home mortgage deduction.

            Look at it another way. How about the gov’t raises everyones taxes and then offers a refundable tax credit to all those that carry insurance. ITS THE SAME THING, only one is called a “fine” or “tax” and one is called a “tax credit”.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            You will be fined if you don’t carry insurance, you will be fined per employee if you choose not to insure them.

            I personally think the fines were set at $750 for a reason. The average policy costs $3,000. This bill is designed to generate exactly the insurance crisis necessary to get a so-called “robust public option”.

            A business with 200 workers, saves $450,000/year paying the fine instead of insuring its workforce.

          • rascott

            the GREATER of $750 or 2.8% of income, up to the average cost of a policy.

            So, for someone making $100k, the fine is $2,800.

            “Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.” Mitt Romney – 2006

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Healthcare comes from somebody else’s labor. I kind of thought the nation fought a war to settle the fact that we had no Gog-given right to help ourselves to another person’s labor against that individual’s will.

          • rascott

            legitimate argument to make.

          • rascott

            legitimate argument to make.

          • cabanon

            Thats been law for over 25 years and I doubt anyone is going to challenge it.

          • rascott

            the GREATER of $750 or 2.8% of income, up to the average cost of a policy.

            So, for someone making $100k, the fine is $2,800.

            “Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.” Mitt Romney – 2006

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            >>>Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer

          • hickorystick

            In the case of the income tax the National Legislature went through a Constitutional amendment process to gain authority to levy taxes, in this case what in Old Europe they called a Poll Tax or head tax that was charged for breathing. The people hated this and would rebel. The Founders knew this would cause the Republic to disintegrate, so they didn’t do it. I’m using the term Founders loosely because the continental Congress didn’t try to employ one either. They did try to employ an alcohol tax, but they employed it enevenly, 6 cents for beer produced in the Lowlands, 9 cents for Whiskey produced inland in the Highlands. The Scot-Irish and fellows rebelled.
            The idea of the Congress having the right to tax you or your product willy-nilly has never had a strong basis in law, and never in the culture (with the ‘folks’). The National Congress has abused the right to regulate inter-state commerce by ‘nudging’ behavior with taxation. They have been caught claiming a tax without any inter-state commerce involved, and lack a legal footing. The state AG’s have called them out. I expect a good gun-fight.

          • Scope

            You say that states can opt out of the insurance mandate. Then why is the “mandate” along with fines and penalties, up to jail, in the legislation? Why then are so many state attorneys general filing suit against the mandate in particular, if they can opt out? If that were the case, then states could also opt out of higher medicaid state funded mandates. That is also a big part of the Attorneys General lawsuits.

            You are using purchasing a home, or renting as a comparison to the fed govt mandating that you purchase medical insurance. That’s idiotic, as, one has the freedom to purchase or rent, as opposed to being told that you will purchase medical insurance.

            The fact that the medical coverage companies stocks are going up as a result of Obamacare surely is no surprise. The bill mandates that everyone purchase medical insurance, which means more customers, once the mandate kicks in. Those investing in those stocks are banking on Obamacare, and all it’s parts, that it will remain the law of the land. Wouldn’t that be speculation, just like the past high oil prices? I’m sure it has not escaped the insurance companies that eventually, if the Progressives have their way, many of those insurers will be out of business. Only the ones who have been/will be promised that they will be bailed out, like the biggest banks, will survive. They will also be owned and controlled by the federal government. I haven’t seen a whole lot of complaining by those at Goldman Sachs. If that ever came to pass, we will see who the Goldman Sachs are, and, who the Lehman Brothers are. The fact that they have all been pretty quiet through the debate, means that the Obama arm twisters have already had those talks.

            Once the Republicans take the majorities, and have the opportunity to propose their own plans for reform, and they repeal Obamacare, medical insurance will be sold across state lines, and, they will have to compete for business, or go under. That is what the American citizens want, and they will get it.

          • cabanon

            the “Empowering States to be Innovative” amendment and it basically allows for states to opt out but they have to meet the same coverage standards in the Health Care Bill.

            http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

            Its on page 212, SEC. 1332. WAIVER FOR STATE INNOVATION. A state doesn’t need to include mandates they just have to offer comparable coverage. Its an opt out with conditions but it is an opt out.

            In the home buying vs. renting analogy you have the freedom to choose but you are taxed differently depending on your choice.If you buy a house with a $1500/month mortgage you receive tax incentives, if you rent an apartment for $1500/month you receive nothing. The renter pays a higher tax, its essentially a tax penalty for not buying. There’s no real difference.

            Also think about cashing out a 401k early, there’s a huge tax penalty. You are of course free to cash out but if you do there is a penalty and if you refuse to pay the tax penalty you can go to jail.

            I’m just not very optimistic about the potential legal challenges.

          • Kyle-MI

            if they have to adopt the same federal standards. That is like saying that they can opt-out, but they have to do everything the same as the federal government. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

        • rascott

          The insurers are quite happy to take on people with high expected medical costs if it comes with a mandate for healthy people to buy insurance.

          What company wouldn’t want a mandate for everyone to buy their product, backed up by the enforcing power of the IRS. Go check out the performance of the health insurers stock in the past year (and even since the bill was signed).

          If what you were saying had the slightest bit of truth, their stocks would be falling, instead they’ve been surging. You seemed to be greatly misinformed.

    • jeffreywturner

      You have to distinguish between people who are simply predisposed to certain diseases and those who willfully refuse to buy insurance until AFTER they have already developed (or contracted) a horribly expensive disease or other ailment.

      There are already some protections in place for the former. For instance, there are protections against discrimination against people with the sickle cell trait. There could probably be more done in this area.

      However, simply saying that you can’t have ANY exclusions of pre-existing conditions is like saying you can wait until your house is on fire to buy homeowners’ insurance and the insurer still has to cover the fire that was already in progress when you became a customer.

      • rascott

        did not make that comment. His comment was if someone had employer based insurance, the became ill. Later they lost their job, which means they lose their insurance.

        Through no irresponsibility of their own, they now can basically be uninsurable. Which means either 1) they get uncompensated care and the current insured pay for it anyway via cost shifting or 2) they end up on Medicaid (if they are really sick), and guess what society pays for it anyway.

        There is NO WAY around society not paying for universal health care for everyone. Its just how you structure it so as to make it least wasteful and least devastating to individuals, like the indidvidual above.

        And if you think the situation above is uncommon, you are very naive, particularly in a 10%+ unemployment rate environment.

        Now, of course, I believe the biggest issue in the entire scenario is the dependence on a broken employer based HC insurance system. Until we get away from that system in some manner, we’re going to continue having a mess.

        • Scope

          you have been making arguments FOR Obamacare, especially with this statement-

          “There is NO WAY around society not paying for universal health care for everyone.”

          I think you will find more agreement on your positions over at KOS.

          • izoneguy

            rascott is an Obamashill…..

            The insurance companies will do well – up to a point….
            then it will all crash. The insurance companies see the handwriting on the wall. They are beefing up the cash reserves and will bail-out when they need to…..
            They will come back in 2013 after Obamacare is repealed.
            Compnaies will dump paying for insurance and will pay the fines.
            Individuals won’t be able to afford insurance – and will pay the fines until they get sick and THEN buy the insurance….only to dump it again after the crisis passes. Any 2nd year economics student could see this won’t work. But then again the dems seem to think that the American economy will defy the laws of economics – it won’t.

          • rascott

            The insurance companies have supported this bill. Why the heck would they do so if they are going to “bail out” of business. Why would their stocks be rising?

            I love how as soon as you challenge any assumption that people make on here you are suddenly an Obama shill. Great dialogue.

          • rascott

            The insurance companies have supported this bill. Why the heck would they do so if they are going to “bail out” of business. Why would their stocks be rising?

            I love how as soon as you challenge any assumption that people make on here you are suddenly an Obama shill. Great dialogue.

