The hypocrisy of right wing conservative "Partiers" is astounding. Even
among my own conservative extended family members, they talk the Hannity-esque
talk and throw around the Limbaugh-ish buzzwords and zingers, but when they had
children with health problems, they ran right to the government; when they lost
their jobs in this "free market" economy in Utah, they immediately filed
for unemployment. They preach that Churches and charities should take care of
the poor and needy, but when they had a serious medical issue and went to the
Church, they were turned away and sent to the government. Yet they still
harangue against Obama and liberal Democrats - the political tradition without
which they would either be indentured servants, homeless, dead, or all three!
To "Open Minded Mormon" we know what side of the political spectrum the
Nazis came from. It is the same side that has given us the ACA and so many
other failed social welfare programs.
@AlfredPhoenix, AZYes, but the government making those
sinister decisions is not very comforting... and conjures up Germanys deciding
the fate of eight million German citizens.======= Alfred
-- WWI history 101:German law was passed for the elimination
of "undesiraibles" to German Society.The Nazi party then
used this stating this applied to the terminally ill who were costing the German
taxpayers too much money with no hope of a full or meaning ful recovery.[Money wasted to a hopeless cause.]That played so well, they later
expanded that interpretion to mean the elimination of other
"undesireables" to their society:the poor,the
homeless, the alcoholics and drug addicts, the liberals, the
communists, the gays, the immigrants, and of course the Jews.
You might want to study up as to which side of the political
spectrum the Nazis come from.
The Truth,From the Heritage Foundation's web page: "Founded
in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution - a
think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public
policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government,
individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national
defense."The individual mandate was introduced in a few pieces
of failed legislation introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993.The
mandate was a conservative idea (still is - it pushes folks to be self reliant
vs. depend on the govt.) and was first introduced by Republicans.It
is what it is.
@Twin Lights'promote' is not the same as
'wrote'.And it was quite clear to everyone the whole
thing would not work without a mandate that would fund it.I am not
republican so do not care what what the establishment republicans
"promoted", They were wrong and the extreme left is wrong. The fact remains they didn't write it, and furthermore that it was just
plain bad for America.
Just because Democrats walk in lock-step and act like drones... doesn't
make them right!What ever happened to the need for DIVERSITY of
thought? Have you Democrats given up on that completely?If so...
why do you CRITICIZE Republicans for having some diversity? And PRAISE
Democrats for acting like drones. All doing the same thing, saying the same
thing, acting the same way... that's not diversity. What happened to the
liberals I grew up with... that questioned everything? They don't exist
anymore. They are only interested in branding, and unity, and conformity, and
being "on-message". What happened to the rebel liberals?
To "Tyler D" who are wrong. If I choose to not buy insurance and pay
for everything out of pocket, and if I can't pay for it out of pocket I
don't get the service I am not affecting others.I never said
that I was free from responsibility. In fact I said that I was being
responsible by paying for my care myself.Didn't you read my
post at 9:44 clearly. I was quite clear that I was being responsible.Either way, if I have insurance or not I am betting. With insurance I am
betting that my medical needs will meet or exceed my premiums. Usually I lose
that bet.Why do you think you can run my life better than I can?
@RedShirtMIT – “To "Tyler D" you are just being a
simpleton.”Nice…And are you going to address
Twin’s pointed question (why you’re not buying insurance does in
fact affect others) or just keep sounding like a ultra-conservative Hallmark
card? Why do you prefer platitudes over details?Why are
you promoting a notion of freedom that seems to be free of responsibility? What
gives you the right to impact others in negative ways? Why do you
want others to clean up your mess?[sarcasm on]Why do you hate
RedShirt,You're not reading me correctly. I am MORE than
willing to let you do whatever you want. If you will sign a contract that says
you will refuse ALL monies from ANY source other than your immediate family to
deal with issues related to an illness. That you will die rather than take a
dime of taxpayer or charitable money. If so, I am perfectly okay with you
having no insurance.Note that self insurance is a myth if you
don't have about a cool $500K or so in the bank (and more coming in). Why?
Because one severe illness could eat away a mere $100K or $200K in just a few
days. If they don't have a true fortune to back them up, folks who say
they self insure are just betting. And, when push comes to shove, they will go
to the taxpayers or to charity to ask for help (or their family will).So . . . Sign the contract and it is okay by me whatever you do. Without it,
you are spinning the roulette wheel with my money as back up.
