The great calamity that will be fine and lead to Democratic takeover of
@Badgerbadger - your comments are a perfect example of why people are turned off
by politics, and in particular conservatives. When you choose the imagery you
choose, when you choose to allow 300 million people become collateral damage in
a quest to earn political points.... we have sunk to new lows.To
me... the stakes here are a bit more than any single party. But obviously
others disagree.When loyalties are to party over country.... we know
who the real patriots are.
Yes there is precedence for bailout. Does that make it appropriate? Many a
senator lost re-elction to the last bailout. How many more to another? A type of
Bailout written in the bill speaks highly of a no confidence atmosphere, yet it
was still shoved down our throats (the only way it could have passed). I think
there was a better way to go...the insurance industry is a multi-billion
dollar profit industry. Using the insurance industry as the vehicle
automatically puts that multi-billion dollar cost on tax payer shoulders.Eliminate the multi-billion middle-man... Set a national fee schedule for
medical services, and provide everyone with an HSA account. Premiums go into the
HSA + a catastrophic policy to handle extreme cases.
This "bailout" is a contingency measure just in case not enough young
people sign up, so that premiums don't spike. So what do
Republicans want to do? Repeal the mandate. That would just further drives more
young people to not sign up due to no penalty, which means higher odds of either
triggering this bailout, or causing a premium spike. The only other
way to avoid that would be to go back to insurance companies denying people
coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Is that what conservatives want?
They're good at soundbites, that's for sure, but when it comes to
substance, they just want everyone to not realize what their own policy plans
"insurance companies can't pay more in claims and not charge more in
premiums,"I get it. I understand it. My point is that what
they charge is making them HUGE profits."In 1993, the average
medical loss ratio in the health insurance industry was 95 percent, which meant
that insurers spent 95 cents out of every dollar they collected in premiums on
medical care. In their quest for profits, all insurers, regardless of their tax
status, have been spending less on care in recent years. The average medical
loss ratio is now closer to 80 percent."Yes, they keep raising
their rates. Not because costs justify those rates. Because the quest for
bigger profits does.Is that ok with you?
JoeBlow,I don't know if we were paying too much before. But no
matter how much you bleat the party line... insurance companies can't pay
more in claims and not charge more in premiums, just because we want them to.
Private Insurance has economic realities politicians don't. If
a private company pays out more in benefits than they collect in premiums they
go out of business. They can't just ask for a new budget with more
trillions (borrowed from China).The old theory of insurance was...
you have insurance all the time (not just when you are sick). So you have a lot
of well people paying a little more in premiums than they use, which is used to
cover the few people who have HUGE expenses. Now the law says you
can wait till your crash, or you get diagnosed with something big, and THEN go
buy insurance, and they have to pay all your expenses, and you can drop them the
day after you leave the hospital. So you pay a few dollars in premiums and they
pay out a few million in expenses. That bankrupts them.
Re: 2bits "AKA was designed to destroy private insurance." No, IMO
Obamacare is a compromise between the legitimate desire of Democrats to extends
access to medicare care, and the desire of those same Democrats to serve the
insurance business because they, the Democrats, owe K street just like the
Republicans. This demonstrates why American capitalism is hopelessly corrupt
and unable to serve the people. In time this system will be dumped. It's
when not if. The only remaining question will this dumping come in time to save
us, or are we doomed to ill health and a destroyed environment? Could be.
"You can't require private insurance cover every pre-existing
condition, and not charge more for their product"Because you
believe that we are not already paying too much for what we get?Why
does a routing childbirth cost $20-30,000?Why does a 6 hour stay in
a hospital cost $50,000? ( Google Reddit 55,000 bill)I had a routine
outpatient procedure and was in the hospital less than 4 hours. The bill came
to $26000. And that did not include the surgeon or the anesthesiologist. Nothing can be fixed when 1/2 the country doesn't think there is
even a problem.
