- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tom Watson: Obamacare and You, and the Reasons to Repeal It
The hugely contentious and controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was a major issue in the last election and continues to be so. Many national polls show that far more people want the law repealed outright than support it or want it significantly modified.
In any event, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives last week voted to repeal it as a budget-busting and liberty-depriving monstrosity. The Democrats who passed the legislation continue to insist it will improve our health care, improve access and lower costs. So, who’s right? The long-term implications for our country cannot be overstated.
The early results suggest the people who want it repealed have the basic economics on their side. The primary reason given by President Barack Obama for needing to do major reform was that the cost of health care was consuming too much of our gross-domestic product and it was growing faster than inflation.
He had a point. Unfortunately, the law that was passed did nothing to address that core problem and instead focused on providing more access to insurance coverage. The resulting 2,000-plus pages of the law have already resulted in insurance premiums rising dramatically for many — 30 percent in my company’s case — and the truly expensive provisions of the law have yet to take effect. Stand by for even larger future premium increases as well as significant tax increases to pay for the program.
We have a cost problem, not a care problem and this law has made the cost problem worse and will degrade the level of care through uneconomic regulation, mandates, taxes on medical equipment and drugs, and cost shifting, while retaining the primary structural defect in our current system: the third-party payer system. If a law is passed and it does exactly the opposite of what was its stated intention, why keep it in place? The law marginally improves access to health insurance but at an absolutely enormous cost not commensurate with the benefits.
Let’s examine some of the common arguments being offered for retaining the law:
» “The Congressional Budget Office says it will reduce the deficit over 10 years.” This is a real whopper. If the people in Congress making this argument really believe that taxing people for 10 years while only offering six years of benefits and pretending to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, while greatly expanding the Medicaid roles with an open-ended entitlement is somehow going to cut the deficit, we are in more trouble than I thought. The fact is that adding more people and more unfunded liabilities to an already fundamentally bankrupt entitlement system is not going to lower the deficit and debt; it will increase it. Budgetary games can’t avoid that simple reality. Recent deficit estimates due to the law are in excess of $700 billion over 10 years. If history is any guide, the $700 billion deficit is closer to the truth.
» “The legislation allows children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies.” First off, according to government estimates, that provision is projected to cost those families about $3,380 per child annually; it’s not free. Second, set aside the notion that perhaps “children” of age 26 should maybe have a job and their own policies, and instead let us consider the term “allows.” My question is, who is the federal government to “allow” us to enter into voluntary private contracts in the first place? If one thinks about this for a minute, why are they telling us, their bosses, who we can insure if we choose to or not? It is none of their business. It is our money, our decisions and our families. Butt out. This speaks volumes as to how the tentacles of big government have intruded into our lives on a breathtaking level. It is time to revisit and re-evaluate our relationship with the federal government. They are taking too much, spending too much and are involved in too many things they have no business being involved in.
» “Obamacare makes it illegal to deny insurance coverage.” This is a highly emotional issue and this provision sounds nice on the surface, but ask yourself what insurance would cost if you could insure your car after an accident, or insure your house while it is on fire, or have your loved ones buy you life insurance after you die? Answer: It would cost a lot more. Insurance is about spreading potential future risk, it can’t work if the risk is already materialized. In fact, in the four states that have a guaranteed-issue provision in force, upon implementation their rates all immediately rose about 30 percent across the board and continue to rise more rapidly than everyone else for obvious reasons. Why buy insurance if you can just get it when you are already sick or injured and drop it again when you’re better? Like it or not, that is what actually happens. There are much more economically rational ways to help people with pre-existing conditions, such as special risk pooling and market-share formulas without upending the entire market with this incredibly expensive provision. For those who think this is why we need a single-payer, government-run system, that has even more downside and I welcome that discussion.
We could go on but space is limited. The bottom line of this new law is that it is completely unaffordable, makes our cost problems worse, will unfairly burden states with new Medicaid expenditures (California spends about 30 percent of its budget on Medi-Cal already and can hardly afford new burdens), and is quite possibly unconstitutional as lawsuits moving through the court system assert. There is nothing in our Constitution that allows the federal government to compel citizens to engage in economic activity, i.e. forcing them to buy insurance as a condition of merely existing. In addition, it will degrade the quality of care with more government interference and reduce medical innovations because of punitive new taxes on drug and medical-device companies. By definition, when you tax an activity you get less of it. How does that help anyone?
When we distill this issue down to its essence, Obamacare has upended the entire health-care industry to solve a problem that only about 5 percent of the population has: being uninsurable. This is the tail wagging the dog. In the process of solving this problem, the law makes insurance much more expensive for everyone else and the rising premiums are putting it out of reach for even more people than it was previously. This makes zero practical sense. The problem of pre-existing conditions can be solved without destroying the rest of the system. If this is such a great law, why have more than 200 large companies and unions already applied for — and received — waivers from complying with many provisions in the new law and the “Patient’s Bill of Rights”? Since when do people want a waiver from great laws and a Bill of Rights?
Obamacare deserves to be repealed for two fundamental reasons: 1) It is a destructive, expensive, unaffordable and poorly thought through law that is making the current problems we have worse, will degrade the level of care and will hurt job creation and economic growth and 2) the manner in which it was passed is not how our republic is supposed to operate. In this country, we don’t ram through major legislation the people clearly don’t want using parliamentary maneuvers. They work for us, not the other way around.
If you value your economic and personal liberty, if you want actual reform that can address the core problems we have with our health-care system, if you want to see medical innovation continue apace, if you want control of your health care and the decisions made about your care, then you should want to see this law repealed, and soon. There are numerous, sensible, economically viable and free changes to the system that have been proposed that would re-introduce competition and market forces into the system that will help contain cost growth without inserting more big government distortions into an already over-regulated, economically distorted and overburdened system. Alternative recommendations are the subject of another essay, but first things first, let’s stop the damage.