To "Tyler D" you are just being a simpleton. Anybody with half a brain
knows that your rights end when they infringe on others. If I choose to not buy
insurance, that has no effect on others. However, tossing garbage out the
window poses a health hazard to others. You are right about the TSA. They are
freedom destroying. They assume that you are guilty until proven innocent while
they search your belongings without a warrant.Why won't you
answer the simple questions about why you want to force people to do something
they don't want to do?What gives the government the right to
tell me how to live my life? Why do you want to limit freedom and remove
@RedShirt – “The question remains, what gives the government the
right to tell me how to live my life? Why do you want to limit freedom and
remove choices?”I’m convinced… and starting today
I will not stop for anymore tyrannical red lights, will toss my half-eaten lunch
out the window, will strut right past the freedom destroying TSA security on the
way to my comfortable airline seat where immediately upon sitting down I will
light up a Cuban cigar. Don’t Tread On Me!
To "Twin Lights" I am not talking freeloading. I am saying that I
choose for myself if I have insurance. I could save my money and pay for all of
my treatment with cash.The question remains, what gives the
government the right to tell me how to live my life? There is no death panel,
nor is there anybody deciding what treatments I can get or cannot get.Why do you want to limit freedom and remove choices?
Alfred,From Merriam Webster:Arrant: being notoriously without
moderation : extremeErrant: erring or straying from the proper course or
standards.Do folks go to the emergency room when other options would
be much cheaper? Sure. Why? No health insurance.RedShirt,Precisely. With ACA you MUST have insurance. No freeloading on the
system. Or, you can take my "let me die" contract offer . . .
To "Twin Lights" the biggest difference is choice. Pre-ACA, if I chose
to not obtain insurance, that was my choice and my risk. With the ACA I no
longer have that choice.The ACA is nothing more than the government
saying that they know better than you do how to run your life. I reject that
@Twin Lights:"BTW, I have never seen an 'emergency room . . .
hook the patient up to ten monitoring machines and have a dozen doctors and
nurses see you for an arrant (sic) hangnail.'"Exaggeration
is often a useful tool in making a point.If poor folk are going to
the emergency room for all their healthcare needs, they must surely be going
there for minor stuff like the sniffles... or an arrant* hangnail... where an
single aspirin runs about 20 bucks."And we already have
'death panels' at the insurance companies."Yes, but
the government making those sinister decisions is not very comforting... and
conjures up Germany's decider re the fate of eight million German
citizens.* Origin 1350–1400; Middle English, variant of errant
This is Semi-StrongRedShirtCalTech,Your point about
neglecting sick people is cogent. So what is it about the pre-ACA way of
neglecting sick people that was acceptable? Please don't say they
weren't neglected.Alfred,Okay, but neither of your
points really address what I was saying. BTW, I have never seen an
"emergency room . . . hook the patient up to ten monitoring machines and
have a dozen doctors and nurses see you for an arrant (sic) hangnail." And
we already have "death panels" at the insurance companies.The Truth,Please search for Conservative "Think Tank, Promoted
the Individual Mandate" in Forbes (hardly a bunch of liberals there). The
individual mandate (the soul of Obamacare) came from the conservative Heritage
Republicans did NOT write the ACA bill (obamacare).The republicans
did NOT create in any fashion or form, the ACA.The ACA is and
extreme left written bill. The ACA was created by extreme left
organizations funded by George Soros.THE ACA was then passed in
middle of night with legislative tricks by the democrats.Can the
left stop with the lies now about the origin of the ACA or Obamacare?
@Semi-Strong:"You cannot be turned away from an emergency room due to
lack of insurance."True, but the emergency room doesn't
have to hook the patient up to ten monitoring machines and have a dozen doctors
and nurses see you for an arrant hangnail. That's the problem."As I said, I will let anyone off the hook who wants to sign a 'let
me die contract'..."With Obamacare it's not 'let
me die.' If you're old and/or of no further use to society it will be
'go home, take a painkiller, and die' (i.e., death panels).
Obama's own words, more or less.@2 bits:"...we have
become addicted to the idea of getting someone else to pay for our
healthcare..."Whoa! Where do you suspect the insurance company
or the government gets the money to pay for healthcare? Think about it.@airnaut:"Anyone who hurts or attacks America, Americans, or
United States citizens -- is an enemy of the State."You
shouldn't speak of Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Peloci that
way. Not very respectful, even if true.
@patriotCedar Hills, UTActually the conservative GOP house and
senate DO have good plans for health care reform. I have heard Mike Lee - Rand
Paul - Ted Cruz - Paul Ryan and many others speak at length about their plans
for making health care less expensive and more available without turning America
into communist China as Obama is doing. Some of the proposals
are...1. TORT REFORM - eliminating law suits which drive up cost2.
