Mike Richards: "Why would you demand that someone else pay for your health
insurance? "????????? The whole point of insurance is to share
risk. If I make a claim on my health insurance, someone else's $$$ are
paying for my care. This is how insurance works. I'm not asking anyone
else to pay for my premiums. The bigger the risk pool the lower the rates.
That's why we require everybody to have auto insurance. If young healthy
people refuse to participate in ACA their rates when they do elect to
participate later in life should be much higher than they would have been had
they elected to participate now. Isn't that how private health insurance
works? Oh and BTW, Mike, you must know if you are middle age and try to get
private insurance without ongoing coverage you will either be denied coverage or
pay sky high premiums.
No, RedShirt, I did not skip over it. I just cannot reprint the entire report
here. The PDF is 29 pages, but for any one interested I recommend reading it.
And yes it is complicated. And yes if people like RedShirt or Rush Limbaugh want
to cherry pick quotes they can try to imply that everyone's rates are going
to skyrocket. But it just ain't true. A very small group will see an
increase in premiums. But many others won't, or they will see a decrease.
But read it and judge for yourself. Don't believe what I say;
definitely don't believe what Redshirt tells you. More from the
report about the group you are talking about Redshirt:Thus, the
amount that subsidized enrollees would pay for nongroup coverage would be
roughly 56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average, than the nongroup premiums
charged under current law. Among nongroup enrollees who would not receive new
subsidies, average premiums would increase by somewhat less than the 10 percent
to 13 percent difference for the nongroup market as a whole because some factors
discussed below would have different effects for those enrollees than for those
@Noodlekaboodle- if I want to reduce my insurance costs on my car, I can choose
not to live in high crime areas such as New York or Los Angeles. That's
called liberty. If you choose to live in an area that attracts large numbers of
uninsured people, such as California that likes to give away lots of free stuff,
you must accept the associated cost. That is also liberty. With ACA, there is
no liberty.Your assumption that insurance companies seek subscribers to
increase the risk pool is exactly backwards, they seek subscribers to increase
the premium pool. Having a sufficiently large risk pool is merely a statistical
requisite of insurance in the first place.@Roland Keyser-"To
Mountanman: We get Wal-Mart medical care at Nordstrom prices. We pay far more
than anyone else on the planet and yet we get worse health outcomes."Is that why everyone who can afford it wants to come to the U.S. for their
To "mark" the effects of the ACA on insurance costs is not that
complicated, just the wording used to explain it.From that same
report "Average premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher because a
greater amount of coverage would be obtained. In particular, the average
insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of
enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range
of benefits." That is the un-subsized effect of the ACA on insurance.You may have skipped over that part. The context of that quote is to
show how it is cheaper to individuals, meaning that with subsidies insurance is
cheaper to the individual. That is just a way of making insurance cost more and
masking it through subsidies, like the price of corn or wind energy.
"The legislation would have much smaller effects on premiums for employment-
based coverage, which would account for about five-sixths of the total health
insurance market. In the small group market, which is defined in this analysis
as consisting of employers with 50 or fewer workers, CBO and JCT estimate that
the change in the average premium per person resulting from the legislation
could range from an increase of 1 percent to a reduction of 2 percent in 2016
(relative to current law).6 In the large group market, which is defined here as
consisting of employers with more than 50 workers, the legislation would yield
an average premium per person that is zero to 3 percent lower in 2016 (relative
to current law). Those overall effects reflect the net impact of many relatively
small changes, some of which would tend to increase premiums and some of which
would tend to reduce them"- "An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"RedShirt,
that is from the CBO report you wanted us to read. I did. As the report shows,
the effect of the ACA on insurance costs is rather complicated.
To "Open Minded Mormon" Liberals hate the confines that the laws put on
them.Liberals detest 64% of America.Nobody "wrote
and signed petitions to secede from the Union because Pres. Obama was
re-elected". When people have wanted to secede from the Union is has always
been because those states did not agree with the policies coming out of
Washington.Crazy people are paranoid of government. No political
philosophy has any claim to all crazy people.Liberals are arming
their government paramilitary armies with lots of weapons, including assault
rifles, drones, and some tanks.Lets look at what happened during
some recent protests by liberal groups just to show the world that you are wrong
once again:"Flyer Found at Occupy Phoenix Ponders: ‘When
Should You Shoot A Cop?’" - The Blaze found a report by the ACTIC
where OWS activists were declaring when it is ok to kill a cop."May Day protest in NYC brings confrontations" DN typically May Day
protests are filled with liberals."Democrat urges unions to
'get a little bloody when necessary'" - The Hill.Can
you honestly say that Liberals are not inciting violence and have violent
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I
was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was
sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the
righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and
feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger
and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in
prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I
say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did
it to me.’