— Tom Watson is a Santa Barbara businessman and was the 2010 Republican nominee for the 23rd Congressional District.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use
» on 01.23.11 @ 03:54 AM
The author has done an excellent job of explaining the many deficiencies of this disastrous law. I would remind him that if this abomination is ever allowed to be fully implemented, not only will we have an explosion of costs, but you can expect rationing of health care. If you doubt this, do some research on the Ma. plan. This state enacted a similar law years ago, and now is experiencing many of the problems acknowledged in this article.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 07:06 AM
Nice attempt to confuse fact with fiction, Tom. The CBO is not congress (paragraph 7).
Is the new law perfect? Not by any means. Is it better than the former situation and anything proposed here? No way.
And for the record, I own a small business and provide health insurance to my employees.
Beachguy
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 08:56 AM
In addition to Tom’s comments, if a private enterprise operated in the fashion the obama government has they would be prosecuted for fraud, deceit, misleading the public and lying. Where is the outrage of these egregious, criminal and unconstitutional activities? Impeachment is not only in order it is undeniably necessary!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 09:59 AM
Here we go again with the outright lie about Americans’ opinion of the health care reform law. Just check the latest CNN poll:
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
The only group that wants it repealed is the Republicans, but even they parse their opinions. When the choice is repeal or let it stand, 77% of Republicans want it repealed, but only 40% of Americans over all. Of those who answered “repeal”, only half said repeal “all of it”, so now we’re down to 20% of Americans. Of that 20%, only 52% said repeal it even if it means getting rid of the pre-existing conditions limitations health care reform provides, so that’s really only about 10% of Americans really want it repealed all the way.
We are seeing two things here with comments like Watson’s. 1) The American people are getting more and more positive about this legislation the more they see it become real, and 2) The extreme right end of the Republican party is more and more out of touch with Americans about this, and is hell-bent on nothing more than political grandstanding and power-shifting.
Each one of Watson’s “rebuttals” are unsupported with anything other than Tea Party story lines and opinions, or straw man-type arguments based on the rare and insignificant cases.
Fortunately, California is blessed with enough sensible people to have given this kook a cold shoulder every time he runs for office. We deserve a better quality of public servant than these self-serving ideologues.
You have already flagged this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 10:18 AM
beachguy. The CBO IS part of the government and the CBO only rates bills based on the parameters given to it by the Congress. Garbage in Garbage out. Please explain how the Doc Fix, and the medicare double counting does not push the estimate above 1 trillion? Please do this before you continue.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 12:06 PM
Beachguy. You might want to read it again. I don’t believe it says CBO is Congress. Congress gives CBO numbers they are forced to score. Give them bogus stuff to score and you get bogus answers. Garbage in Garbage out. I suggest you watch this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyjpzvtkz70
Secondly, the article clearly points out the cost problems we had are being made worse by this new law. Good for you buying your employees health insurance but stand by for bigger premium increases than you would have otherwise.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 12:36 PM
I’m a small business owner and have struggled with this issue for almost 40 years now and though I don’t think this law is the best our nation could do repealing it is a lame idea without specific,clear options to address the problems we are facing. It’s like changing horses in the middle of the stream without another horse.
I am tired of slackers not pulling their weight for their health care and the healthcare of there families and counting on the “kindness of strangers” or the government.
I don’t want to go back seeing coffee cans on store counters begging for money to treat some sick child.
This isn’t the the plan I would put into effect but I haven’t seen a reasonable alternative in the form of a bill or bills put forth by the republicans and don’t believe I will in my lifetime. So if you want to change it do that but don’t just scrap the plan we paid you to come up with just so you can advance your political party.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 01:33 PM
Beachguy. You might want to read it again. I don’t believe it says CBO is Congress. Congress gives CBO numbers they are forced to score. Give them bogus stuff to score and you get bogus answers. Garbage in Garbage out. I suggest you watch this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyjpzvtkz70
Secondly, the article clearly points out the cost problems we had are being made worse by this new law. Good for you buying your employees health insurance but stand by for bigger premium increases than you would have otherwise.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 01:46 PM
If a law is making our problems worse, why keep it? Somebody please explain this to me. ObamaCare is clearly making premiums rise faster than they were previously, that isn’t even arguable. Like the article said, we had a cost problem and this law makes it worse. Keeping destructive legislation in place is not smart.
If you look at the majority of polling the law is not popular at all and more people want it repealed than want to keep it. Picking one poll that supports your position isn’t a convincing argument. The fact of the matter is since the Dems rammed this down our throats they have lost control of the House, lost a lot of Senate seats and lost control of a huge number of statehouses and legislatures. That speaks more than any poll does.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 03:30 PM
noleta. Surely you have some more substantive arguments than calling the author a “kook”. He lays out a well argued position, agree with it or not, and you come back with one poll by CNN and ignore the many that contradict that and call him names. What about the points he makes? Refute them with something other than mindless name calling and hand waving. When you resort to name calling it only means one thing: you’ve lost the argument on substance.
Let’s see something thoughtful
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 07:30 PM
Do you realize how our standard of living is so far worse than even our western neighbors?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 09:57 PM
So how many of you objectors have read the law?
As far as is known the law provides that people with pre-existing conditions can not be excluded or discriminated against,and that is bad?
The current law as enacted will reduce the deficit by a couple of billion dollars and that is bad?
There is no longer any limited coverage, and that is bad?
Insurance companies now must spend 80% of their premiums on health care, and that is bad?