Allow for the purchase of insurance nationwide creating competition which also
lowers cost3. Creating a portfolio of health savings plans tailored for
all income levels of Americans======== Actually, The ACA [Obamacare] already has all that included and much, much MORE.GOP - the party of NO.Too little [actually nothing], too late.
re:marxistYou are correct about people never wanting to create a
free market solution to fix health care and there is no question our current
health care costs are way out of control. I do think however - all ideology and
politics aside - we are smart enough to figure this out. I think the health
savings portfolio idea is great and so is being able to buy insurance across
state lines. Tort reform and getting rid of all of the insane law suits doctors
and insurance companies face has been a bi-partisan desire for a long time and
this will dramatically lower costs. What we are seeing right now with Obamacare
is people - liberals and conservatives and everyone in between are outraged at
the sticker shock prices at the exchanges as well as not having choice to decide
things. Getting kicked off your health care plan and doctor that you have had
for 20 years is a real kick in the gut not to mention being forced to carry
maturity when you are 60 years old. We can do better than this.
airnautRe Anyone who hurts or attacks America, Americans, or United
States citizens -- is an enemy of the State"...By your
definition Democrats would also be "enemies of the State".Remember when they were attacking President Bush and emboldening our enemies
in the war on terrorism??Democrats have also done things that hurt
America, Americans, or US Citizens. No... Democrats are not perfect either.Put down the coolaid and realize that there's not much difference
(Democrat or Republican, neither is perfect). Neither group are the total
patriots and the other UN-American villains. That's just coolaid inspired
rhetoric talkin, not reality.Remember when you were blasting
Republicans for wrapping themselves in the flag when Bush was President and
criticizing Republican supporters who were calling Democrats trying to defund
the war in Afghanistan and selling-out our troops "un-American"? Both
parties are about the same. When you do what Republicans did just a few years
ago... you're no better than they were then.
To "airnaut" the do you also consider the Obama Administration "an
enemy of the State"?Obama has destroyed the credibility of the
US across the globe either through his support of terrorists or by spying on
everybody or by his appologies for US actions.Obama continually
attacks US citizens and even signed into law a provision that allows him to
indefinately detain US citizens.His economic policies have kept us
in a recession 4 years after it was over.He has oversen 2 drops in
the credit rating of the US government.According to the Joint Chiefs
in the article "National Debt Poses Security Threat, Mullen Says" they
say that the biggest military threat we have is the national debt. Obama has
added $7 trillion to it, thus eroding the safety of the US.Obama has
aided Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria.Obama's use of warrentless
wiretapps and email probing has destroyed any credibility given to the
constitutional guarantee of no search of our private things without a
warrant.Are you going to defend us against Obama.
Sorry... I meant anesthesiologist, not "anthologists" (spell check
mistake). The point being... they used to pay the bill out of
pocket (free market system). Not today's, "who cares insurance will pay
for it", system of paying for healthcare. And that tended to keep costs
lower, because the consumer is watching and actually CARES what the bill was
back then (because they had to pay it, not somebody else). Now nobody cares
today (because they don't have to actually pay it). And when
nobody's watching... costs can skyrocket. And when nobody cares...
what's to keep doctor bills, medicine, and the cost for every medical item
from escalating?Insurance companies try... but when the healthcare
CONSUMER doesn't care... insurance companies can't really control
people who just go to the doctor for anything because they won't have to
pay the bill! They don't have a monopoly so they can't control what
the doctor charges them. They can try, but basically their job is to pay the
bill. So is it a big surprise they must keep raising the premiums to be able to
keep paying the skyrocketing doctor bills.
Semi,"As I said, I will let anyone off the hook who wants to sign a
"let me die" contract that they will NEVER take money from the public
(taxpayer or charity) for their health problems. Other than that, they need
health insurance. If not, then they are playing roulette with my money."False. Just because they do not have insurance does not mean they
cannot or should not pay themselves.airnaut,BO, harry, and
nancy have hurt America, and the credibility of the United States, therefore are
enemies to America. BO has ordered drone strikes on US citizens abroad having
them killed without trial. Angela Merkel is NOT satisfied with BO's
continued spying in Europe and Europe is considering sanctions. Fulfill your
oath and defend America from BO, harry, and nancy.Curmudgeon,Are you then championing the Fugitive Slave Act, passed by the Congress,
signed by the POTUS, and ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS?