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "one vote" the Tea Party
will not cause a civil war. That will be the doing of the liberals and
Progressives. ========What the?...Who hates
the Government?Who detests 64% of America that is non-Republican?Who
wrote and signed petitions to secede from the Union because Pres. Obama was
re-elected?Who is paranoid of Government? Who is armed to the teeth
with assault rifles believing Government tanks are about to roll through their
streets?Ya - us "Liberals" who want rights for LGBTs, enjoy caring for the sick, elderly and the needy, like our Social
Security and ACA Obamacare for ALL Americans, seek better education, have few if any guns, and like our Government, Ya RedShirt, WE are
the ones who want to start a Civil War...
To "one vote" the Tea Party will not cause a civil war. That will be
the doing of the liberals and Progressives. Just look at the difference in
their protests.Tea Party protests are peaceful, and have no violence
perpetrated by its members. Now look at the liberal Protests, they almost
always end up with police hauling people away and all sorts of arrests.
The tea party will have to man the barricades soon. Will they cause a civil war?
To "LDS Liberal" you want facts, I have lots of facts.You
are wrong about why american's don't have insurance, and it has to do
with choice.The US Census found that 48% of the uninsured could
afford insurance. See "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2007"According to the Kaiser Family
Foundation 57% of the uninsured make less than $40,000/yr. That would qualify a
family to get insurance through various welfare programs.So, at the
time of passage, 95% of the uninsured qualified for some sort of insurance yet
made the choice to not get insurance.Let us see your
"facts", assuming you even have any.To "Open Minded
Mormon" getting the government out of the way is a viable option.According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance study, "HEALTH
INSURANCE MANDATESIN THE STATES" just the state mandates add 20% to
50% to the cost of insurance.Doing nothing would have been better
than the ACA. According to the CBO study "An Analysis of Health Insurance
Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" the insurance
premiums for most policies would increase. How does making insurance cost more
I've read and re-read all 43 comments.I have YET to hear of ONE
single "viable alternatives for Obamacare".Lots and lots of
Obama haters, and yet again - not one alternative.The letter
writer (Richard Burt) is correct, and all conservative Republican
commenters have once again nicely supported his claim.
@Edgar:"...if we just say goodbye to insurance companies and have a
single payer system, we'd all be better off."With a single
payer system, and the government being the single payer, you will find that the
government will be into your personal lives in the most abdominal way. The
government will tell you what healthcare you can have, even what you can eat,
and what exercise you must do in order to keep healthcare cost under control.@airnaut:"Utah Sen. Mike Lee has openly spoken of his hopes to
stop funding the Affordable Care Act with a government shutdown."Lee is misguided if he said that. He can't shut the government down...
What he really meant is that the government will shut down if the Senate and
White House doesn't agree to a House funding bill sans Obamacare funding.
It will not be Lee's fault. It will be the fault of the Senate or the
White House."Yours is the classic example of the current
dichotomy within the fractured, torn, ship without a rudder Republican
party."The problem with the Republican party is it let's
the Democrats get away with lies
@LDS Liberal:"Please show us all in the Constitution that Mike Lee is
authorized to shut down the Federal Government."These's but
one place in the Constitutions that authorizes one person to shut down the
government and that's in Article 1.7.2. If the president vetoes a budget
bill passed by both houses of Congress, the government will shut down and the
onus is his and his alone. Lee can't shut the government down by himself.
Either house of Congress can shut it down by refusing to pass a budget or a CR.
Remember, as someone posted above, the House is responsible for originating all
funding bills. If the Senate refuses to take the bill up it would be their
fault if the government shuts down. If both houses of Congress agrees to a
budget or CR and the president vetoes it, he is responsible if the government
shuts down."As far as I'm concerned -- that would make him
a Domestic Enemy or even a Terrorist.[You do it MY way or
else!...]"Are you referring to pres?
I asked my 12 year-old parrot his opinion on Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution.He said, "let me out of here... let me out of
here... let me out of here".
airnaut,You need to talk to my 12-year-old grandson. Mitt Romney had authority to mandate insurance in his state. Obama does not.