          • janis

            You should have stated from the beginning what your position was, but you didn’t and instead kept talking about how medicine is already socialized. It may not have been your intention, but you sounded as though you were prompting people to accept socialized medicine by defending what was already in place and then moving along to accepting even more.

            Have you read RedState before, or is this your first time around the block on this blog?

          • rascott

            I should have stated what my thoughts on reform should look like.

            Its my opinion if we want to be honset about a reform, we need to understand where we are starting from. According to a variety of research studies, in our system today uncompensated care totals anywhere from $45-70 billion annually.

            So from any “textbook” definiton, as a society we are currently socializing this amount in our current system via higher private insurance premiums.

            If someone can dispute that, or has a different view of what it means to “socialize” something, fine, I’m all ears.

          • rascott

            I should have stated what my thoughts on reform should look like.

            Its my opinion if we want to be honset about a reform, we need to understand where we are starting from. According to a variety of research studies, in our system today uncompensated care totals anywhere from $45-70 billion annually.

            So from any “textbook” definiton, as a society we are currently socializing this amount in our current system via higher private insurance premiums.

            If someone can dispute that, or has a different view of what it means to “socialize” something, fine, I’m all ears.

          • janis

            No one here who comments in good faith is satisfied with the current situation, so we can agree on that from the beginning. Since we live in different parts of the country, we have seen a variety of solutions to problems that have arisen in health care. None of us wants socialized medicine, but no sane person would say that we don’t already have forms of it in place now.

            What we CAN all agree on is that none of us wants to see this propensity toward socialized medicine pushed even further on an already debt-ridden country. The solutions to the current health care situation will have to be many, varied, and not ones that push us even further into bankruptcy. No one argues with that either. So don’t argue with us, help us find the solutions. And welcome to RedState.

          • rascott

            I agree totally with eveything you’ve said.

          • irish2dabone

            Respectfully izoneguy I believe you misjudge Rascott… he is quite insightful, as well as coming here with a balanced and rational opinion.

            I am no fan of Insurance Companies as I stated to him below on another topic… but he is correct. insurance companies, as with some areas of the HC sector signed-on to a few aspects of the bill (too long to break-down here)

            Let’s take the Pre-existing Condition clause of this HCR bill… sure, it sounds good that Insurance provider’s will NO LONGER be able to deny those like me with a Pre-Existing Condition… but I’ve dealt with them enough to realize that with that “coverage”, a person will pay out of the nose for it. Example: I am not Denied Life Insurance because I had my condition… but it would have cost me $1k per month four yrs ago to get that $250k coverage.

            In fairness to the Ins Provider’s tho, I must state that it is because of the Gov’t mandates from years ago which made HC Provider’s cover the Uninsured (and under insured) that led to this mess!!! Follow me on this… Gov’t mandates on HC Providers (Hosp; Dr’s, Dx Clinics, etc) caused HC Providers to give out Free HC, resulting in their having to INFLATE their Fee’s for Svc to those with Insurance. Those Patients with Insurance who are chg’d the INFLATED Fee’s, then pass them along to their Insurance Provider, who in turn must pay for the INFLATED Fee’s. The Insurance Provider then must pass their losses onto their Insured thru higher Premiums. The winners in all this end up being the Uninsured and Under insured… and that was BEFORE this HCR bill was passed. Now that this HCR bill is passed, just wait… its going to get worse!

          • rascott

            your point is pretty much the one i’ve been trying to make from the beginnning. that uncompensated care costs already get shifted to the premiums of those that have coverage.

            The mandate that providers provide, regardless of the ability to pay, is the possibly more ‘socialist’ in the purest sense of the word than the HC bill itself.

          • rascott

            see my post further below.

            But if you just use common sense, you should already know that society ALREADY pays for universal care. Several here have already made the point that no one in the US is denied medical care. Then who pays for it????

            You do. I do. Everyone does.

            I support eliminating employer-based health care. I support greater utilization of HSAs to empower consumers to make prudent purchases. I strongly support tort reform. Do not call me an Obama shill just because I make honest points about flaws in our system.

          • Scope

            who understands the tyranny of Obamacare, uses words such as “Socializing” or “Universal Care.” You are a Progressive planted subversive. And, your not very good at it.

          • rascott

            A progressive planted subversive….wow. I can see you are really interested in honset thought. Considering I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life, I’m not insulted.

            Ok, what words are acceptable fore you to describe our current system that guarantees care to everyone? Not coverage mind you, but actual care?

          • rascott

            A progressive planted subversive….wow. I can see you are really interested in honset thought. Considering I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life, I’m not insulted.

            Ok, what words are acceptable fore you to describe our current system that guarantees care to everyone? Not coverage mind you, but actual care?

          • Christine (Trelaina)

            Maybe I missed something in school (of course I was mostly educated in public schools)….but why does

            “everyone pays for it” = socialism?

            That’s way too high level of a definition.

          • rascott

            the word – appearanlty the offensively wrong word – that I picked to describe how society is already paying for something. The costs are being “socialized”.

            Maybe someone has a better term thats less offensive.

          • aesthete

            Your definition of socialism (goverment/”workers” owning and maintaining means of production) is spot on. However, socializing costs just means that the costs are shifted in such a way that everyone ends up paying for it.

          • rascott

            My god, i mention the statement “socializing costs” and you’d think I was advocating a British-style ownership of any and all things medical.

          • irish2dabone

            It’s called “redistribution of wealth”… the mantra for both Socialism and Marxism. We witnessed the current agenda when BO had his conversation with Joe the Plumber, which the Media chose to ignore the revelation of what was to come.

            Let me share this with you… not my words but the following was revealed on at least two occasions:

            The first: “The Supreme court never ventured into the issues of ‘Redistribution of Wealth

          • Kyle-MI

            Why does it raise taxes so much more? Why does it increase the deficit?

            If your point is that the current system is less than perfect, then you are doing a poor job of making that point. If you oppose Obamacare, then you are doing a poor job of making that position known.

            You are sounding very much like a number of mobys who claim that they are solid conservative republicans but then argue completely against conservative republicanism.

          • rascott

            uncompensated care are anywhere from $45-$70 billion annually, and estimated to grow to over $100 billion/annually in a deacde. So its not like its peanuts.

            Obamacare or any other system doen’t change that money being spent. As i said, unless we start actually denying people acess to care, the money is spent. Obamacare costs more than the $45-70B annually because it covers even more services than the current uncompensated ones.

            I’ll reiterate, I do not support Obamacare. My only point in this discussion was to bring out the concept that this is already going on, and we are all already paying for it. Most studies say its about $350/individual policy, and about $1200/family policy.

          • Kyle-MI

            If it is not changing anything?

            By the way, this is not the only point you have been making in opposing the opposition to Obamacare.

          • rascott

            Obamacare because it doesn’t give us the reform that we need. It doesn’t get us away from the employer based system that is the root of a lot of these problems.

            I support HSAs, with catostrophic insurnace plans, that EVERYONE buys on their own, not via their employer. If their employer wants to provide them extra compensation, either with a voucher, or wages, or a contribution to the HSA, then good for them.

          • rascott

            Obamacare because it doesn’t give us the reform that we need. It doesn’t get us away from the employer based system that is the root of a lot of these problems.

            I support HSAs, with catostrophic insurnace plans, that EVERYONE buys on their own, not via their employer. If their employer wants to provide them extra compensation, either with a voucher, or wages, or a contribution to the HSA, then good for them.

          • Scope

            employees extra compensation if they do not sign up for the employers health insurance plan.

          • rascott

            that’s why I’m saying allowing that would be a much better move towards true refrom.

          • Kyle-MI

            Now we are making some progress with this conversation.

            It is too bad that McCain got slimed for proposing to do just that. I thought it was one of his better proposals. Unfortunately he made it too complicated and let Obama and the media spin it as a tax increase. And now the law supported and signed by Obama actually does tax health benefits.