As a recent ad says , you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. In other words, it helps if you know the facts, before your complain about anything.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.23.11 @ 10:38 PM
Allan, one person that has not read the law is you. The law mandates that everyone has to buy a one-size-fit-all coverage, even if you don’t need maternity, psychiatric or drug addiction services. Therefore, I am forced to pay for coverage I don’t need. Under the circumstances, I will be paying much more than I am paying now for my high deductible HSA plan. You may not understand free markets, but if you mandate guaranteed issue coverage, the cost of insurance will have to go up. Check out Ma and NY, and the price of an individual health-care policy in those states. This law may have provided more access (debatable) to insurance, but in no way has it contained or reduced the skyrocketing cost of health care. To say that this insane law will reduce the deficit is laughable. Please stop reading the Democratic party talking points. Use your intellect to carefully analyze the cost implications of providing subsidized coverage to 30-40 million additional people. Someone will have to pay for this. Again, please take a look at the universal health coverage in Ma. and see what happened to their health care expenditures. Also, take a look at Paul Ryan’s plan, which provides access to most people without insurance with real cost reform.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 12:00 AM
Cindy. What Western neighbors exactly are you referring to? The economic statistics are pretty clear and they are that the average US citizen has about a 30% higher standard of living than the average European citizen. BTW, those European citizens pretty much all live in high tax, high social welfare states where they value equality over excellence. Why we would want to emulate a system where the average citizen has a 30% lower standard of living is a mystery to me. Please explain.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 12:15 AM
Wireless:
Calling Tom Watson a kook is not my argument, it’s my opinion of him because for many many years he has been saying things that *in my opinion* are outrageous, unworkable, and based on an impractical purity of radical ideology. No I will not take the time to dig up and produce examples of why I think he’s nuts here in this blog because I have more important things to do. You are welcome to disagree with me on that, but I’ve been watching him and reading his work for a long time, and I’ve come to my opinion honestly. Sorry if “kook” offended you. I’ve been called a lot worse right here in these forums.
My argument was simple and supported by fact. Watson and many other ultra conservatives keep claiming that the American people want ACA repealed, and that is an easily proven falsehood. I included one link to a very recent poll disputing Watson’s claim. How many would you like? Hey here’s an idea: why don’t you provide a citation of a poll that supports Watson’s claim? Hmmm… I wonder why he didn’t provide one in his piece? Maybe it’s because he can’t find one. Then again maybe you can.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 12:56 AM
Excellent points, Tom. But, what about your plan? Do you just want to eliminate Obamacare and go back to the status quo, or correct some problems?
Suggestions
Some recommended reforms are:
- True multi-state insurance company competition
- Better prior condition coverage
- Better job move coverage
- Insurance risk pools for small business, independents
- Simplified drug development procedures
- Published price lists
- True drug price competition
- Malpractice/tort reform
- Health insurance/provider “report card” evaluations/publication
- More health care along the Kaiser-Permanente and/or Mayo Clinic model
- Far more emphasis on patient health maintenance and preventive measures, such as lifestyle, nutrition, exercise, etc. (this may be the biggest health/cost driver)
- Effective omission of illegal immigrants. Let them buy insurance or go home. Are you aware that people here on work visas must prove employment and health care coverage?
- Consistent tax treatment
- Put real “teeth” in fraud definition, detection and enforcement
- Develop insurance and care guidelines, levels of standards, including legal minimums
- Ensure that there is an incentive for individuals to control health care costs
- Strongly emphasize private sector solutions, with public welfare coverage only as a last resort for indigents.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 01:12 AM
Noleta:
Try this:
From Rassmussen, considered the most reliable national polling group
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/08/america-wants-congress-repeal-obamacare-time-work/
Also, why do you claim that for many years Watson was writing radical things?
1- He is not radical, but is what would be considered mainstream in the majority of the country that just elected adults to Congress.
2- What he was doing for many years was working for the US Navy to defend your right to opine in obscure journals such as this one.
3- Please produce his record of many years of radical writing. You can’t, unless you consider The Founders and the US Constitution to be “radical.”
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 02:29 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Okay, check this poll out: 55% favor repeal and 40% oppose
If you want me to, I could give you 4 more polls favoring repeal. Although in the final analysis, I don’t really care what the heck the polls say. 99% of the people could favor this law and it would still be a train wreck.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 06:12 AM
To me a standard of living includes the following. A four bedroom lease in SB - $4200. Az - $1800. Gas - CA - $3.70. AZ - $2.80. Education CA - bottom ranking USA. Unemployment - 12.5%. Food cost CA - second highest US. Credit rating CA - lowest. CA roads ranked at the bottom. Taxes are some of the highest in the nation. Business environment ranked at the bottom. Insurance costs - high. And on and on. Oh and you have to love how we pour money down the illegal chute.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 07:38 AM
I recently moved to California to complete school and in so doing, I lost my health insurance. Health insurance is regulated on a state by state basis, so even though I have had private insurance for over 15 years, I could not retain that coverage. Even though I am in good health, I have asthma. It is a kind of asthma that will never land me in a hospital, but precludes me from scuba diving. I have been turned down now by five different insurance companies—even for one insurance policy with a $7000 deductible that would have cost over $800 a month. I have two and a half years to go before I will complete my training and without the new law, I would have to spend those years without health insurance.
The new law provides help for people in my situation and in other desperate situations. Being denied insurance or coverage has been common. The biggest cause of bankruptcy in our country is medical bills and in most of those cases, people had insurance.
Republicans had every opportunity to be at the table when the insurance bill was drafted. Instead, they refused to participate. They became the “Party of No.” Now they want to repeal something that is going to let me purchase insurance?
There are many problems that our country faces that need to be addressed. I would like to see Republicans start governing on those issues remaining, not on spending time trying to repeal something that has already passed and is the law of the land. Let’s see them do something about unemployment and job creation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 08:13 AM
The Rasmussen poll does in fact show more people want to repeal than those who want to keep it. The Fox link is nothing more than an opinion piece by Rep Steve King citing the same Rasmussen poll.