If you care to read the Constitution, you will see that health insurance is not
a duty of the federal government. You will also see that if something is not a
duty of the Federal Government, it is to be left to the States or to the people.
I asked my grandson to read Article 1, Section 8 and then to show
me the "health-insurance clause". He looked at me and said, "There
is no health-insurance clause". I then asked him to read the 10th Amendment.
He understood immediately that health insurance is a duty left to the States or
to the people. He's a sixth grader, yet he understands the Constitution
better than Obama. Romney was a governor of a state. He understood the 10th
Amendment.Article III, Section 2, states that the Supreme Court is
an appellate court (which requires that a case be appealed before being heard).
No ObamaCare tax has been levied. No appeal is in play. The Court must wait
until a lower courts rules.
@TheProudDuckNewport Beach, CAPreexisting conditions
aren't an issue for employer-based group health coverage, only the
individual market.========== You've never changed
jobs or moved to another state - have you?Denied!
LDS Liberal, I think your facts are wrong. As I recall, pre-Obamacare, the
estimates of uninsured Americans ran between 20 and 30 million. The number of
people who could not obtain affordable coverage because of preexisting
conditions was estimated at between 2 and 4 million. Not "most," not
even half -- barely a tenth. Preexisting conditions aren't an
issue for employer-based group health coverage, only the individual market. The
vast majority (about 92%) of Americans get health coverage through their
employers. So the problem that you're talking about, affects only some
small percentage of the remaining 8%. Preexisting coverage problems
for those people is something we can solve without restructuring the entire
health care industry. It's just a matter of counting up the people who
can't get insurance, calculating how much it will cost to provide them
care, and figure out where to get the money to bridge the gap between what those
people can pay and what it costs to care for them. We're talking a few
billion dollars and some high-risk insurance pools. We don't need the
PPACA monstrosity for that. But you never let a crisis go to waste.
The Proud Duck - Credible sources - if you ask me to, I will provide the sources
- have estimated that 30% of insurance companies' overhead is related to
legal costs of them fighting with policy holders and their attorneys to pay what
they owe to the provider. Of course insurance companies spend less per patient.
Anyone who has ever dealt with insurance companies knows how hard it is to get
to do what their contract says they should do. As sson as a hosptal sends a
bill, the first act of the insurance company is to turn it over to their legal
staff - the 30% part of their overhead - to scour every code book to find
loopholes that will allow to deny coverage. And so I agree, private insurance
companies spend less per policy holder than does Medicare. No brainer.But Medicare, even with the insurance cheats out their, still spends far less
in overhead. And I agree with Hutterite - if we just say goodbye to insurance
companies and have a single payer system, we'd all be beter off. Check out
the systemm in Taiwan.
@Mike Richards========Utah Sen. Mike Lee has openly
spoken of his hopes to stop funding the Affordable Care Act with a government
shutdown. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, however, is
warning against such an act.So Mike -- Which is it?Mike Lee or
Mitt Romney?You support both of them, but they can't seem to
agree on anything.Yours is the classic example of the current
dichotomy within the fractured, torn, ship without a rudder Republican party.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "Richard Burt" and
"LDS Liberal" the second best option to make healthcare more affordable
and to help encourage more people to get insurance was to do nothing. ======Excuse me, but I deal in a world filled with facts and
reality.The reason most Americans do not have Healthcare in America
has little to nothing at all to do with finances or being poor.MOST
people who did not have Healthcare in America were systematically denied
coverage due to pre-existing conditions, period.But go ahead and
keep stereotyping sick people along with the elderly and lazy.Since
they have NO real alternative, It seems to be the only argument
Republicans have left any more.
Truthseeker,Speaking of apples and oranges, we were talking about
the overall cost of healthcare, not the net effect on the federal deficit.
Speaking in New Hampshire on Tues (8/6/2013), Mitt Romney stated:"I badly want Obamacare to go away, and stripping it of funds has appeal.
But we need to exercise great care about any talk of shutting down government.
I'm afraid that in the final analysis, Obamacare would get its funding, our
party would suffer in the next elections, and the people of the nation would not
re:TheProudDuckFrom the CBO 5/2013"In March 2010, CBO and
JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance
coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014
through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at
that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710
billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening
projections of the cost of the ACA’s coverage provisions for those years
have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the
10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted.Those amounts DO NOT reflect the TOTAL budgetary impact of the ACA. That
legislation includes many other provisions that, ON NET, will REDUCE budget
deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and
JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and
in the subsequent decade."