          • Scope

            You say that you have never voted for a Democrat, that you agree with tort reform and some other republican ideas. But, you give yourself away in almost every post you make with statements like-

            “Obamacare costs more than the $45-70B annually because it covers even more services than the current uncompensated ones.”

            and I’ll add again-

            “There is NO WAY around society not paying for universal health care for everyone.”

            You have got to be kidding, right? Obamacare will cover more services than the current uncompensated ones? So, in other words you think that HHS and Sebileus, who have the power to set up a Medicare decision board, and the “death panel” committee that has already been set up, and funded, are going to add all kinds of extras and perks? They would never dream of rationing care right? I’m sure there is no way that Obamacare would be any more expensive when they add thousands more to government healthcare. How dumb can we Republicans be.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            This is why the CBO estimate is low by probably 500%. How many years in a row have we mercilously applied the Doc Fix to Medicare? I’m counting zero. This is why the cost numbers for this entitlement need to be multiplied by a MINIMUM of three and probably closer to eight or nine given the CBO’s past record on Healthcare Program estimates.

          • rascott

            I’ll be shocked the day comes when Medicare actually rations anything. Instead, it’ll be like its always been, a smorgasboard of all you can eat, all you can order up health care paid on the gov’t dime.

            As far as my response about uncompensated care. You are really mixing your messages up. There is not any uncompensated care for Medicare (perhaps under-compensated).

            I am talking about people that have no insurance who will now have it. They are certain to use more medical care than they did before. That’s why I said Obamacare will be paying for more care. One comment argument is there will be a doctor shortage now, because of 30 million new people with coverage. Well how can you square that argument with the one you just made?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            It will make the states do this as an unfunded mandate.

            State governments will have to spend more under the health care bill — $735 million in Tennessee alone, according to Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen.
            (HT: Michael Barone)

          • hickorystick

            that they have no authority to tax an individual within a sovereign state.

          • gekster

            http://www.medicare.gov/basics/lcds.asp

            If you have to have an
            “Appeals of Local Coverage Determinations” website,
            then obviously someone had coverage denied.

          • aesthete

            anymore than “Bob can eat more hot dogs than anyone else in the state” would be: in both cases, overconsumption is a problem. One of the problems purportedly solved by Obama’s bill is cost control; what Obamacare does is a) force people to buy healthcare, b) expand Medicaid, c) subsidize certain plans, and d) some other stuff. None of these proposals controls for costs: in fact, many of these increase costs and consumption of healthcare.

          • rascott

            that it was a compliment. Just a fact. Overconsumption of HC is a HUGE problem.

          • gekster

            if you close your browser and log back in, it should get rid of the double posts.
            It works for me.

          • rascott

            that it was a compliment. Just a fact. Overconsumption of HC is a HUGE problem.

          • aesthete

            My reply was to Scope above.

          • JSobieski

            If Rush Limbaugh or anyone else paying for health care with their own funds “overconsumes” there is no negative impact to anyone else, and in fact, the extra juice in the system can be a positive.

            If I want to waste my money on healthcare rather than video games or rap albums, I am in fact helping to sustain the economic strength of the health care industry.

            HSAs do a lot to prevent bad overconsumption.

          • aesthete

            if both parties have adequate information: Rush would, presumably, value healthcare over other things that his money could be funding instead of healthcare. When it comes to public goods and common access goods, however, overconsumption and underconsumption can be real problems. Perhaps the biggest problem with the left’s conceptualization of healthcare as a right is its leap to artificially making healthcare and insurance into common-access goods. While this approach sometimes works with excludable public goods (like knowledge or police protection), it leads to overconsumption in the case of private goods, like food, healthcare, etc.

          • JSobieski

            which was my point.

            The way to avoid overconsumption is HSAs and other other ways to re-link the payer and the consumer.

          • aesthete

            Align incentives and correct for structural information asymmetry, and overconsumption will be less of a problem.

          • rascott

            uncompensated care are anywhere from $45-$70 billion annually, and estimated to grow to over $100 billion/annually in a deacde. So its not like its peanuts.

            Obamacare or any other system doen’t change that money being spent. As i said, unless we start actually denying people acess to care, the money is spent. Obamacare costs more than the $45-70B annually because it covers even more services than the current uncompensated ones.

            I’ll reiterate, I do not support Obamacare. My only point in this discussion was to bring out the concept that this is already going on, and we are all already paying for it. Most studies say its about $350/individual policy, and about $1200/family policy.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            This is because they are forced by statute to use static scoring. Thus, The Senate Joint Economic Committee has documented the estent to which they typically underestimate. From the prospective of the CBO, I’m being a prince of a guy quoting the median rather than the mean. Saying these underestimates are typically only 500% is generous.

          • Scope

            by the Democrats. The CBO can only cost what is given to them to cost. I’m sure they also didn’t include all the bribes and payoffs. Some would not have been known to the CBO, as the arm twisting happened all the way up to the vote. The Stupak 700 grand wasn’t added until the Friday before the vote. Because the immediate pre-existing condition mandate for children was not in the bill, as well as the 50% discount for drugs for seniors, I suspect those costs were not included. We are only just finding out about the “mistakes” in the bill. I’m sure there will be more.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Has nothing to do with whether someone can drive up to an emergency room and get their heart repaired because of legal mandate. You’ve conflated seperate issues. I also wouldn’t mind seeing health insurance sold the same way car and homeowners’ insurance is sold as well.

            However, simply switching from Employer Mandate to HSAs would have no impact on whether indigent care laws still took effect.

          • rascott

            made that argument together.

            I had been talking about indigent care laws the whole time, and several people said I was shilling for Obamacare. My comments about HSAs and employer based care were only in replies to those folks, stating my opinions of what reform should look like.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            already exists, by arguing that hospitals have to serve all comers, your basis of argument is in fact indigent care lwas. How insurance gets provided has no gravamen on whether hospitals are forced to take indigent patients…

          • rascott

            and that was my entire point about this post titled “pre-exisitng conditions”.

            I never brought insurance reform up once. Somebody said i was a shill because I used those unsavory terms, and asked me what my positions were on health care reform OVERALL.

            That is when I made a few comments regarding my opinions of what actual ‘reform’ would look like.

            I think we agree on this, maybe just talking past each other.

          • rascott

            and that was my entire point about this post titled “pre-exisitng conditions”.

            I never brought insurance reform up once. Somebody said i was a shill because I used those unsavory terms, and asked me what my positions were on health care reform OVERALL.

            That is when I made a few comments regarding my opinions of what actual ‘reform’ would look like.

            I think we agree on this, maybe just talking past each other.

        • jeffreywturner

          First, you have the option to continue your current insurance by picking up the entire cost yourself under COBRA. This lasts a few months until you can find another job.

          If you still haven’t found another job, you can then go buy private insurance, and your current insurance company will provide you with a Certificate of Creditable Coverage to show any new insurer that you are only changing insurers and are not someone who waited until they were sick and are only now wanting insurance, so the new insurer will not deny you coverage.

          Not to say there aren’t still cracks and loopholes in the system now, but the idea that insurance companies can just arbitrarily deny claims with no justification is simply not reality.

    • dajeeps

      Certainly the Republicans can come up with some good free market reforms and expand HSAs which are great for routine stuff. But what some don’t get is that there is plenty of room for states to legislate their own alternatives, which is the proper thing to do considering the 10th amendment. Just because the Federal government shrinks does not mean there will be this giant hole where no one will be taken care of. Too many fall into that trap of thinking it’s the Feds or nothing and if we ever hope to ever crawl out of the fiscal hole the Feds have dug we need to stop looking to Uncle Sam for the answers to every problem.

  • http://www.inthisdimension.com inthisdimension

    Once upon a time the Left was for individual liberty and equal treatment for all.

    If nothing else disgusts one about this bill, the legislated inequality certainly should do so.

    Three classes of Americans now exist -UNDER LAW:
    1. The People
    2. Government elected officials
    3. Sr staffers of those elected officials.