To "Truthseeker" I don't think you get the news from any credible
sources.If the insurance companies, why did Forbes report
"Busted! Health Insurers Secretly Spent Huge To Defeat Health Care Reform
While Pretending To Support Obamacare". I would call spending "$102.4
million spent over just 15 months" to defeat the ACA enough evidence to say
that insurance companies do not support it.The Unions no longer
support the ACA. See the Huffington Post article "Unions To White House On
Obamacare, Taft-Hartley Plans: 'You Made The Problem, You Fix
It'"According to the liberal leaders Harry Reid and Max
Baccus and other have called the implementation a "train wreck". Reid
things more should have been spent, but does not lament the lack of a single
payer system.Why would we want a universal care system? Just look
at what you get. You can kill people waiting for procedures, deny them proper
medication, deny them care, have very poor care, run deficits in your healthcare
system trying to provide everything for everybody, have doctors close their
office due to yearly funding being used up, and so forth.Tell us,
what way of neglecting sick people is acceptable?
As a Veteran, Anyone who hurts or attacks America, Americans, or United
States citizens -- is an enemy of the State.Mike Lee and Ted Cruz
have hurt America, Americans, and the credibility of the United States,
therefore -- certainly falling into this catergory.It is my God
given Oath to do everything I can to defend us from guys like this, ALL
enemies, foreign OR Domestic.
Grover, you could have added that it's ironic (laughable, actually) how Mr.
Richards extols the sacred, inviolate, and subject -to- only- his- narrow-
interpretation "Supreme Law of the Land" (the Constitution), and then
criticizes the ACA by reference to a mere public opinion poll purporting to show
that 59% of the people don't want it, ignoring, of course, that it was
passed by the legislative branch, signed into law by the executive, and ruled
constitutional by the Supreme Court, all of which are Constitutional processes.
And then he has the gall to praise Mike Lee for trying to dismantle that law by
decidedly unconstitutional means.
To "Tyler D" lets compare your 1% of expenses to what mandates have done
to insurance prices.Lets see what regulation had done:From the AP "Study: Obama's health care law to raise claims cost 32
percent". Obamacare alone raised the cost of claims by 32%.Before the ACA was passed the CAHI did a report titled "HEALTH INSURANCE
MANDATESIN THE STATES" and found that 20% to 50% of the cost of health
insurance was due directly to mandates.According to the NIHCM the US
spends $850 billion on health insurance per year. Since 20% to 50% is due to
mandates, that means that government regulation accounts for $170 billion to
$425 billion spent on health insurance. I think that is more than the
malpractice payouts. That translates to 6.5% to 16.4% of total healthcare
spending in the US.Sorry, but it looks like the mandates are a
bigger problem than malpractice (yes malpractice should be fixed too). How
about we take care of the biggest problem first?The world's
leaders don't like the free market solutions because they have no control
over them. Look at the US prior to the 1980's as an example.
The reason Republicans couldn't come up with a truly free market healthcare
solution is... we haven't had a truly free market healthcare system for
over 50 years, and we have become addicted to the idea of getting someone else
to pay for our healthcare (yes, even people with insurance). So there's no
possible way to adopt a truly free market solution now.Part of the
problem is we have a whole generation of people now that have never had to pay
the full cost of a medical bill. Either their insurance pays it... or their
union pays it... or the government pays... or charity pays it.If
people were actually paying the bill... we would not be where we are today.
Because people would care and at least try to find the most economical solution
available... which drives costs down. Right now we don't care (because
insurance is paying for it, not us).My parents remember when they
actually paid their doctor bills. They were showing us the bill for their
first baby last week. Dr bill ($45.00), Hospital room ($15.00), anthologists
bill ($8.00), etc. Free market solution seemed to work back then... whats
re:Joe5#1 the median profit margin for all industries in the U.S. is 2.2%.
Health insurance companies not only support ACA, they stand to do very well
when ACA is fully implemented. Question: what is the acceptable profit margin
when one is denying access to medical treatment? (btw the pharmaceutical and
medical equipment industries are among the highest profit margins in the U.S.)
#2 Unions still support ACA. One concern they have is that they
will lose union membership because people now have another option for obtaining
health insurance (rather than relying on union "muscle.") Another
concern was that some union health coverage falls under the "cadillac"
level of coverage and will become subject to taxes. #3 Most/all of
the criticism by liberals has been either a)the failure/problems of the federal
website or b) that reform was not single payer or include at least a public
option. Bottom line:States have the ability to enact their own
tort reform--as many states already have. States also have the ability to
devise their own universal health system. No doubt as is typical, when ACA
is fully implemented there could be additional areas needing improvement.