Rasmussen’s poll numbers are almost always used by conservatives because it’s usually the only one they can find to aid their arguments. This poll asks exactly 4 questions, only one of which refers to repealing the ACA. It’s sort of like asking a bunch of people in the evening if they thought today was hot, or it wasn’t hot. The better polls try to get a little deeper into the subject with conditional questions, such as “If you answered ‘repeal’, do you think…”
Quantifying public opinion is as much an art as a science, and it takes some work to arrive at anything approaching a realistic picture.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 08:49 AM
I wish there was an actual program that could be called Obamacare. But alas it’s a mandate on buying the crummy for-profit insurance that already exists.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 08:50 AM
I’m with CaMaven - wonderful set of actual proposals rather than blather. I’d just move tort reform to the top of the list.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 09:00 AM
I am no fan of the health care reform enacted by the last Congress, but simply repeating GOP talking points does not constitute a realistic solution to the national health care problems we face. I am concerned that those who make serious money from the current broken system are the real authors of this drivel.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 10:08 AM
noleta, Tom Watson’s comments for years? I’ve only seen a couple of things from him as I believe he was a private citizen before deciding to run for Congress just last year. Please share links to these “kooky” comments. You might try looking at his website and watching his video interviews and reading his policy papers, its still up: http://www.watson4congress.com. I don’t see anything radical on there. Reading your comments I’m sure you won’t agree with his positions on many issues but he’s hardly a kook or a radical. He’s clearly conservative and you are apparently quite liberal. Its a free country. You don’t need to personally disparage people with whom you disagree.
As far as polling goes, if you want to delude yourself into thinking that ObamaCare is somehow popular, I would remind you of the poll that really matters: the vote. Let’s see: the Democrats got creamed nationally in a historic manner after passing ObamaCare over the clear opposition of the public. Coincidence? They lost a huge majority in the House and are now a distinct minority, they lost a number of Senate seats and are going to lose more. They lost a number of Governorships, lost a historic number of seats in state legislative bodies and now you have over half the states suing the Federal government over ObamaCare. Don’t kid yourself, this law is far from popular and its not going to be as it is making our problems worse, not better.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 10:24 AM
All. I’m still waiting for someone who thinks repealing this law is a mistake to deal with the substance of Tom’s arguments. The key point made in the article was that the law that was passed is making things worse, not better. Costs are indeed rising faster than they were before this law, more people are being forced out of policies because the costs are rising and we all get to pay more taxes to pay for it. Gee, sounds great, where do I sign up!
This is pretty simple: if you do something and its not working the way you thought, don’t you stop doing it? Think about your own lives or your business, you would never behave like our government does. Coming up with alternatives is a separate matter altogether and independent of the real issue dealt with in this article is that ObamaCare is making our problems worse, not better. Like he said, stop the damage first.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 10:27 AM
And before anyone trys to quote the CBO, the CBO just scores what’s in front of them. On a quick comment, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, or around 500 billion, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, which is again around 500 billion, to pay for just six years of spending.
You are raising SocSec tax revenues, while also raising benefits. Now the CBO says you can only count that revenue one time. If you’re counting it as a counter balance for the health bill, you’re then increasing unfunded obligations for SocSec. The bill’s framers increased obligations but did not set aside those dollars for the specific programs outlined. So you can’t say that you are extending the life of a program with this. That is a fraud since you are also using the money for another programs offsets.
Now I realize that progressives want government to dominate the health care marketplace and therefore have an overall budget scheme that leads to a “universal” expenditure; which would, by its very nature, lead to rationing. Myself, and those like me, believe in a decentralized system where individuals bring market forces to bear.
So let’s take a look at the doc fix. This bill had the doc fix from the very beginning. And if you’re trying to tell me that the Medicare savings can be defined as health care reform, then the Medicare portion should be counted also. On one hand you can’t say that I am going to remove $450 billion in Medicare savings and then “apply” those savings to a new health care program. On top of that you are saying that you are going to ignore the doc fix. As I said before if you count the Medicare expenditure as a savings you have to count the spending. It is smoke and mirrors.
Bottom line, the current bill has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with centralized control of the individual. Now if you want true health care reform we first had to erase the current law and then sift through the thousands of pages written by the Tides Foundation and take out the small gems that help. Then add in those specifics which impower the individual.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 10:29 AM
Noleta: I would say that the 2010 election was the most definitive answer we could ask for, resulting in the biggest change of party seats since 1938. Some people still don’t get that. If the Republicans. who were no great thing when they were in power, were voted back in so strongly, ya gotta know that the Democrats messed up big time—- and Obamacare was their signature “accomplishment.” The only reason that the Senate still has a slim Democrat majority is that two thirds of the seats were not up for election.
Some polls were artfully crafted by focusing on a few hot button issues, such as transferablility of coverage between employers and coverage of prior conditions.
Left out are the incredibly statist and intrusive aspects of the bill, including new taxes, $500MM theft of Medicare funding, the so-called but aptly named “death panels,” which sneaked back in via agency mandate, over 150 new panels and commissions, “gotcha” rules, and much more major interference in our lives. We don’t WANT your statist nightmare. Better to start over.
The points I mentioned in one of my previous posts above were what the public actually wants. Don’t force the rest of it on us. I do lament that the Republicans did not propose some reform on their own when in power. You are incorrect that they had a seat at the table in the last four years, though. Their own plans were proposed and virtually ignored by MSM and Democrat legislature; the vast majority of GOP proposed amendments were shot down. The bill was written in secret and often votes were taken with no time to read the bill and no substantive debate. The bill was “deemed” into law by FORMER Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who bypassed traditional checks and balances.
26 states have now filed lawsuits to end the bill. Seven states are in the process of invoking the Tenth Amendment to nullify its provisions, with more likely to follow. Obama and left wingers, through their astounding overreach, have precipitiated a degree of divisivness not seen since the Civil War.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 11:03 AM
All. I’m still waiting for someone who thinks repealing this law is a mistake to deal with the substance of Tom’s arguments. The key point made in the article was that the law that was passed is making things worse, not better. Costs are indeed rising faster than they were before this law, more people are being forced out of policies because the costs are rising and we all get to pay more taxes to pay for it. Gee, sounds great, where do I sign up!