NoodleI don’t know where you come up with the idea rates will go
down in NY and CA. An article by CNNMoney on yahoo reports insurance rates in NY
and CA will skyrocket as a result of Obamacare. Rates will also
increase in FL and OH, but they voted for BO, so they deserve getting stuck in
their wallets. Too bad those of us who oppose him are also getting hurt.
To "Richard Burt" and "LDS Liberal" the second best option to
make healthcare more affordable and to help encourage more people to get
insurance was to do nothing. By not adding new mandates and requirements for
insurers to follow would result in a small increase in premiums. That is the
second best option.The best option would have been to cut mandates
back to close to the 1980's level when there was about 1/10 the number of
mandates that there current are.If government then wanted to lower
costs they could have enacted tort reform, and made it so that more doctors
would enter the more expensive specialties such as OBGYN, Anestologist, or
surgeon.They could have also made it possible for insurance
companies to sell insurance across state lines, wich was another plan to lower
costs.Basically, the best way to lower costs would be to get the
government out of the business of controlling health insurance. The second best
option would be for government to do nothing.To "Hutterite"
a single payer system is not viable, and will only make care worse.
Edgar: Regarding that talking point about Medicare's and private
insurance's respective administrative costs, consider this:Medicare covers old people. Old people consume more care. So of *course* a
greater percentage of their total costs go to payment for care. Administrative
costs are essentially fixed. In fact, Medicare's absolute administrative
spending per patient is higher than private insurance companies. That is,
Medicare spends more dollars per patient on administrative costs than private
insurance does; the *ratio* of administrative costs to total costs is only lower
because private insurance's denominator is lower, because its patients
consume less actual care. I understand that Math is Hard, as is
comparing apples to apples.Also, about 10% of Medicare spending (it
has been estimated) is on fraudulent claims. For private insurance, the rate is
about 3%. Maybe Medicare could stand spending a little more on administration,
to try and prevent some of that 10% loss. The bottom line is that
Medicare is absolutely not more efficient than private insurance when it comes
@ NoodleYou really believe your whole fantasy of what you think
obamacare is? I'll bet you do! Your a real cool-aid drinker! Here is the
most accurate line in your whole scenario "meaning anyone with insurance
pays more". Subsidy, subsidy subsidy, that is what your saying an what it
really comes down to, and that doesn't make ANYTHING cheaper!
"The U.S. pays almost twice as much for medical services as does other
comparable countries."And Obamacare will not change that. For
all the talk of "bending the cost curve down," the latest CBO analysis
states that with Obamacare, the cost of medical care will continue to increase.
Thank you, Hutterite. This is, of course, the only sensible answer. The
health-care problem we face reminds me of a quote by the famous oil well
firefighter Red Adair: "I can do it quick, I can do it cheap, I can do it
well. Choose any two." What we want from a health-care system is for it to
provide (1) quality health care (2) to all citizens (3) at reasonable prices.
Currently, we have a system that tries only to achieve the first condition, and
it does a mediocre job at that. Most countries have decided that conditions 2
and 3 are most important, and they sacrifice a little in quality in order to
achieve those two, which they do quite admirably.If the Republicants
had ever given the slightest indication that they wouldn't scream
"Socialism" at the idea of a single-payer system, we wouldn't have
Romnobamacare right now, a pathetic attempt to somehow involve the holy
"market" in something it is not designed to succeed at. Someday they
will see the light, but by then it may be too late.
Of course there is a viable alternative. A single payer health care system is
viable, would improve outcomes and reduce costs.
@LDS Liberal:"And the difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is
what?..."Romney care is run by the state and is constitutional
(see the Tenth Amendment)... Obamacare is to be run by the federal
government... which is not authorized in the US Constitution.@LDS
Liberal:"Just plain old 'NO,' and that means NO to
everything including a complete and total Government shutdown..."Any government shutdown would not be the Republicans' fault.It goes something like this... Per the US Constitution, All funding bills
start in the House... which is controlled by Republicans. That means the House
has the duty, authority, and responsibility to determine the financial needs of
the government and to develop a budget. It is not the Senate's job. It is
not the President's job. It is the House's job. If the budget bill
is not approved by the Senate or the president, the onus for shutting down the
government, if it happens, falls on those bodies who did not approve the House
bill. That would be the Democrats since they control both the Senate and the
White House."Childish, silly and people fall for this
@HAHAWell, in states with large numbers of uninsured people, like New York
and California it reduces insurance rates due to a larger coverage pool. By
spreading risk over a larger pool a single catastrophic event for a participant
costs the group less. In addition if someone who is uninsured receives care that
they can't/don't pay for that cost is passed along to insurance
companies, meaning anyone with insurance pays more. In addition they have capped
how much of total expenditures can go toward administration(i believe it's
10%) meaning your insurance company can't take all your money then not
spend it on claims, if they fall below that percentage you receive a premium
refund check. The biggest thing is the increased pool, it's why insurance
companies are always fighting for more members, a bigger member base makes it
easier to manage cash flow and big claims aren't as devastating.