    The first of these three classes – We The People – now are to be FORCED to engage in UNWANTED commerce (the forced purchase of govt healthcare), essentially the government TAKING from us without due process, a violation of the takings clause in both the 5th and 14th Amendments – and so unconstitutional.

    The second two groups, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS within the Government, are NOT to be forced to engage in said commerce. Even if one were to make an exception for elected leaders, as they are exempt from arrest and trial for certain offenses during the Term, the exception for staffers disgusts.

    Congress has passed, and the Executive has signed in to law, legislation making these groups unequal before the law. One group is to be forced to do something, the other groups excused from doing so.

    Legislated inequality.

    If that is not a violation of equal protection under the law, the 14th Amendment, then that Amendment means nothing at all.

    • rascott

      Staffers are employees of the federal goverment, and like just about any other employee in this country they have employer-provided insurance, the FEHB.

      They are all still requried to purchase health insurance, however, they can still stay with the existing fed employee system. Its not like they are exempt from the mandate. The requirement in the bill is for legislators and senior staff to purchase through the new state based exchanges. Meaning they must leave the FEHB.

      BUT EVERYONE IS STILL MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.

      Do some research, other than talk radio, before you post blatant misinformation.

      • Scope

        but you are clearly posting here with arguments, goals and intentions that are anti-Republican.

        If the staffers were not being singled out in the bill, then why was it necessary to insert language that exempts them?

        You have not mistakenly used anti-republican words like Socialism, and Universal Coverage. They are your exact goals.

        Way up thread you said that the above posters just don’t get it. How wrong you are, we here get it very well. And, I especially get it that you are a disingenious Obamacare salesman, no matter how much you claim you are not. Using a few pro-republican words in your posts doesn’t fool many.

        • rascott

          if you spend you life walking around with such partisan blinders on that all you see are “democratic” terms and “republican” terms. I don’t live like that, and I don’t approach any policy ideas like that.

          I’m not here trying to fool anyone, but to have an honest, adult discussion. Appearantly my use of the english language included buzzwords that you find offendable. I’m sorry that you cannot see beyond buzzwords and have an actual fact based discussion.

          Fact that you stated: “No one is denied medical care in the US, even if you have no medical coverage”

          I used the term “universal coverage” to describe exactly what you said. Because its reality in our country already, proven by your own words.

          In response to your specific comment about staffers. They are NOT expempted. They are not exempted from the tax. They are NOT exempted from the mandate. The exemption has to do with what exchange they buy their insurance through, either the current FEHB, or the state exchanges.

          By your logic, everyone who has a large-group employer plan is “exempted” from the legislation.

        • rascott

          if you spend you life walking around with such partisan blinders on that all you see are “democratic” terms and “republican” terms. I don’t live like that, and I don’t approach any policy ideas like that.

          I’m not here trying to fool anyone, but to have an honest, adult discussion. Appearantly my use of the english language included buzzwords that you find offendable. I’m sorry that you cannot see beyond buzzwords and have an actual fact based discussion.

          Fact that you stated: “No one is denied medical care in the US, even if you have no medical coverage”

          I used the term “universal coverage” to describe exactly what you said. Because its reality in our country already, proven by your own words.

          In response to your specific comment about staffers. They are NOT expempted. They are not exempted from the tax. They are NOT exempted from the mandate. The exemption has to do with what exchange they buy their insurance through, either the current FEHB, or the state exchanges.

          By your logic, everyone who has a large-group employer plan is “exempted” from the legislation.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    But a desire to be in the “safe” minority. Too many who are in leadership positions know the warmth and safety of not sticking their head up thru that hole (ala Whack-A-Mole).

  • texasgalt

    just because the Democrats passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a radical, socialist president, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a Secretary who is clueless in consultation with a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke!

    One would think even irrational Mitch could see repeal is a winning position.

    • izoneguy

      And is endorsed by Fidel Castro and the UN:

      • texasgalt
  • avgjo

    Call your dmnd congresscritter and DEMAND that they do it. I have been calling them all over the country. You should try it.

    We will only get this done if we put the same pressure on them as we did on the Dems.

  • msctex

    . . .to believe ones own BS. The Progressives have styled an entire system of socio-political thought on believing and acting upon things that demonstrably aren’t true. But the Republicans seem to be buying in as well, as though just because it is what is reported in the media, it is necessarily the case. As though people actually will “come around” to Obama’s timeless wisdom.

    If the Media were to actually function for just one day, if it were to report the reality of the state of this nation and the feelings of the voters, it might well be enough to begin the undoing of Obama’s damage. Just one day. But since this is never going to happen, it is up to Republicans in power to see through the smokescreen and simply do what’s right. Protect the Constitution and those it in turn protects, at all costs. If they do what they know they should, they will win in the end. At the moment, we find ourselves in one of the Democrats’ self-congratulatory periods, and it is disgusting to watch. But, just like after the Inauguration, it is only a matter of time before the results of their actions catch up with them.

  • jaybo

    There is a reasoned logical debate that needs to be repeated over and over again by The Republican Party to the American people.

    “It is Un-American to rob from future generations of Americans in order to selfishly maintain federal spending at our current levels.”

    Every single republican politician that gets in front of a camera should repeat this statement to the American people every single time they speak and it should be done without fear. The vast majority of Americans are good decent people that would not be willing to “sell-out” their kids and their grandkids in this way.

    But somehow politicians have the impression that we are a selfish, selfserving lot only interested in what we can get for ourselves. How did this happen? Is it because Americans have been falsely represented by certain special interest groups like the AARP? We need politicians with the courage to see their responsibility as patriots as more important than their jobs. It is time to be honest, brutally honest with Americans when it comes to our fiscal crisis.

    I am frustrated over the inability of politicians to truly see the real nature of the average everyday American. I wonder if the veteran republican politicians in the party really have the will or intestinal fortitude to fight this battle for the coming generations. If they will not or cannot, then I wish they would step aside for the good of the country and allow others to take up the fight.

    What republican politician wants to go down in history as unwilling to fight for this country and save it from future financial ruin? History will judge these politicians and this current generation if we destroy the future for our own gain.

    NO MORE DEFICIT SPENDING!

    NONE!

    NOT ONE MORE DIME FOR ANY REASON!

    If you are a politician in Washington DC and are reading this I ask you, will you stand up for this country or not?

  • fpete13527

    It is not an option for the cowering meek portion of the Senate, to include the leadership, to continue to behave the way that they are. Too much is at stake!!. I take NO joy in slamming McConnell and the other cowering liberal Republicans…..but they MUST be continuously VERBALY pounded until they shift into action….even if they have to turn themselves inside out.

    As you said….the bill is PASSED (for now.) The cordial rope-a-dope, be nice, be willing, attitude needs to be thrown in the garbage. The Dems. made it clear ….

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=government raybryant

    Baby killers, that’s what they are and what they will always be.

    Republicans want to put Grandma’ out on the ice flow and take sis’s baby and starve it to death. They would rather eat them if they thought they could get away with it. Harry & Co are going to teach them to roll over and beg for a bone, next.

    If you cannot stand against the lie you will lie down for it.

  • dwells

    Ours is a land of laws, which require both guts and brains to hold to. Administrators and legislators who don’t want to deal with being demonized shouldn’t run in the first place. Jello spines don’t support anything, especially a system of freedom that is both very heavy and very delicate.

    When people let fear become their primary motivator then all they do is run, they’re forever on the run looking for a safe place to hide. And then in this particular case the rule of emotion takes full sway and our delicate system breaks under shortsightedness and intimidation.

    • earlgrey

      thank you for sharing. It really ihits me because I tend to be very fearful and scared.

  • http://truthupfront.blogspot.com jsanzone

    I have discussed this in my blog (and diary here) over the past few days.

    It really makes you question how sincere some of these Republicans were when they supposedly opposed the bill over the last year, but within a few days after its passage, have resigned to “well, maybe we might think about altering a few parts of it, maybe, a few years from now.”