This is pretty simple: if you do something and its not working the way you thought, don’t you stop doing it? Think about your own lives or your business, you would never behave like our government does. Coming up with alternatives is a separate matter altogether and independent of the real issue dealt with in this article is that ObamaCare is making our problems worse, not better. Like he said, stop the damage first.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 11:41 AM
All. I’m still waiting for someone who thinks repealing this law is a mistake to deal with the substance of Tom’s arguments. The key point made in the article was that the law that was passed is making things worse, not better. Costs are indeed rising faster than they were before this law, more people are being forced out of policies because the costs are rising and we all get to pay more taxes to pay for it. Gee, sounds great, where do I sign up!
This is pretty simple: if you do something and its not working the way you thought, don’t you stop doing it? Think about your own lives or your business, you would never behave like our government does. Coming up with alternatives is a separate matter altogether and independent of the real issue dealt with in this article is that ObamaCare is making our problems worse, not better. Like he said, stop the damage first.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 11:56 AM
What most supporters of Obamacare still fail to realize is its not affordable, in any way and does not save any one any money ever. That is a myth and a lie used to console people and trick them into selling their soul to the new evil empire, progressivism.
All medical services are a net economic drain, meaning, when all is sorted out and accounted for it consumes more wealth than it produces. So if you want to continue to have a medical industry, you will as a sovereign economy, need to produce the extra wealth somewhere else to make up the difference. You lefties following so far? For clarification, wealth in this case is not personal, but economic (national), so taxing the wealthy is not only stupid but useless. Of course this applies to all other net wealth consuming services as well and that includes government.
Now then how do we determine if we are producing that extra wealth? The best method we have so far is our balance of trade. Right now we have a net trade deficit of nearly half a trillion dollars a year, meaning we consume half a trillion dollars more than we make and sell to other economies. Holy crap! This is really fricken bad people!
We have been running a deficit for decades and the result should be a very poor America. But wait we are not poorer, so what gives? Ah, now here comes the debt. The reason we are able to run such a high deficit is because we simply borrow the difference. We now have a combined public and private debt of $50 trillion dollars! Jeeze-a-lou!
Ok, no partisan slams here people, just the plain, cold, hard facts. We are broke, we consume more than we produce and we have done it for two generations and accumulated a huge debt. DNC, GOP, who gives a crap? The bottom line is still the bottom line. YOU ARE IN DEBT! YOU OWE THE WORLD $160,000 and so does every other man, woman and CHILD in this country. If you are a married couple with two children you owe $640,000 to the world and that number is growing at an alarming rate!!!!
Retooling a net wealth consuming service so that it is expanded when you clearly do not have the means to pay for it is about as stupid as anything this country or any other has ever done. If you don’t get that then you are a friggen idiot and I would be really curious to see how you manage your personal finances.
Ok, want to know how to pay down our debt, have a surplus trade, and be able to afford more wealth consuming services? Well, it has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, tax fairness, “job creation” or government. But that’s a conversation for another day. Right now repeal Obamacare and cut up the national credit card as well as your own. You can have credit back when you demonstrate the means to pay for it and right now you demonstrate the exact opposite.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 12:11 PM
All. I’m still waiting for someone who thinks repealing this law is a mistake to deal with the substance of Tom’s arguments. The key point made in the article was that the law that was passed is making things worse, not better. Costs are indeed rising faster than they were before this law, more people are being forced out of policies because the costs are rising and we all get to pay more taxes to pay for it. Gee, sounds great, where do I sign up!
This is pretty simple: if you do something and its not working the way you thought, don’t you stop doing it? Think about your own lives or your business, you would never behave like our government does. Coming up with alternatives is a separate matter altogether and independent of the real issue dealt with in this article is that ObamaCare is making our problems worse, not better. Like he said, stop the damage first.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 12:56 PM
AN50: You make a good point that the nation’s obligations are much greater than the nominal $14 trillion we always hear about.
That is because of the:
- Huge unfunded liabilities of entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and the drug program
- Enormous off-balance sheet and Federal Reserve liabilities
- Unknown ticking derivatives time bombs
- Possible future TBTF banks, insurance companies, industrial liabilities and still more foreign bailouts which our idiot government may attempt to assume, to “save” us.
- Additional Obamacare liabilites, which are far greater than the lies of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and “Mini-Me” Lois Capps would indicate.
Peruse http://usdebtclock.org for a partial picture. It may actually be even worse, although the assumptions for calculating something as slippery as “unfunded liabilites” are very debatable.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 01:04 PM
What timing! This is classic:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa
SEIU locals ask for and receive waivers from complying with provisions of ObamaCare. Like Tom asked in the article: if this law is so great why have all these companies and unions asked for waivers?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 01:40 PM
Yes, what hypocritres the SEIU are. Onen of the bigget promoters of Obamacare, seekls parachute—LOL!
Speaking of Chicago, Rahm-bo was just declared ineligible to run for Mayor. Now, how about checking up on his boss, too?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 02:02 PM
What timing! This is classic:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa
SEIU locals ask for and receive waivers from complying with provisions of ObamaCare. Like Tom asked in the article: if this law is so great why have all these companies and unions asked for waivers?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 04:04 PM
Mr. Watson is too vague about why, when his political brethren recently controlled all 3 branches of the federal government, they didn’t do the kind of “common sense health reform” he says we need, and can afford?
Why didn’t Mr. Watson push all through the ‘90s, and most of the last decade, to
make it happen? Why didn’t Elton Gallegly, or our representatives before Capps?