To "marxist" I don't think you understand the "free
market". If the solution comes from the government, then it isn't
exactly a "free market" solution. That would be a fascist solution.For example, a few years ago some doctors tried to form a
"healthcare club" where the members paid a set monthly fee and had full
access to specific doctors for their healthcare. Their local governments shut
them down because they said that the club was acting like an insurance
company.IHC was opening "grocery store clinics" where you
could see a medical professional for minor medical problems for $35 to $50 with
no insurance required. That was another free market solution. Some clinics are
surviving, but they struggle under the administrative weight imposed by
government regulation.The free market has workable solutions. The
government has work destroying solution.
How entertaining to read Mike R. give another of his stirring renditions of the
Constitution in one breath and then go off on his "one man" jag. Surely
he blushes as he writes this stuff and we just can't see it. The "one
man" here happens to be the chief justice of the Supremes and the
Constitution does give that court the final say or am I giving it a liberal
reading? "One man" didn't do anything. A duly appointed and Senate
approved majority of the court said the law stands and that is the end of it
until another court in the future decides to alter it. Until then you can
entertain yourself reading the dissenting opinions on the matter and making your
case again how Romney really won the election because he won a majority of
counties in the USA.
@RedShirtCalTech – “The best solutions to lowering healthcare costs
have come from private industry, not government.”That may be
but do you have any evidence that would support this claim – like one
country in the developed world that relies solely on the free market and private
industry? If the free market is the best solution to healthcare, surely we would
expect to see at least one country using this laissez faire model… just
one.@RedShirtCalTech – “To "Tyler D" ok, it
isn't regulations that raise the cost of healthcare. It is mandates on
insurance and taxes on medical devices combined with lawyers that sue
doctors…”I guess you didn’t read (or perhaps
understand) the rest of my comments. See the quote below as one example of the
canard your theories are (i.e., they’re all pikers compared to the real
cost drivers).An excerpt from a recent Johns Hopkins study: “In their review of malpractice payouts over $1 million, the
researchers say those payments added up to roughly $1.4 billion a year, making
up far less than 1 percent of national medical expenditures in the United
patriot -- tort reform, interstate insurance, and health savings plans would all
ENHANCE the ACA. One doesn't need to throw out the ACA to get those
reforms. Have Republicans shown an actual alternative?
Lost in DC,Because we made it our problem back in the Reagan years.
It's called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.
You cannot be turned away from an emergency room due to lack of insurance. This
allows people to freeload on the system and folks DO freeload on the system. Or
they believe they self-insure (when adequate self-insurance is impossible for
all but the truly wealthy). Eventually these folks come to the public. Either
the taxpayers or to charity. Either way we are promoting people not
being responsible for themselves and their families. As I said, I will let
anyone off the hook who wants to sign a "let me die" contract that they
will NEVER take money from the public (taxpayer or charity) for their health
problems. Other than that, they need health insurance. If not, then they are
playing roulette with my money. That is NOT conservative.
Moreover, the approach adopted by the Tea Party is one of sabotage. Sabotage
Obamacare at every step. Meanwhile people are suffering. Low income Americans
are cannon fodder for Republican sabotage. That's why the hatred of
Americans for government is mostly focused on Republicans.
"Part of the reason we have Obamacare is because Republicans could never
come together on a sensible free-market solution of their own to the healthcare
issue, ..." Problem is, there is no "free-market solution."
Why is it the government’s problem to fix?Roland, Ranch,
liberal larry, semi-strongThe GOP learned from MA that the individual
mandate did not work. Are dems incapable of learning?Hutterite, RIGHT!!!!! The GOP hijacked a single payer and forced us into the mandate.
Since NONE of them voted for Obamcare. How does THAT happen?One
voteBO, harry, and nancy were not and are not going to work with anyone
– the other side can come along if they want – in the back of the
bus. And that trio has promised to never compromise.Mman,NBC
News reported that BO knew it was a lie when he said people could keep their
current plans.More than 300,000 cancellation notices have been sent
out in Florida, and another 180,000 in California. In New Jersey, the number of
cancellations tops 800,000. According to NBC News, approximately 50
to 75 percent of the 14 million Americans who buy their health insurance
individually should expect to receive a cancellation letter over the next year.
That is an additional 7MM to 10.5MM canceled policies. BO LIED!DN, this does NOT violate your rules!!!!!!