    Maybe they expect the tea parties to go away, or maybe they just take that sort of support for granted. We are well beyond ‘holding their feet to the flames’.

    For some reason they really think that being McCain-like and trying to be as non-conservative and non-Republican as they can get while still being nominally Republican, is a good strategy.

  • Scope

    with pre-existing conditions now. I believe if you have not been treated for a particular ailment in the last year, it isn’t considered pre-existing for insurance purposes. If you have been treated, there is a wait of between 6 months and 1 year for the insurance to cover that claim.

    • texasgalt

      for someone with a prexisting condition to join in on a group plan. Many will cover everything but the preexisiting condition and then pick up the precondition after 1 year. Our little 40 person group works this way.

      Or at least it did before this new “gift” from the Dems.

    • rascott

      group, employer-based plans. Not the individual or small group market which is where the focus of the bill lies.

      If you don’t have group coverage, you can be excluded permanantly from insurance with a pre-exisiting condition.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    I’ve just been listening to Andrew Breitbart sitting in for Dr. Savage and Andrew’s words could inspire a quivering republican if they chose to listen.He went into great detail about the events staged by the democrats and the media after the health vote. It was fascinating. He also shared his experience and success with bullies. In a word, stand up to them, give them back what they gave you, and they usually back off. That’s also been my experience. One of my brothers used to punch and hit me when we were kids. After many years of this, I punched him back. He was shocked, and never hit me again.

  • d_lamar

    I see the main problem with the Republicans is that they refuse to engage the progressives position that medical care is a right. To date, the msm and the dems position is the only one that the public hears.

    Until conservatives can logically and persuasively convince the population that medical care is not a right, but a want, then we will lose this argument. It doesn’t matter how much it costs. Conservatives will always be seen as cruel to deny a “right”.

    We need someone like Walter Williams or Milton Friedman to, in very simple understandable terms, explain that such a right does not exist, and it can’t exist, because such a right would bankrupt the country, destroy quality medical care, result in rationing, and eventually euthanasia.

    Just my 2cents worth, and probably less.

    • rascott

      as a society like that. Everyone in the country gets care when they are sick, either via the ER, or Medicaid if they deemed terminally ill. And if people don’t or can’t pay for the care, society already pays for it.

  • DRayRaven

    I’m glad someone said it!
    I have been rolling my eyes at Republicans who say the pre-existing condition “fix” is something we can all agree on.

    I figured one of two things were at play here: either the Republican in question is a near-total nitwit with no knowledge at all of how health insurance works (a distinct possibility), or he/she doesn’t mind pandering to avoid being labeled as a mean, insensitive Republican who doesn’t care if sick people die. Never mind the fact that eliminating pre-existing condition clauses would do more to raise premiums than all the frivolous lawsuits in the world.

    Maybe huge swaths of the electorate don’t understand this basic concept. If conservatives are to have a meaningful victory this November, they can’t pander. They have to educate and explain their policy positions to persuade. Not only will they win, but they’ll have a mandate, too.

  • snowshooze

    I never got my teeth into the argument..it seems like simple arithmetic to me… an example with known costs of maintenance here…
    Your condition costs $2,000.00 monthly to treat?
    Ok, we’ll take you, lemme see here, $2,000.00 x 150% for operations and overhead…you know..profit too…plus your base policy of $500.00 per month that covers other stuff…$3,500.00 per month..your first 6 month policy will be $21,000.00 plus fee, we accept M/C Visa and personal checks after 10 days to clear…how would you prefer to pay for that? If you can’t swing it, well, we will inform the IRS and they can decide if you should Fined, imprisoned or both, but perhaps they may refer you to the shared risk pool…

    So how could it be cheaper that just paying for it? Understand the known cost of the circumstance. Effectively in this situation, you are merely hiring a management company to handle billing.

    • rascott

      here is.

      Yes, you’re calculation is correct. Obvisouly most people can’t afford $42k/year for medical care, so what is society supposed to do with this person.

      1) Ban them from receiving care
      2) Give them uncompensated care and cost-shift via higher charges to those that have coverage (current system)
      3) Do some type of large scale risk pooling, using reinsurance mechanisms

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Then, you make people who don’t need $42,000 in coverage buy 10 times what they need to stay in compliance with Federal Law.

        Then you amortize the costs over other people’s wallets and wonder why nobody really cares about cost containment anymore….

  • jimc1969

    I seem to recall during Clintons second term, he signed a bill, where you’d be covered for pre-exisiting conditions, as long as you had insurance when it came about. A fairly reasonable law, as it prevented people from waiting until there sick to get insurance.
    The only catch was if you switched plans, it would be only covered as it would have been with your previous plan for the first18 months. Also not terribly unreasonable, as sometimes you have to change insurance, but this would prevent you from doing it just so that you’d get better coverage NOW for a pre-existing condition.
    This was just about the only thing BJ did that I wasn’t dead set against ( the other item was re-appointing Greenspan )

    • rascott

      fix the underlying flaw that its inherent in employer-based insurance. People have insurance, then get sick. Later they lose their job and can’t get an affordable policy ever again. Or they stay locked into a crappy job because they know they are uninsurable if they were to leave.

      All the problems in our system can be traced to the employer based model.

  • redneck_hippie

    This fight does not have a subset labeled “draw.”

    So, senators, which will it be win? Or lose.

  • Xasteius

    “I must not fear.
    Fear is the mind-killer.
    Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
    I will face my fear.
    I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
    And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
    Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
    Only I will remain.”

  • dajeeps

    Knowingly letting that embodiment of a constitutional crisis stand is grounds for being primaried. We don’t want Nanny Fed. They can either get the picture or we find someone who does to take their place. I just couldn’t stomach a Republican hiding behind Queen Nancy’s health care monstrosity for one mnute, and less for even condisering it.

  • CSUFBomb

    I was diagnosed last November with advanced prostate cancer. I went on a Leave of Absence from my employer – surgery was unsuccessful. My employer terminated my employment at the end of my 90 day LOA because I was unable to return to work. I am currently on COBRA, but wondering what happens to me and my family post-COBRA.

    Obamacare is not the solution to coverage for pre-existing conditions (or cost control, or portability, or lower premiums, etc.), but I am suddenly *extremely* interested in finding a free market alternative. The Republicans need to have an alternative ready to launch ASAP when Obamacare is repealed. If the solution is high-risk pools, they need clear messaging explaining how these pools would work for those of us who have been left in medical limbo through no fault of our own.

    They also need to push hard on the critical importance of portability. If my health insurance wasn’t dependent on my employer, I wouldn’t be in my current predicament.

    • Menlo

      I’m not sure if it is helpful for you, but it is one alternative to look into.

      Also, if you could attend a local junior college at least half-time, you could get insurance without the preexisting condition limitations (and premiums less than $100 a month).

      Regardless, insurance companies are not going to do anything new or different unless the government directs them to.

    • mschmitt

      http://www.redstate.com/mschmitt/2010/03/25/after-repeal-a-common-sense-alternative-to-hcr/

      • CSUFBomb

        There are many free market solutions to all aspects of the healthcare debate. Conservatives face a much more difficult challenge in marketing and messaging our solutions because they’re more complex arguments than the “we’ll cover that because we’re the government and we say we will” meme used by the other side.

        • mschmitt

          And, sorry about your illness.

    • rascott

      as much difference in any of these schemes.

      Some people are going to have predictibly higher expected medical costs that are not ever going to affordable to them. The only solution to that is large pooling mechanisms where large amounts of healthy people subsidize small amounts of unhealthy people.

      High-risk pools do nothing except charge reinsurance fees to all of the insurance companies operating in the market. Which the healthy then pay for in slightly higher premiums.

      THERE IS NO WAY in a society that refuses to deny treatment to people that you don’t end up socializing the cost of covering the ill. NO WAY. NO MODEL. Nothing. Its simple mathematics.

      There are 2 options.