Former Republican Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist has acknowledged that “Many parts of the new Health Law are solid steps forward.” Does he know less about this than Mr. Watson?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 04:16 PM
Publius,
Perhaps Tom will pipe in but as I read it the point of his article was to deal with the situation before us: ObamaCare and whether or not to repeal it, and nothing else. You can’t write a thesis and cover everything in a short opinion piece. Stay on topic. What did or didn’t happen 6 or 10 years ago isn’t relevant to whether or not to repeal ObamaCare today. It stands on its own as an issue.
So, instead of trying to change the subject why don’t you deal with the substance of what was written?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 04:22 PM
Oh publius. “Why didn’t Mr. Watson push all through the ‘90s, and most of the last decade, to make it happen?” It’s called the US Navy. As for Bill Frist, nice guy, heck of a surgeon, and an establishment Republican. He read the TEA leaves and decided the better part of valor was to become a lobbist with his good friend Tom Daschle. Now let’s look a little deeper. Follow the money my son.
Frist is a partner in a private firm that bets on health care companies and the regulatory envioronment that helps them. So Frist gets rich by helping pick the health care companies that will get rich with Obamacare. Well shazaam!! What do you know…he does not support repeal and supports targeted changes. So I guess I just have to pick up the phone and ask Bill & Tom what they want to remain. Hmmmmm
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 04:44 PM
I read the SEIU story regarding the waivers. It means, to me,that the law was written with room for HHS to make it work. It seems 222 businesses and other entities got a temporary waiver of which 45 were unions who cover there members after negotiations with employers. Not a big deal to me. Seems like smart planning to avoid unintended results.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 04:50 PM
“Alternative recommendations are the subject of another essay, but first things first, let’s stop the damage.”
Now, now, let’s not put the cart before the horse. We don’t want to buy a pig in the poke. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush ya know.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 05:17 PM
It is really hard to take anything that comes from this guy seriously . “I hate government run health care”, but don’t you dare touch my Medicare. “Government spending is out of control” but can I get an earmark (right Tom?) Oh and by the way Tom have you given up that horrible military pension (401K all the way, right Tom?) or that lifetime of military retiree health care? Simple question, since Tom was 18 has he earn a penny that didn’t come from the government? Seems to be more of “I got mine forget everyone less movement” than anything else.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 05:22 PM
Publius: Possibly because he was not a legislator and was too busy in the US Navy defending your right to write about him as you have.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 05:25 PM
I’m a small/mid-size business owner with approximately 100 employees. I believe in business, commerce and capitalism. My company has always provided medical insurance to our employees.
All that said, I can tell you the single most frustrating issue related to doing business is not paying taxes, or dealing with government regulation, etc. It’s having to deal with the medical insurance companies, and their ever-changing plan designs and ever-increasing costs of coverage. We’ve experienced an average of about 15% increase each year for the cost of medical insurance. How many other things in your life increase in cost 15%/year? Not very many.
So, for all those folks knocking the healthcare legislation, that is fine, but do you really have alternative solutions to the problem? Do you even fully understand the problem? I know Tom Watson doesn’t or he’d spend more time elaborating on those, rather than trying to debunk someone else’s plan.
For my two cents, we’d all be better off with a single-payer system such as Medicare. Private insurance companies could still offer supplemental plans for those that elect to purchase them, or could afford them. And, from a business perspective it levels the playing field for employers.
Now I know many of you ideologues will disagree based on positions you’ve already staked-out based on your political beliefs, but I’m giving you first-hand experience from a business owner.
Lastly, all this talk of polling is quite ridiculous. When Americans are polled on the specific elements of the healthcare bill, they love it but it’s too complicated for them to digest as a whole.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 05:34 PM
Also, Publius, Tom’s party has not been in charge of all three branches of government in many, many years:
The three branches of govt. (from high school civics);
- Executive: 2+ years
- Legislative: 4+ years
- Judicial- not in my memory
The Republicans offered multiple plans in the last two years, which were stonewalled by the Democtrats and virtualy ignored by the MSM. I even heard stuff like: “The Republicans have offerd nothiong.”: Simply untrue.
They also offered numereous amendments to Obamacare, which were virtually all ignored.
I agree with you tyhat they should have offered something earlier, when they had two branches.
The linked article offers some Obamacare critique and alternatives, although it is a bit old:
http://venturacountyteaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/health-care-reforms-and-hr
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 06:01 PM
Voice of Reason after reading your comment I do believe that you are lying about being a business owner. No rational business person with a lick of sense would take your position.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 06:51 PM
sbtwo and the rest of you fans of ObamaCare. Is it possible for you to stay on topic? Attacking Tom about serving in the military and doing business with the government has nothing to do with the substance of his arguments. He laid out a case, if you don’t like it debunk with logic, facts and reason. Don’t attack him, its frankly childish. Since none of you can seem to offer a cogent opposition to his positions we have to assume you can’t.
Talk about making it hard to take someone seriously. Listen to yourself. Put up a reasoned position and stop the personal attacks.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 07:01 PM
Voice of Reason - I couldn’t agree more, but I hope you truly are a business owner with 100 employees. It wouldn’t hurt to elaborate.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 07:13 PM
All, I would like to address some common comments running in this thread having to do with insurance and how hard it is to get and it costs so much. Have you considered that the primary reason why this is the case is due to the regulatory environment? Insurance companies are just collections of individuals trying to make a living like you and I. They are not inherently evil as some politicians like to portray. They play on the regulatory field prepared for them by our government at all levels. Insurance is the most regulated industry in our country and the states limit competition to just a few insurers. The average profit margin for a health insurer is 3%, that’s not high. Every premium increase has to be signed off by the state insurance commissioner. The government sets the minimum required coverage which must be offered and requires insurers to carry certain reserves to cover losses. Based on those government provided requirements the actuarial calculations predict the risk and premiums are calculated. Its not an arbitrary process.
One of the reasons the costs have spiked since ObamaCare was passed is that they mandated a number of things that increased the minimum coverage, that costs more. If all these new requirements are so necessary, why weren’t most people willing to pay for it before when they could have easily elected to pay for it? They weren’t willing because it wasn’t judged cost-effective.