To "Ron" why does the GOP have to come up with a plan? Would you trust a
decision by the janitor about how treat your cancer? The problem is that
politicians don't understand the free market, so they keep trying to conrol
it and bend the free market to their will (fascism). If the politicians simply
repealed Obamacare, and let the free market work, then you would end up with
real solutions because if company A can offer a cheaper and more attractive
product than company B, they will so that they can generate profits.With the government policies that were added through Obamacare, company A must
deliver the same product as company B. The only way to improve things is to find
ways to make your product cost less. The Government doesn't like that, so
they are controlling the price too.The best solutions to lowering
healthcare costs have come from private industry, not government.To
"Tyler D" ok, it isn't regulations that raise the cost of
healthcare. It is mandates on insurance and taxes on medical devices combined
with lawyers that sue doctors and use questionable science to justify their
Actually the conservative GOP house and senate DO have good plans for health
care reform. I have heard Mike Lee - Rand Paul - Ted Cruz - Paul Ryan and many
others speak at length about their plans for making health care less expensive
and more available without turning America into communist China as Obama is
doing. Some of the proposals are...1. TORT REFORM -
eliminating law suits which drive up cost2. Allow for the purchase of
insurance nationwide creating competition which also lowers cost3.
Creating a portfolio of health savings plans tailored for all income levels of
Americansthese are just a few of the measures and the good part they
cost nothing to the taxpayer. You NEVER hear of these things on CNN or NBC
because Obamacare is about Socialism and not solving healthcare as Ronald Reagan
warned about all the way back in the early 1970's. America has
turned into a welfare state which demands something for nothing like Greece and
France. America will NOT survive on the course it is following...look no further
than socialist Europe.
Truthseeker: You spewed a lot of data but I failed to see the opinion or point
you were trying to make.Was showing the top 5 insurers made 7-8%
profit instead of the industry-wide 4-5% supposed to refute my point that
insurers were not making egregiously large profits? Would you invest in a
company with an expected ROI of 8%?Was quoting James Hoffa's
mea culpa and ignoring all his other comments supposed to refute my point that
unions were among those seeking exceptions from the terms of the ACA? Do you
deny they asked for concessions?Was your completely unsubstantiated
and biased (and untrue) claim about liberals ability to be critical of their
leaders supposed to erase the idea that even the most staunch Obama supporters
are very critical of ACA and specifically how it is being implemented? Do you
deny the criticism?Was you last rambling commentary supposed to
refute the claim that the Democratic Senate is discussing delaying the
implementation of ACA for a year? Do you deny the Democrats involvement in
seriously discussing a delay?In short, I don't get your point
or how it refutes any of my points.
The final verdict from the Supreme Court on ObamaCare is far from over. If you
read the entire text of the ruling, including the dissent, you'll see that
there is still much that will be discussed as various parts of ObamaCare go to
court.For instance the dissent said: "The
Constitution is not that. It enumerates not federally soluble problems, but
federally available powers.The Federal Government can address
whatever problems it wants but can bring to their solution only those powers
that the Constitution confers, among which is the power to regulate commerce.
None of our cases say anything else. Article I contains no whatever
it-takes-to-solve-a-national-problem power."One man decided that
ObamaCare would not be repealed. 59% of the People decided that ObamaCare was
not for them, but one man overruled the majority. One man rejected the majority
of the States. One man decided that he would not stand up to Obama, perhaps
seeing himself as a sub-citizen when compared to Obama.That is
tragic. We do not have "super citizens" who believe, like Orrin Hatch,
that they must "school" us until we agree with their liberal ideas.
@Mountanman:"Next up? Watch for Demos up for reelection try to hide
under their desks. Demos, YOU own this mess!"Democrats are
holding true to their philosophies/methodologies... when things start going
wrong with their programs, start pointing the accusative finger at others. Note
how many posts on this thread are insisting Obamacare was a Republican idea in
the first place. The truth is there has been zero, nil, nada national
healthcare bills introduced in the US Congress by Republicans. In fact, the
Republicans were shut out of any suggestions/amendments to Obamacare while being
constructed in committee. And no Republican voted for it.
Re:Joe5"In the first three quarters of 2011, the five largest publicly
traded insurers reported their best three-quarter performance of the past
decade, Bloomberg found. The companies' average operating margin widened to
8.65% in 2011, compared with 6.9% in the 18 months before the law was passed,
surpassing Wall Street analysts’ expectations."James
Hoffa, head of the Teamsters Union:"Though we may have concerns
with specific provisions of the ACA, we share the president's goal of
ensuring that every American has affordable access to top-quality health care.
It is on this main point that we disagree wholeheartedly with the efforts of
extreme right-wing Republicans to gut the ACA. Any suggestion otherwise is
simply political posturing."Liberals have always been more
critical of their leaders and self-critical than conservatives.Several Democratic Senators in conservative (southern) states are calling for
a delay in the mandate. Insurers are adamently opposed to delays. Kentucky is
successfully moving forward with ACA as are several other states.