      1) Deny chonically ill people care; or
      2) Socialize the cost

      • janis

        to take over a sixth of the nation’s economy in order to achieve a solution to problems such as this. High risk pools in various states, drug companies providing meds at reduced rates, or, occasionally, for free (as they are doing right now), there are good solutions that solve individual problems.

        But that’s not what Obama & Co. are after, now, is it? They are after control of our lives and they are after our money to spend as they see fit. Please don’t shill for them.

        • rascott

          I don’t support Obama care. I support elimintating the employer-based system, using HSAs to empower consumers, and finding out how you most efficiently pay for medical care. All starting from the assumption that HC costs are already socialized in our system, via cost-shifting. Why do you think an MRI costs as much as it does in the US vs other countries? Because the provider has to make up for all the non-paying care they give.

          You seem to be content with the current system where we have a death spiral insurance model that creates more and more cost-shifting. High risk pools that you mention are nothing but cost-shifting too. Do you even understand how they are funded? They are funded by reinsurance fees TO INSURERS whow then pass that along in higher premiums to everyone else.

          • janis

            And until you listed your positions in this single comment, your every statement sounded as if you were promoting socialized medical care. The misunderstanding was created by that.

            I also support eliminating the employer based system, HSA’s, and paying for my own medical myself. Yes, I know why health care costs have skyrocketed in this country and it’s not just because of providers having to make up for the non=payers in the system. It’s also caused by the ever-diminishing payments to health care providers from the government run medical programs already in place. Such as Medicare and Medicaid, which are bankrupt already. For what it’s worth, my father made his living in insurance, I’ve worked in that field paying health insurance claims, and I’ve also worked in the medical field.

            Oh, and I’m uninsured myself.

      • Scope

        n/t

        • rascott

          Obamacare. I DO NOT support Obamacare.
          Read my positions above. Not even close to Obamacare.

    • penguin2

      You are in a tough and painful personal situation. We have needed reform and as many have pointed out, just not the stuff that has been shoved down our throats. Your individual circumstances show the severity of the problem with employer dependent health care.

      Aside from that, please know that you and your family are in prayer and I am sure there are others here that join me in wishing you the assistance and help you need. May you have comfort and strength to get you through this.

      • rascott

        Not focusing on eliminating employer-based care was the major flaw from the start of Obamacare.

        From a practical standpoint, given where we are, CSUFBomb should really look into the availabilitly of these new high-risk pools that I believe go into effect right away under Obamacare. Of course, if his state offers something similar, he might be better off going that route.

      • rascott

        Not focusing on eliminating employer-based care was the major flaw from the start of Obamacare.

        From a practical standpoint, given where we are, CSUFBomb should really look into the availabilitly of these new high-risk pools that I believe go into effect right away under Obamacare. Of course, if his state offers something similar, he might be better off going that route.

      • CSUFBomb

        I absolutely agree with need to push portability over employer-dependent health care.

        I have always taken pride in being able to help carry the burden for my colleagues, my employees, my friends, and my family. Since my diagnosis last November, I have had to ask these same people to carry my burden. It

      • aesthete

        is that it would make the labor market more flexible, and help eliminate some of the “stickiness”.

    • irish2dabone

      CSUFBomb, best of luck to you from a 12-yr cancer survivor. So I get-it! Until you are labeled as having a ‘pre-existing condition’ it all becomes a mute point.

      I will be brief… this provision will work like it does with Life Insurance and Auto Insurance… you are NOT DENIED coverage… but you will pay out the nose for that coverage. 4-yr’s ago I was finally able to find a Life Insurance Co who would cover me, despite having been in total remission for 8-yrs. They wanted to charge me $1k per month for a $250k Term Life policy.

      Regardless, there have been great strides made with your form of cancer and I wish you well… and I suspect by 2014 when this provision kicks-in, it will be applied to your situation… but you better pull the cover’s back on it before you get too excited.

      You can thank this Administration for not allowing anyone to read the bill first before digging deeper in hopes of clearing this one up.

  • DirtyDave

    I sent an email to Sen. John Cornyn yesterday about his feeble response to Obamacare. I got a letter this morning about why my unemployment benefits could not be extended.

    With opposition like this to Obama, what could possibly go wrong?

  • DONTREADONME

    well, forgive me, but that’s all I have to. Now 0bama is threatening you to repeal it? What should I expect the GOP to do? Nothing. This is an utter waste of time, I have been trying to make a difference for almost two years now, and what do I have to show for it, nothing. A bunch of impotent lazy ass GOP mother f’ers that are useless (4 f’in days is all we could manage in the Senate, freak em all), and a Media that changes the story to people like us threatening the Democrats, and we f’in take the bait?

    The f’in scared GOP’ers won’t go after pre-existing conditions, well that’s the thing that’s going to screw it up for the majority of people. If you do not go after that, than no sense in repealing anything because the GOP are useless idiots. Of course there are about maybe 3 people in the Senate that are worth a damn. Yeah I am pissed.

    WTF everyone, if you seriously think we made a difference in the GOP you are sadly mistaken because we have passed the line, no turning back, they got their control and no one is going to repeal it. Save your money and spend time with your family because we are powerless and you can stand around writing and working hard to stop something until your blue in the face but for what, nothing, and what about your family? I think its wiser to spend time with your family now, because no matter how much you think your helping to prevent future trouble for your children the more time you waste, this BS is going forward whether you like it or not. To attempt to stop a moving freight train of socialism is suicide! Just give-up, I have, not enough people and time left to stop this. See ya.

    • Christine (Trelaina)

      We do have reason to fight. This is NOT the end. We are only STARTING to make a difference. We didn’t lose control in 4 days (or a month or a year, even) and we won’t get it back that quickly either. We need resolve.

      Take this weekend off. Don’t watch or read the news, don’t visit blogs. Relax with family & friends. Eat good food. Pray.

      Come back Monday rested and ready to join the fight.

  • archer52

    I hunt. There are moments during a hunt when the opportunity for a classic shot comes available. Things I write stories about. I get all giddy inside just before I drop the hammer.

    This is one of them. I am excited at the opportunity Castro has provided the Republicans. Here is the commercial. The narrator says;

    “One of Obama’s biggest fans, the designer of one of the world’s first nationalized healthcare systems congratulates Obama and the democrats on following his path. As you do the dialogue, show photos of a typical Cuban home, hospital, hospital bathroom (I saw it on another post, yuck!), what their clinics look like, the people standing in line, etc. Then end up with a photo of Castro and Obama side by side. Then have a caption, was this your idea of “hope and change?”

    The left would go insane, but it would not be a lie. Even the bumper sticker mentality of much of America would be able to relate Castro to Obama. Frankly, I think we can put down the charade that Obama is anything but a hardcore leftist. So that defense they give him won’t work any longer either. Those Americans still on the edge and not sure would ask if Obamacare is so good, why is Castro supporting it?

    That is a question no liberal can answer without looking like he is waving a communist flag.

    The Republicans need to hammer Obama for what he truly is and quit being nice.

  • irish2dabone

    People, people… you just don’t get it… it’s a total “shell game” being played on you and Nobody is reporting on it.

    While the concept of ‘Pre-existing Conditions’ being covered in this HC Reform bill, you need to pull the cover’s back on this one, as with the rest of the bill that Pelosi didn’t want you read, or know about.

    As a cancer survivor, I know first-hand how the game is played… the bottom line is that ‘while you may not be denied coverage’, what they (both sides of aisle) aren’t telling you is that the COST for being covered by ‘Pre-existing Coverage’ will be astronomical for the majority of American’s.

    Great examples would be:
    Life Insurance… When I was ‘finally able’ to be considered for buying Life Insurance, I was NOT DENIED, but it would have cost me $1,000.00 per month and that was 4-yr’s ago.

    Car Insurance… you are NOT DENIED auto insurance after you incur an accident, or pick-up a few tickets, etc. but it will cost you a considerable amount more to obtain it after the fact… and the same goes for this Provision in the bill.