"We get Wal-Mart medical care at Nordstrom prices."And the
letter writer puts for the the same theory.Please please tell us how
Obamacare solves this! It does nothing to cut costs! Nobody is paying less for
healthcare, and getting big increase in quality!
re:MikeRichards"The Court has not yet ruled that the ObamaCare TAX is
legal. It has not been implemented. The Court can't rule until that tax is
implemented."What?You are mistaken. The issue of
the Supreme Court waiting until the tax was implemented was discussed before the
Supreme Court ruling. Some people thought the Court might "punt" and
wait until the tax was implemented. However, the Supreme Court chose not to
"punt" but ruled that the tax IS constitutional. "The
Supreme Court also ruled that it could proceed with considering the
constitutionality of the tax despite the Anti-Injunction Act, which dates back
145 years. The law said lawsuits can't be used to prevent taxing, only to
get refunded for taxes already paid. The high court said whether something is a
tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act is Congress' decision --
and since Congress designated the mandate as including a penalty rather than a
tax, the law did not apply in this case."(CNN)In sum, the
Supreme Court ruled it could take up the matter of the tax before it was
"Would you have Senator Lee disobey his oath of office? "Enough Mike.Yes, we would have Sen Lee disobey his oath of
office.Just like EVERY single senator before him.Tell
you what. Name ONE. Just ONE congressman or president that has not, in your
mind, disobeyed their oath of office.Name ONE.
To Mountanman: We get Wal-Mart medical care at Nordstrom prices. We pay far more
than anyone else on the planet and yet we get worse health outcomes.
Unlike your political dodgeball reply in which you did not answer my question, I
will answer yours."Why would you demand that Senator Lee do
something that he is not allowed to do?" This is according to your
opinion and strict personal interpretation of the Constitution that is at odds
with actual constitutional scholars.Why would you demand that
someone else pay for your health insurance? I pay, have payed, and will
continue to pay even though I have seldom used it. Seem to me that you and those
on the right are the only ones that believe that ACA is free, not sure where you
get that (radio)Why would you expect the federal government to do
something that is not allowed by the Constitution? This is according to
your opinion and strict personal interpretation of the Constitution that is at
odds with actual constitutional scholars and the actual century we currently
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah@Happy Valley Heretic,Would you have Senator Lee disobey his oath of office? ========= Mike -- Please show us all in the
Constitution that Mike Lee is authorized to shut down the Federal Government.As far as I'm concerned -- that would make him a Domestic Enemy or
even a Terrorist.[You do it MY way or else!...]
Mike Lee is a nothing but slash and burn politician. He offers no constructive
ideas beyond destroying, in so far as he can, the efficacy of the Federal
Government. And the sad truth is that if he accomplishes his odious task, he
will say, Look here I told you that government was no good, just look at all its
intransigent problems.And, as usual Mountanman has his facts all
@Happy Valley Heretic,Would you have Senator Lee disobey his oath of
office? He does not agree with you that the federal level of government has
authority to require health insurance. He can read the duties authorized to the
federal level of government. That list of duties is small. It does not include
mandatory health insurance. As a Senator, looking out for the interests of the
State of Utah, he is duty bound to NOT allow the federal level of government to
usurp the rights and duties of the States. He is doing exactly what he took an
oath to do. There should be 100 Senators and 435 members of the House who stand
with him. Unfortunately, most of them love their office more than they respect
their oath. Why would you demand that Senator Lee do something that
he is not allowed to do? Why would you demand that someone else pay for your
health insurance? Why would you expect the federal government to do something
that is not allowed by the Constitution?The Court has not yet ruled
that the ObamaCare TAX is legal. It has not been implemented. The Court
can't rule until that tax is implemented.