Mountanman quoting the "left wing media" CBS as gospel?? Wait just a
minute! I thought I just saw a porker fly by my window!!
@joe5 – “No, the problems were government regulations driving
medical costs.”You’re misinformed on this
issue…Regulations do not drive medical costs (which over the
long run are ~3 times higher than inflation), and the medical malpractice issue
is smaller than many believe. There have been numerous studies done on this and
the percent of increase to overall medical costs are typically in the 1-2% range
(which is still too high but nowhere near the main cost driver).The
main driver of healthcare costs is simply the inherent (economic) nature of the
healthcare industry and the fact that producers (not insurance companies - they
are just the middle man) have pricing power far in excess of most industries
– and monopolistic industries typically deliver some mix of lower quality
and higher costs. In the case of U.S. healthcare, the quality is very good but
the costs are disproportionate.This is the reason no developed
country in the world has a purely free market healthcare system… they just
don’t work very well.
"CBS News has learned more than two million Americans have been told they
cannot renew their current insurance policies."They were told that
because their policies don't meet the new standard for coverage. That is
not outrageous.For example, look at auto insurance. The State of
Utah requires that you carry liability insurance in the amount of (at least)
$25K bodily injury/$65K per accident/$15K property.Can you buy auto
insurance with lesser coverage? Yes.Will that auto insurance meet the
legal standard in Utah? No.Answer: Buy the correct auto insurance.Same thing with health insurance. The point of all this is to ensure
that a person can pay their medical bills. If a person carries insurance that
is below standard and won't pay the bills, then we've gained nothing.
Setting an insurance standard is not new.
Mike Richards,Here is what the Supremes said:"In
this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as
increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go
without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to
tax."Sounds to me like they think it is okie-dokie.
pragmatist: *sigh* Let's assume for a minute that you're right that
ACA is a good plan, that people will sign up for it in droves, and that only a
small percentage of people will be hurt with either worse coverage or higher
rates or both.If that is true, the:- Why are so many,
including those in liberal strongholds such as unions, trying to get excepted
from ACA?- What are even liberal bastions of the media (such as MSNBC)
openly and vigorously criticizing it?- Why is the Democratic Senate
talking about delaying it for another year?It seems to me that you
are right: Some people do still live in a fantasy world. We just disagree on who
Mountanman, not complaining, just saying first of all no enrollment numbers have
been released, secondly you're a month in to an admittedly slow three month
enrollment period, and you have at least 50 million people being mandated to
sign up. The 700,000 number could be right for the first month but is
ridiculous as a final number. However the 2 million number is probably pretty
accurate as a final number because the insurance companies had to purge their
noncompliant plans by Oct. 1. So put your party horns back in the box your
timing is way off. It's still the law. It's not going
anywhere. Will there be changes certainly, and my guess is one of the first
will be coverage requirements. BTW Medicaid expansion is part of
the plan, and if a substantial number of the 50 million uninsured can qualify
for Medicaid we've got real economic problems that will have stretched back
decades. So If I were a Republican I'd be very hesitant to talk too loudly
@Semi-Strong,If you were more familiar with the Court, you would
know that the Supreme Court is an appellate court. An appellate court can only
rule on cases that lower courts have already judged. Lower courts CANNOT rule
on a tax until that tax is implemented and DAMAGES can be proven. At the time
that the Supreme Court ruled on ObamaCare, no lower court had ruled on whether
the TAX caused damages because that part of ObamaCare was not yet functional.Do you think that the Supreme Court would rule outside its authorized
sphere? If there is anyone in America who should understand the law, it would
be those justices who sit on the Supreme Court. Although, in reality, everyone
of those justices "judges" according to his political ideology, they
correctly refused to declare the ObamaCare TAX unconstitutional until a lower
court first ruled.
Mountanman,I think Medicaid expansion is part of the program.Mike Richards,Seriously? You think the Supremes said it was
a tax and was therefore okay but did not bother to look and see if they thought
it was a constitutionally legal tax?
Some people think that the Constitution is dead. They have buried it. They
refuse to refer to it when they demand that the Federal level of government
"give" them more "soup". They have already traded their freedom
for a bowl of soup and now they want everyone to join them as psuedo slaves.Is that harsh? I don't think so. The Constitution enumerates 17
duties that the Federal level of government is allowed to tax us for. ObamaCare
is not on that list. The Constitution has a provision to handle ALL things that
are not on that list. The 10th Amendment clearly states that ALL things outside
the scope of authorized duties are to be left to the States or to the People;
therefore, ObamaCare, if the Constitution is respected, is a duty that is to be
left to the States or to the People. It is not an authorized duty of the
Federal level of government.The Court declared that ObamaCare is a
tax. They have not addressed the legality of the ObamaCare tax. ObamaCare is
not on the list of authorized taxes.