    Wake-up America!

    • rascott

      inherent flaw of individually underwriting health insurance policies. Hence the whole idea of pooling healthy and sick people together and ‘smoothing’ out the expected benefit costs.

  • jdw4america

    I’m no scholar, but I’m no dummy either…here’s my two cents. Years ago, when I was a child, way, way back in the 60′s, almost nobody had health insurance. That was for the people who had really well paying jobs with something called “benefits.”

    I grew up poor, in the bad ole south bronx, where nobody had any money, so we didn’t notice we didn’t either. The amazing thing was, that we went to the doctor when we were sick. We even got to go to the hospital. I was born in what used to be called a public hospital. These institutions had you sign a promissory note, and you paid your bill on a monthly basis. -What a concept. There are no public hospitals now.

    My family has insurance now. My daughter’s last trip to the ER for a costs us $1600. The doctor spent 6 minutes with her. I remember my family doctor, from 1964, Dr. Rex made housecalls that lasted an hour or two and cost $10.

    Healthcare costs have skyrocketed. Why? Not, I repeat NOT because of the evil health insurance companies, whose costs even according to barry and co. is responsible for only 4% of medical costs, but because misguided compassion for the poor led to the government interventions known as Medicare and Medicaid.

    Because the left cannot imagine that average, working class people can actually get through their lives without eternally suckling on the government’s enormous mammary glands, they forced everyone to pay – through the nose and into the red – for these misguided programs. If they had left the people ALONE – what a concept – the escalating costs would not have exploded as they have because the FREE MARKET would have kept them low.

    Fraud and waste and a lack of a free market for healthcare has caused insurance to be necessary for most of us. How ironic the very programs instituted to help the poor make it virtually impossible for them to get sick.

    • rascott

      totally. I would add that another huge driver, beyond Medicare, though is tax free employer-based health care.

      Since its tax-free, employers and employees load it the policies up so they cover as much as feasibly possible. So we’ve ended up with a system that is heatlh “insulation” rather than health “insurance”. Third-party payments are made for almost all care for those that have ‘insurance’.

      Its really been the tax subsidy that is the inherent flaw in the system.

      • hickorystick

        Hickorystick

    • hickorystick

      My mom’s bill for delivering a baby at the hospital was less than your daughters visit to the ER. The big difference in price is because in those days, hospitals and government could not be sued for money. I forget the term. The ability to be sued has altered a loy of behavior by the hospitals and doctors. The care has improved in most ways (except time spent with the Doctor). The technology has skyrocketed. But the costs are ridiculous.

      • irish2dabone

        So Hickorystick… I am not in disagreement, but wanted to share something with you that ties into your comment. When I was in the military (its own form of national healthcare) many years ago, all my healthcare needs were taken care of free of charge… well sort of, it did cost me $15 when my daughter was born…. and of course the American taxpayer (myself included) had to pay the tab for gov’t employees… kinda like what’s happening moving forward today… except were paying 4-years in advance for something we won’t see until 2014 (Hmmm, what happens to all our money we pay into this HCR if the bill is ‘repealed’… kinda like Social Security going away for those like me paying into it the past 40-yr’s, but thats another story).

        What I really want to emphasize here to you and others has to do with Law Suits… You see, those receiving Gov’t healthcare benefits are NOT ABLE to suit the Gov’t or their employed physicians for malpractice… well, at least not without an act from God. My point being that with the Gov’t now taking control of everyone’s healthcare, we are in for a Big Surprise very soon.

        • hickorystick

          I looked at some of your other comments, and you seem well informed on the details and issues of this bill. My head is spinning from this whole thing right now, so I won’t try to add anything substantive. I would encourage you to use the diary feature of this website. It helps in focussing an idea on one single issue. Look forward to reading what you have to say.
          By the way, my GreatGreatGrandfather brought his family to America in 1871, from LimaVady Ireland. I have been doing a lot of research lately about the historical roots and culture of my Scots-Irish brethren.

  • Scope

    but I think we hoped he would at least be a semi-good Republican, especially where Obamacare was concerned. Not so. He made a statement that the Republicans don’t want to repeal the whole bill, especially the good parts like pre-existing conditions and some other parts, I don’t remember which. Wasn’t his biggest promise that he would fight Obamacare? Or did he mean just parts of it? His statement was in reference to the question- Do the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare.

  • jdw4america

    Who have made their living, like the former “dreamboat” and always repulsive mr edwards, launching insane, literally insane lawsuits which equally insane juries have rewarded!

    OOOOOH! I’ma gonna sue youuu! You missed that ingrown toenail when you were performing CPR on me! Malpractice! Malpractice!

    Leave us alone. We do our jobs, support our kids, pay our bills. All we want is to be left ALONE.

  • irish2dabone

    Time to pull the cover’s back on another HCR rouse… or should I say, a topic best not discussed in public debate. Ok Nancy, they took your advise and didn’t ‘read the bill first’ and now we know why.

    So let me get this straight… those Americans who decide to opt out of buying HC Insurance for themselves will incur anon-proportionate, “minimal” fine, compared to those of us responsible enough to pay the thousands of dollars annually to cover ourselves.

    Point 1: they are fined $295 to $495 for not having insurance (hopefully it will be per family member not covered??) while I pay thousands of dollars in Premiums to cover not only myself, but for the millions of those under a certain income level who still won’t pay a dime into the system, not to mention the payroll tax associated with having an Out of Network plan so my family can continue to see our physicians??? Shouldn’t the penalty for opting out of coverage be worse then what others are paying annually for coverage as a means of “motivating” them to obtain coverage? This ‘fine’ would be comparable to placing a $10,000 fine on an athlete making $50M a yr. So I ask you all… “How many of us will chose to pay the fine instead of paying for HC Insurance? Do the math now… tens of millions of American’s will now drop their HC Insurance and opt to pay the $295 to $495. Now that’s a savings!! Maybe that’s what BO had in mind when he said our “premiums” would go down?

    Point 2: Of equal, if not GREATER concern for ALL American’s, is that there are certain groups of people who will be EXEMPT from paying the FINES for non-coverage… did you know that America?? That’s right… it’s been recently revealed that there are certain groups exempt from paying for Insurance: Besides those making under a certain income, there are the Muslims (English translation for their ‘term’ is “Forbidden”); The Scientologists; and the Amish to name a few. Let’s see, how many more American’s will now drop their Insurance coverage and opt to pay the ‘fine’ versus Thousands for HC Insurance? Better yet, how many of us will consider changing our religions to benefit from this Loop-hole?

    My bringing this up is not based on racial or anti-religious reasons… but instead; because “we” apparently are not all “created equal” when it comes to this HCR bill, as seen by other’s being exempt from its impact. Unions and their ‘cadillac’ plans exempt… This President and his Executive Administration (& families) not having to “join” this plan, and then there are those States who received ‘special deals” on Medicaid, airport funding, etc.

    Wake up America!

    • rascott

      your numbers are a little off, the fine starts at $95 in 2014, and goes up to $750 by I think 2016. But those are the MINIMUM fines.

      The text actually says its the Greater of the $750 fine or 2.8% of your income, up to the cost of an “average” policy.

      Regarding people droppoing their policy since the fine was less, why wouldn’t they just drop them now, there is $0 fine? I don’t understand that argument.

      I agree with your second point.