This brings us full circle back to the point of the article in the first place: ObamaCare is making our core problem of increased costs well in excess of inflation even worse. Somebody please tell us why you think this is a good idea.
Finally. Nobody enjoys fighting with insurance companies, but you can get a new insurance company if you aren’t happy with them. If you have a single payer, i.e. the government, pay for everything then you are stuck. They own you. I don’t know about you but I’d rather argue with an insurance company than the government. Most people aren’t prepared to turn their bodies over to the tender mercies of Uncle Sam. BTW, who do you think rejects more claims (by percentage), Medicare or private insurers?
Answer: Medicare
The answer isn’t less competition, its more.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 07:14 PM
This will stun some of my readers who tend to leap to incredibly broad conclusions about my universe of beliefs from a single posting.
While I am generally conservative on financial matters and liberal on social ones, I have to confess that since I went from private medical insurance to a Medicare Advantage program, my costs have gone down and my level of care has not changed (of course Medicare by any private measure is bankrupt, as would Obamacare be in its current form).
I also felt that a public option was a necessary part of a national plan, required to force the insurance companies (who I disrespect, not to say hate, with a passion) to be competitive - unfortunately this did not make it into Obamacare.
And I am a small business owner who provides health insurance to fulltime employees. And have watched (private) premiums increase at over 15% a year since I can remember (see previous paragraph).
So, Cindy Rivers, while I usually agree with you, you should be careful about calling people liars. Not very civil and can be hard to prove - except in the case of Lois Capps who publicly repeatedly stated she would not seek a third term, took money from the term limits lobby, then ran anyway. Now THAT’s a liar.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 08:19 PM
John, I am no fan of the insurance companies, but a public option would have probably bankrupted the private companies. A private insurance company that can only reimburse their policyholders from their premiums would not be able to compete with the govt and their unlimited taxpayer subsidies. A public option was the first step toward single-payer and, ultimately, would have made you dependent upon the govt for your insurance. The only answer to the problem is more competition not less. Why can’t we buy insurance across state lines and only for coverage that I need?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 09:00 PM
At least some of you folks fail to understand how an insurance company works:
1- “Profit margin” is not paramount. Service, ROI (Return on Investment) and ROE (Return on Equity) are almost everything. So, it is possible to use seed capital to start up and run a company, comply with reserve requirements and build up a revenue stream. The most important thing is the return on capital, not sales, although certain minimum margins are necessary to help ensure that.
2- While underwriting losses are not desirable, it is often still possible to make a profit while doing so. The secret is OPM—Other People’s Money. The insurer invests the premiums money to make a profit and to help provide for paying claims to the insured. This is the miracle of capitalism and why private companies will ALWAYS be better than cash-eating, greedy, inefficient governments. Do you think Medicare, Medical and Obamacare do that?—har-har! Our Government siphons off every penny, then borrows till more for its insatiable spending programs, with their attendant waste and catering to favored constituencies. Now, they simply print even more money when that isn’t enough.
Yes, the insurance company needs to make a profit, but it has investment income and a capitalist incentive to be more efficient. Through good management and judiciously applied and hopefully minimal regulation, it can be kept on the right course. So, the 3% or whatever margin on sales is a cheap price to pay. This is why certain types of insurance actually have cash surrender value.
Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. The CBO estimate is a farce, relying upon 10 years of revenue vs. six years of benefits and other absurd and mendacious assumptions. Furthermore, you will not save money by covering 30+ million additional people, many of whom are indigent.
Some 40% of physicians polled intend to retire in the next 3-4 years, many because of Obamacare and other things squeezing working conditions, compensation and peace of mind.
Malpractice insurance, loss of operating freedom, doctor-patient relationships, regulations, student and practice loans are just a few of these things. How attractive will the field now appear to young, aspiring students? Traditionally, medicine attracted the cream of the crop- now, we’ll be Cuba or the old USSR.
Our highly partisan legislators are pushing us off a cliff with their absurd and incompetent lawmaking, which denies capitalism, the Constitution and human nature itself. Thank you Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Lois Capps and the rest of the sorry crew that cursed us with this. 69% increase in Blue Shield— gee thanks
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 09:30 PM
CaMaven,
Good discussion. There is one other thing that needs to be pointed out though. Many of you think that the “for profit” part of the model is the problem. Nonsense. Here in CA this year Blue Shield, a non-profit, just asked for the largest premium increase of any insurer. 59%. Anthem Blue Cross, a for-profit division of the insurer Wellpoint, earlier in the year asked for about a 30% increase and all these politicians went bonkers accusing them of profiteering. These same pols are strangely silent on the Blue Shield issue even though there increase was about 2X the for profit insurer. Blue Shield was a big supporter of ObamaCare BTW.
The profit motive gives us every new product we have from iPhones to new medications. Without it you have the DMV. It fosters competition and drives efficiencies. It works everywhere else in our economy and it will work in health care if we let it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 09:38 PM
CaMaven, that was an excellent, fact-driven analysis of the vast problems we will have to deal with under Obamacare. Wireless, I appreciate your analysis of the specific deficiencies of this law. The problem is that most people who defend this obnoxious law do not understand the intricacies of the law and are applying their political beliefs in hyper-emotional manner. This is why they invariably stoop to name-calling and other unproductive tactics.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 10:22 PM
Excellent point, “Wireless,” Ya oughta run against Capps in 2012, so that Distric 23 won’t continue to be part of the problem, but if the votesr diodn’t get it this year, I wonder if they ever will.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 10:44 PM
Lou: I’m sure many of them passionately believe it and one has to have some sympathy for the Liberal urge to nurture.
But, the bottom line is that a system has to pull its own weight and have the respect and support of its full constituency, especially those who really pay most of the bills. It also needs to foster a sense of self-responsibility and understanding of human nature.