Mountanman - A simple fact should be considered when arguing for the current
private insurance industry. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation,
administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating
expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs
as 17 percent of revenue.That's according to those defending
the insurance industry. Imagtine what the truth would reveal. Our current
system leaves more than 10% of our population without insurance - most of whom
would like to have it. It also allows free-loaders who refuse to pay for
insurance even through they can afford it, to reap the benefits of a benevolent
system that won't turn away people from the emergency room. The rest of us
end up picking up the tab for those costs through higher service costs at
Mike Richards said: The fact that Senator Lee does not drink the federal
"health insurance cool-aid" does not mean that he has no alternative.
"The fact is Senator Lee drinks the "Health Insurance
Companies Champagne" (192 million dollars-Thanks Joe) on the taxpayers dime
while presenting, what was that alternative you mentioned mike? Oh yeah you must
have faith that he has an alternative plan because you didn't mention any
and he doesn't on his site either.
Richard,Belize has fewer combat casualties than the US.Obamacare does just as must to address the disparity in combat deaths as it
does the cost of healthcare.Lds?libThe difference? Romneycare was wanted by the citizens of MA, Obamacare was opposed by the
majority of US citizens.When it was instituted, no one knew whether
or not Romneycare would increase access to healthcare or reduce costs; when
Obamacare was passed, we knew from the Romneycare failure that Obamacare would
also fail.The old definition of insanity applies, repeating the same
thing over and over hoping for a difference result. Obamacare is insane because
we knew from Romneycare it would fail.
Sen Lee has only one objective and that is to get noticed. It's too bad if
he hasn't come up with a viable option that the Koch Brothers would approve
of. I think he is afraid his own healthcare coverage will be effected when the
ACA is fully implemented. It must be nice for the oblivious to sit in their
small NW community, with great healthcare benefits, gloating to others that
"that's it too bad you're not me". Anyone that thinks that all
have access to the great healthcare system we hear about hasn't been sick.
For five years now, Republicans have been telling us they're going to
"repeal and replace" Obamacare. The Republican House has now voted forty
times to repeal it, but not one single proposal to replace it has surfaced.
I'd take them more seriously if they actually had an alternative.
The fact that Senator Lee does not drink the federal "health insurance
cool-aid" does not mean that he has no alternative. The only proper
alternative is to let the States and the people handle health-insurance. It is
not a function of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that
ObamaCare is nothing more than a tax. It is the largest tax increase ever
foisted on America. Obama denied that it was a tax. He told us that we could
keep our present health-insurance. He told us that ObamaCare would save each
family $2,500 per year. He told us that ObamaCare would cover ALL the
uninsured. He told us all of those lies and many more about ObamaCare.Lee knows his duty as a Senator and as someone who has taken an oath to defend
the Constitution. What happened to Hatch? Why has he backed down from his
promise to get rid of ObamaCare? Why isn't he standing side-by-side with
Lee?Health care falls under the 10th Amendment. Romney knew that.
Obama knows that. Lee is acting on that knowledge.
No hope, No solutions, No ideas,No alternatives, No
better options, Just plain old "NO", and that means NO
to everything including a complete and total Government shutdown...Childish, silly and people fall for this baloney?
@MountanmanHayden, ID======== That was
hilarious!You voted for Mitt Romney, did you not?And the
difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is what?...
Of course not Mr Burk.This is a complex problem. The goal of any
fix is to reduce the out-of-control costs.If that were to happen, it
would hurt a cash cow for many businesses.These businesses pay dearly in
the form of lobbying and campaign funding in order to keep the status quo and
hence their obscene profits.In 2012, the insurance industry paid
about $42 million in campaign contributions to congress.Then they added
another $150 Million in Lobbying money. Thats in 2012 aloneWhy do
they spend so much? Why do you think.Our congressmen may be voting
their conscience, but when they receive so much money from those they affect, it
is impossible to tell.We argue daily about R and D. But, in
reality, both R and D votes have been bought and paid for.
No alternative for Obamacare? Nonsense! The free market has provided the best
medical care the world has ever seen right here in the US. Unaffordable you say?
Getting rid of the tort lawyers who have their parasitic hands in the system
will do more to control costs than Obamacare ever will. Remember folks, you get
what you are willing to pay for, there is no such thing as Nordstrom medical
care at Wall-Mart prices. Anybody tells you different (even Barrack Obama) is
lying as we all shall soon see with Obamacare! All Obamacare will do is inflate
medical care costs then transfer those costs to taxpayers, as the government
always does, but that will not make it cheaper or better.