      • irish2dabone

        touche’… I am a big enough man to “stand corrected” when I misspeak. Your correcting my number’s around the fines are appreciated…

        As for people (more I’m assuming) not dropping their insurance now with $0 fines… that’s a “depends” kinda answer. I haven’t dropped mine for 40-yr’s now and continue to pay ever-increasing premiums for myself and family (not to mention for those without insurance). I suppose because it’s the “responsible” thing to do… and being in HC I see a lot of “stuff” that most people outside of it do not. As a cancer survivor, I learned first-hand about the costs one can incur… and that my Fee’s for Svc Iwhich was charged were “inflated”. I also know that thanks to Gov’t mandates levied on these HC Provider’s (Hosp., Physicians, Dx Clinics, etc) to provide Free HC to many of the uninsured… resulted in the mentioned HC Provider’s having to off-set their losses for abiding my these mandatory regulations, was the cause for “inflating” their Fee’s for Svc. Being the ‘responsible’ person I am, I passed those “inflated” Fee’s for Svc onto my Insurance Provider… who paid the vast majority of the Fee’s. However; in turn, the Insurance Provider who just paid for the “inflated” charges levied on me by the hosp, , Physicians, chemo, medications, Dx Testing, etc. is then forced to offset their losses (of others insured with them faced with such ‘inflated’ costs), by increasing their Premiums each yr. You’ll have to trust me when I say I am no great fan of Insurance companies, period. But from a business perspective, I can understand why they have to increase their Premiums.

        I can tell you are quite insightful Rascott, so if your still with me… you will agree that with this HCR bill and its new Gov’t mandates on every business, will lead to their “increasing” the cost of their goods and services to the Public in an effort to “offset” their having to pay more to provide their employee’s HC Insurance, not to mention having to absorb the increases endured by businesses they do business with… Domino effect! Restaurants in CA are already adding these surplus fees to their patrons and its coming to a business near you and I… Did you see the announcement fr Verizon yesterday? BTW, thanks for sticking with me.

      • Jack_Savage

        “Regarding people droppoing their policy since the fine was less, why wouldn

        • rascott

          way. Why would someone drop coverage, pay a fine, and then go buy coverage? Or are you saying they’ll go “naked” without insurance and just pay the fine? That woudn’t be rational either, as they would still be financially liable just as they are today. Obviously if they are broke it doesn’t matter, but it doesn’t seem rationale to set yourself up for possible bankruptcy.

          Or are we mixing up the discussion of insurnace coverage and actually getting health care?

          • eastbaylarry

            The fines, even at maximum, will cost less than the ‘ever rising’ premiums. So ecomonically it makes sense for a healthy young person to pay the fines and skip the insurance, spending or saving the difference.

            Since ‘pre-existing conditions’ won’t prevent getting insurance at some latter time, it will be fiscally sound policy to skip the insurance until one actually DOES get sick.

          • Jack_Savage

            Receiving health care coverage and receving health care are two very, very different things.

            I think they will go “naked” without the insurance, pay the fine, then when they get sick they’ll buy the coverage since insurers will be forced to cover them. They’ll get the care they’ll need initially on an emergency basis, then the pre-exisiting condition will be covered. They could bank the money they saved, although I am sure they’ll spend it on tattoos and crack.

        • irish2dabone

          I beg to differ sir… there is and has been Gov’t subsidized HC. I see it “daily”. Look to the hundred’s of Free Clinics and HC Ctr’s around this country. I could name some starting in CA (I believe that is just one reason they are bankrupt). Then there is a hosp on the South side of Chicago… Just last yr Sebilius and Biden were there launching a program. An RN there was outraged & quoted as she shared stories how some of the indigent in her hospital were throwing bedpans and their contents at the staff because they weren’t happy with the Free Care they were receiving, yet more Gov’t $$ keep getting poured into these facilities…

          I have to stop before I go-ff on other tangents regarding the absence of existing Gov’t Subsidized HC. Trust me, it exists!!

          • Jack_Savage

            I am guilty of imprecise language. What I meant is that those of us who work for a living and have health care provided by our employers have no other option than to buy health care coverage on our own if we are dropped. In the future, we will be covered by the gov’t, which is why we will be dropped.

    • JSobieski

      What you consider “flaws” Obama considers to be features

  • rascott

    point. The fine is actually the Greater of either $750 or 2.8% of your income, up to the price of an “average” policy.

    As to people dropping their policy, why wouldn’t people just drop their policy now and pay $0 fine? I don’t understand that argument at all.

    I agree with your second point.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      1) The US went from a historically low period of unemployment. 8% was considered disaster. Now we will have a shade under 10 for at least the rest of the decade according to Sec. Treas TG. Workers have less leverage and can’t just tell an employer to shove off.

      2) The fines actually legitimize the practice. Society would excoriate an employer who just said “kfuc em. I just uninsured the workforce cuz I wanna eat more cheeburgers.” It becomes “different” if they pay a fine, even a piddling one, in accordance with a Federal Law.

      The Book “Freakonomics” has a study where a day care center asked everyone nicely to get their kids on time and had a tolerable rate of late pick-ups. The day care center then instituted a financail fine that wasn’t a big deal. Late pick-ups shot way up. Moral suassion is more persuasive than an ineffective fine structure.

      • Jack_Savage

        When the day care center posted the names of the offenders, late pick ups stopped.

        FWIW, my company would be complete idiots if they did not drop our insurance. They pay 70% of mine, which is a Cadillac plan. I have surgeries scheduled through the end of the year.

      • rascott

        though I took the posters comments about ‘dropping coverage’ as meaning individuals, ala the individual mandate. I see you are talking about the employer mandate piece. What you say is quite true, though I’m not sure what the fine is on the employer (over 50 employees), if they don’t offer insurnace. I do believe its quite a bit higher than the individual penalty.

  • jdw4america

    Maybe barry or nancy will consider adoption?

    Seriously, the issue of healthcare reform as an abstract notion must remain secondary to the core issue of this treasonable act. The government has no right to compel the people to buy anything under penalty of law. Period.

    Everything else in it – the pork, the bribes, the “redefinition” of gender so as to sneak gay marriage thru the back door – no pun intended – the inequities in the law, the incredible, bankrupting cost, all of these things, valid as they are must be secondary concerns. We are not serfs to be ordered about by our masters.

    If we do not hold fast here, on this point, we lose everything else. We know this to be a fact. Do you think fidel gives one rat’s tutu about whether Mr or Mrs Just An Average American can get a nose job? No, he sees this as what it is – the US, his greatest enemy is starting its journey to socialism and he, chavez and others like them will reap the benefits while our nation becomes a memory

  • chabsentia

    I have explained this before but I will explain it again. Scotus will not repeal it. For decades both parties have been trampling on the U.S. Constituiton. There has been no challenges by either party either time.The Commerce clause has been used when it did apply and when it didnt apply. Thus the Commerce clause has become too broad. The Health Bill cant be repealed under the Commerce clause because it would open other possible suits regarding it. Congress has the sole power to tax. By hiring 16,500 new IRS agents to enforce the mandate they have created a tax authority. Therefore the Commerce clause will cover the mandate. The only recourse that the States might have a chance would be the increase in unfunded liabilties and then they would have to create a system based upon Federal guidelines. There is no guaranty that taxes would not have to be raised within the State to support it.

    Pre-exisitng conditions for Children start immediately. High risk pools will be created for adults. High risk pools are more expensive,There will not be a program for competitive rates for them until 2014.

    If you exclude people who can afford to buy Insurance but choose not to because they want to spend the money on someting else and the illegals then there are about 15 million people without Insurance. They are people with pre-existing conditions, people who have lost it temporarily because it is not portable and they are in between jobs and people who really cant afford it. There are also people who qualify for Medicaid and are not aware of it. It would be far cheaper and more efficient to address these 15 million and let the others reamain able to choose. The Problem is that this wealth re-distribution through Health Care will not work unless all those that are able to pay will be forced to pay. This is the same principle in Health Insurance today where costs are high because the people who have insurance must pay for the Hospitals that have to provide the service and the people that dont get the service do not pay.Credit cards have a high rate for the loan to compensate for those that dont pay for them etc,

    This is not Health care reform. It is Health Insurance reform. Health care Stocks started going up in value the minute that ir was passed . If it had been adverse to them then they would have gone down. AARP is a big supporter of it because they all are salivating over the thirty two miilion new prospects for their Health Care divisions and since Amnesty for illegals is the next Bill that will be pushed through with the same process then they will have another
    12 million more prospects.