It's pretty obvious there will either be a bailout for private insurance
companies OR they are going to have to start charging way way more for their
policies (and their customers will be shocked by the price increases and bail on
them, which starts the downward spiral).You can't require
private insurance cover every pre-existing condition, and not charge more for
their product, without also broadening the coverage pool by enough people to
insure that there are enough healthy people paying their premiums to cover the
people with very expensive pre-existing conditions that decide (after their
diagnosis)... that they now want insurance... and the insurance company is
forced by law to take this new customer who has payed ZERO premiums and pay
their bills.Anybody who can't understand that doesn't
understand how insurance works, or the economic realities behind health
insurance (not the political fantasy land where if you don't collect enough
in premiums to pay the medical bills... you just borrow more and more and
more... or blame the rich and tax them to pay the bills). Private insurance
companies can't do that.AKA was designed to destroy private
"You liberals are amazing! Not long ago you were blaming "evil,
greedy" insurance companies for not covering pre-existing conditions and
screaming about them keeping people from having health insurance and now we see
you getting in bed with the same evil, greedy insurance companies and in fact
are prepared to bail them out with other people's money to salvage your
Obamacare mess!"Yep, Obamacare so-called has government in bed
with the insurance companies (it was originally a Heritage Foundation project
after all). This demonstrates why I am a socialist and NOT a liberal.
Charles Krauthammer is right. Can you believe the suggestions from the Left?
"Democrats should force republicans to accept proper single
payer health care.""Again we have a plea to repeal Obamacare
with no realistic plan for what we will replace it with."The
Democrats voted for ObamaCare. Not one, I repeat, not one Republican voted for
ObamaCare. The ObamaCare fiasco is the sole responsibility of the Democrats.
The loss of jobs because of ObamaCare is the sole responsibility of the
Democrats. The increase in insurance premiums is the sole responsibility of the
Democrats. The loss of existing insurance policies is the sole responsibility
of the Democrats. The fact that we can't go to a doctor of our choice is
the sole responsibility of the Democrats. The fact that Obama wants the
insurance industry to give "free" coverage is the sole responsibility of
the Democrats.America knows that not one Republican voted for
ObamaCare. America knows that Obama wanted ObamaCare. America knows that
Democrats "forced" ObamaCare on us when 59% of Americans told Congress
that they did not want ObamaCare.Let the Democrats "enjoy"
the consequences of thumbing their noses at America.
You liberals are amazing! Not long ago you were blaming "evil, greedy"
insurance companies for not covering pre-existing conditions and screaming about
them keeping people from having health insurance and now we see you getting in
bed with the same evil, greedy insurance companies and in fact are prepared to
bail them out with other people's money to salvage your Obamacare mess! I
can't wait to see Democrats spin this one and to try to sell this bailout
which is coming just as sure as the sun rises in the east!
The democrats had the whole government rope. They tied their own noose (ACA).
They put their heads in the noose. Why should republicans pull them
out? Let them kick out the chair too!
Why vote republican or democrat, why vote for a party..... why not vote for a
"We've seen what happens when Republicans hold the White House, the
Senate, and the House."Medicare part D. Largest entitlement
program in 40+ years.No Child Left BehindIraq WarBut my
solution is NOT to vote Democrat as I see both sides are the problem.
Pagan,Funny.We've seen what happens when Democrats
hold the White House, the Senate, and the House. Obamacare: Proof
Many conservatives were against the bailout during the Bush administration
(I'm talking about grass-root conservatives, not the progressive,
Republican types that are in Congress and that defined Bush). And
over the past several years, more conservatives realized that the bailouts do
not help the evolution of the American economy…bailouts only postpone
inevitable resets and prolong corruption and mismanagement.Although,
this bailout of the insurance industry that the Charles writes about is an
Obama-created mess. Its all on Obama and Democrats that supported this awful
'I doubt you can get single payer to pass.' Not if you
vote Republican. 400 Filibusters in the Senate. The most in
history. 82 judicial blocks. 86 for all other Presidents,
combined. 18 failed attempts to discuss the budget with the GOP
before… A government shutdown that cost the US tax payer $24
million dollars. And it's official. The 'Least productive
congress, in the last 60 years'' when Republicans 'took America
back' in 2010. You want a working government? Vote
@Hutterite and Kent C. DeForrest "...single payer..."It's a credibility issue. People who trusted Obama with their health care
before, no longer do. Too many lies, and too little competence. Big Government
in general has taken a big hit, and will continue to do so as Obamacare smashes
on the rocks. I doubt you can get single payer to pass.
Mr. Krauthammer is living in a political fantsyland. All of the previous House
votes to repeal the ACA has gone nowhere. fifty attempts and no chance of
success. He should encourage his fellow Republicans to submit specific bills to
cure real problems with the act. Just passing yet another bill for repeal that
is doomed to failure indicates a lack of reality.
So Republicans should act to try and increase premiums on Americans during this
The take away I get from this?Chuck has no solution for health care
and he really doesn't like Obama.Which, essentially summarizes
the entire GOP platform on nearly every subject right now.