A Pragmatist. Obama called the governor of Kentucky (a Democrat) who had
reportedly a high number of people signing up for Obamacare insurance and
congratulated him. Later it was learned that 87% of the people had signed up for
Medicaid, not health care insurance. OPPS!
@ Pragmatist. Call CBS news and complain to them! They are the ones who reported
this, not me!
So Mountanman, you believe that only around 700,000 people will sign up for
insurance on the exchanges. Wow! In addition everyone knew there would be a
"small" percentage of people who would have to upgrade their coverage.
Key here is small. It's 2 million against the backdrop of 180 or so million
with coverage that is adequate. Continuing on with the fantasy
world of the right..it was "liberal" Democrats that gave us the ACA.
Folks if you really see the world this way it's no wonder you think the
world is slipping from your grasp. It has. It doesn't look anything like
you believe it does.
CBS News) "CBS News has learned more than two million Americans have been
told they cannot renew their current insurance policies -- more than triple the
number of people said to be buying insurance under the new Affordable Care Act,
commonly known as Obamacare." Next up? Watch for Demos up for reelection try
to hide under their desks. Demos, YOU own this mess! Ted Cruz and Mike Lee were
absolutely right about Obamacare!
Liberal Larry is correct. The basic concept of the individual mandate is
conservative. It requires you to take full responsibility for yourself. No
freeloading on the system.People say "but I don't want ANY
insurance". Ok. Sign a binding and enforceable contract that says you will
refuse any and all public or charitable support (ever) for anything related to
illness and I will let you go without insurance. You want your family to go
without insurance? They sign too. That means you can NEVER go to a public or
charitable hospital or plead your case on TV or radio for help. Why? Because
you could have been responsible and gotten insurance.Simply put, the
mandate requires you to be responsible for yourself. A conservative principle
if ever there was one. Don't like the current implementation? No problem.
But that is another issue entirely.
The ACA IS a free market system based on plans floated by by the ultra
conservative, Coors family funded, Heritage Foundation! It also has much in
common with the successful Massachusetts Romney care.The biggest
problem with the ACA is that it is endorsed by President Barack Obama. If Obama
embraced the entire Republican Party Platform the whole platform would
immediately be rejected by the GOP as a "liberal" scheme to bring down
The tea party is not going to work with anyone. There way of shut down the
government. A free market solution would use the insurance companies like the
Republicans put in place in Massachusetts.
I don't think you understand what really happened. The problem was never
health insurance. Over the last several years, insurance company profits have
been running in the neighborhood of 4%. That's not egregious. In fact,
you'd be hard-pressed to find investors for a company with such a low rate
of return.No, the problems were government regulations driving
medical costs, the constant threat of lawsuits against medical professionals,
the extremely punitive awards given by judges and juries, the inability to
provide inexpensive medicines due to FDA oversight, etc. Virtually every problem
was the result of bad legislation, not high insurance rates.So what
does the government do? Decides to take over the one area operating on marginal
profits; health insurance. If the government really wanted to help, they would
have treated the disease instead of the least significant symptom.But, see, the government was never about helping. They weren't even about
claiming the monies for themselves. The government is all about control.
Controlling every aspect of your life and mine is their ultimate objective.
Obamacare is only a symptom, an indicator. Bondage is the disease that needs to
be treated before it becomes fatal.
Too funny, Ron, since the ACA is exactly what the Republicans came up with. The
only problem they have with the plan is that it was implemented by a Democrat
instead of a Republican. Too darn funny.
Perhaps the GOP will "rise again" as many after the Civil War hoped for
the old South... the GOP stood for abolishing slavery and rebuilding the South
back then. Today, those goals would probably be too liberal for the TEA Party.
Perhaps the GOP will rise again to take away people's health
care and prevent the country from rebuilding its roads, bridges, power lines,
and infrastructure... That will attract voters -- NOT!
Part of the reason we have Obamacare is because we've been robbed of the
single payer system we actually should have gotten. Tea party republicans, who
have managed to hijack the situation, have effectively derailed any voice of
reason in the republican party, and are doing harm to the nation in the process.
We do need a unified coalition, free from the extreme.
Over the years, your Republicans devised several "free market" fixes for
our healthcare problems. Every single one of them featured an individual
mandate. That's why I think that your opposition to Obamacare is completely
fraudulent. Obamacare was your idea.