So what Charles is saying is we should go around the Constitution… and
have a national ballot. Is that right? Heck, we don't even
need Congress anymore. Just put things up to a popular vote and there you go.
It could be televised. Each side presents their position, then for 90 minutes
after, we all call in or text our vote - one vote per household…. or
better yet, charge .99 cents per vote and let people vote as many times as they
like. We could eliminate Congress and balance the budget in all one swoop.Charles - you are a genius. Lets abandon the Constitution…. and
make everything based on popular vote.When the Republicans - my
former party - decide to debate this with honesty and integrity - I will be the
first person on their bandwagon. Until then, this is for entertainment purposes
only. Charles, try writing something serious next time. I am looking for that
honest conservative to lead… not be an entertainer. Even Reagan
understood that distinction.
Again we have a plea to repeal Obamacare with no realistic plan for what we will
replace it with. Yes, Obamacare is far from perfect. This is partly due to the
Democrats bowing to conservative market notions and to the insurance
industry's survival. If the Republicans were serious about solving our
health-care woes, they would lobby for repealing Obamacare and replacing it with
a single-payer system that would have a chance at covering everybody while
lowering costs significantly. Other countries have proved that this is possible.
Are we too stubborn to learn from others?
Yes, Charles, because threatening the economy of the free world over an
Obamacare tantrum worked so well last time.I expect Krauthammer to
spend his editorial time pouting (that's all he's done for the past
five years), but he's veering off into Fantasy Land here. First, the idea
that the Republicans were able to "demand" that a budget be passed last
month is laughable. After the humiliation they were dealt with the last
shutdown, they had no choice but to sit down and reach a deal. Second, the
country isn't going to go into default. The money men wouldn't allow
it to happen in October and they sure won't allow it now. He can bluster
all he likes, but that arrow has been removed from the Republicans' quiver.
They simply no longer have that leverage.Obamacare is here to stay.
Deal with it.
Spot on Dr. Krauthammer! No bailout of the insurance companies with tax payer
money in order to salvage Obamacare!
Mr. Krauthammer raises some obvious and serious problems with some distinctly
obscure aspects of Obamacare, of which there are many yet to be discovered. It
was deliberately designed with these hidden booby traps so the resulting
disaster will drive the whole health insurance industry into collapse and into
the arms of socialistic elements in government, ever-eager for greater control
and power.Remember Rahm Emmanuel's infamous motto, "You
never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an
opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." What we are
seeing more and more frequently is that inept and incompetent governance,
whether inadvertent or by design, is the cause of more and more of the crises it
is supposed to avoid, not create!Obamacare, the debacle of illegal
immigration, the incredible current and looming debt from unfunded operations
and "entitlements", the graft and deplorable corruption that has made 8
of the 10 counties around D.C. the most affluent in the country, and many, many
other indicators show that our Federal government is failing. And we, the
people, put them there.We **must** be more honest and active to save
Conservatives love to re-write history. Rallying against the bailout… *'Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by
Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08 ‘WASHINGTON —
President Bush quickly signed into law a far-reaching $700 billion bill to bail
out the nation's tottering financial industry, calling it "essential to
helping America's economy" weather the storm.’ And
yet, it was created by a Republican President. *'Univ. of
Maryland study finds Fox News viewers to be misinformed on key issues' - By
Ryan Witt - Examiner - 12/17/10 "Over 40% of respondents said
President Obama started TARP even though was signed into law by President Bush
on October 3rd of 2008." - article If you are against national
debt. Reagan tripled the national debt. Bush doubled the
national debt. You cannot say either about Obama. Well, unless you
are going to lie. If you are against the debt. History shows what
you should do. Vote Democrat.
I'm not sure of Krauthammer's analysis, but assuming a bailout of
health insurers is likely then I'd like to point out that the Federal
government bailed out insurance giant AIG to save the big banks who were trying
to cash in their "credit default swaps" - insurance policies on mortgage
backed securities they owned. And it was a massive bailout to the tune of 800
billion. So, I guess according to Krauthammer bailing out big banks and
insurance companies is OK, because that saved the big shots of capitalism, but
bailing out health insurers is not OK because that might help little people who
need health insurance, and such are so poor as to be of little consequence. The
bias of and inconsistency of right-wingers like Krauthammer drives me nuts.
Democrats should force republicans to accept proper single payer health care.
Let 'em squawk all they want.
The record is clear:One party voted for it;The other did not.