That list of desired reforms was sent to Capps and other legislators. The best responses were only boilerplate form letters. Looking at HR3200 and its several successors, we have had about zero effect on the final result.
I do not believe that Obamacare can be amended by eliminating some its most odious features, but must be voided and started anew, whether by repeal, defunding, striking down by the courts, piecemeal dismantling or state level Tenth Amendment nullification.
If the left thinks we’re gonna back off on this one, they need to think again. They will give us great ammunition for the 2012 elections and elimination of more of their number in government. And, no, we don’t need to dedicate 14 months of total war like they did to create it. We can walk and chew gum simultaneously.
I do believe in some of the features in Obamacare, as you might have gathered from the list of proposed reforms supplied, but not in the statist, highly “Progressive” framework and coerced economics that constitutes Obamacare.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 11:17 PM
Fine. I’m willing to repeal Obamacare. On one condition.
Republicans need to pass a law that the Congressional Budget Office certifies will cover the same number of uninsured as the Democratic health reform does - 30 million. And it has to do it at lower cost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/19/AR2011011902438.html
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.24.11 @ 11:54 PM
WWonka. Thanks for not calling us names. A refreshing change!
Let’s be clear. Everyone would like to see everyone have the ability to afford health insurance. There is a difference between health insurance and health care. Nobody is denied care by law. Nobody is arguing the system is optimum, it clearly is not. The point of Tom’s piece is that we are compounding and making worse the problems we have. This makes zero sense.
The reason we have a large number of uninsured is due to number of factors including young people don’t think they need it, people know they will get treated if something really bad happens, some people are willing to self-insure, and a small percentage can’t get it due to pre-existing conditions, but the biggest reason is that it is too expensive. The President himself has said this. Passing ObamaCare and making it more expensive is not helping. The key is to lower the cost, not raise it and tax the you know what out of everyone to pay for it which is what this current disaster does.
There were a number of good suggestions earlier in this thread, Tom has suggestions on his website, Heritage Foundation has tons of ideas on how to lower the cost, reduce the mandates, make policies more portable and give people ownership of their own policies. Its basic economics and aligning the incentives with the product and rational economic behavior. Govt. intervention, cost shifting, regulations and mandates have created this mess, get rid of those and the free market will produce insurance products that will service the market. It is a product, treat it like one and it will respond like one. Its called the free market and it works for everything else in our economy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 12:16 AM
One other thing. The link below is an attempt to visually depict the law as written and of the different boards, agencies, etc. that are involved in your health care now. Does anyone care to defend this? Does anyone think this can actually work? And they wonder why costs are increasing….
http://www.house.gov/brady/pdf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 12:27 AM
Wireless, I would suggest an additional reform to improve the system, and that is everyone would have to pay for some portion of their health care. The main function of health insurance is to protect people from catastrophic illnesses, not reimburse the doctor for providing care for a cold. Auto insurance does not cover an oil change and tune-up. There are perverse incentives in the the current system preventing people from being good consumers and medical professionals competing for patients based on price and quality of service. I know this is not popular with politicians and much of the populace, but it is a necessary component of real reform. Also, the employer-based insurance system should be eliminated and everyone should have their own portable insurance policy. The present system is a relic of a system devised in the late 1940’s and has outlived its usefulness a long time ago.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 11:13 AM
Amazing, Its always the healthy wealthy white people who oppose any improvement in our social structure. They are so incredibly selfish and greedy.
The only thing that I can assure is that one day Tom Watson will be sick and in need of care or his family will become very ill and in need of care. When that happens (and it will) Tom will suffer the consequences of his myopic and greedy choices and will suffer through our profit first medical system. I hope he loses his house and his dignity.
Regardless this guy is a royal ass and will get that sick and die like the rest of us. I cannot wait until that happens. This guy is not worth the air he breaths.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 11:15 AM
Yes! Kill more people with bombs, put more people in jail, steal from the poor and deny health care to the sick!!!
The republican mantra…
Any they are the ones that are more moral? HA HA
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 11:44 AM
Gee, the January 25 reader comments so far are really advancing the civil dialogue and increasing community knowledge and understanding, huh?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 11:53 AM
someguyinsb, boy go take your meds and sit down, your level of discourse is to be ignored. In fact I imagine beyond my response you will not garner one from anyone else. Go home, mommy is calling.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 12:39 PM
This is really great stuff here! CaMaven , Wireless and Lou, good stuff! This is truly informative opinion.
John and VoR as small business owners I share your pain, but I think the answer is more completion not less through a single payer plan. Dropping interstate restrictions, tort reform and many of the suggestions written here is the way to go. This is what happens when you take the discussion out of Washington and bring it to the pragmatic table of the electorate. Ideas flow, problems get identified and solutions are formed outside of the corrupt politics of government.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 03:12 PM
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act HB3200
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration care according to the patient’s age.
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years.
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HB3200 also specifically states this bill will not apply to members of Congress
Any questions?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 03:24 PM
I have had the same experiences as Voice of Reason though I employ far fewer people and have had much larger increases. The first year after I insured my people I got a 35% increase. When asked the insurance company said they miscalculated the costs. My sister who has been in the industry for thirty years in another state said that was BS. They knew. I got bait and switched but because of the position we’re in we are trapped.
I always thought a more competitive system with a requirement for everyone to be in it (what the Republicans used to call “The Slacker Rule”) was the best way but now I just say expand Medicare and be done with it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 03:45 PM
Yes, I have questions:
- How could voters be stupid enough to vote for people who would pass such blatantly stupid, unconstitutional, uneconomic, unworkable, unaffordable legislation?
- And how could anyone be gullible enough to believe the CBO analysis don e with rigged data that even they protested?
READ IT.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 04:10 PM
On further reflection, most of the voters weren’t stupid, but didn’t thoroughly investigate and think through the consequences. Some sincerely believe in Socialist approaches. Having seen the consequences, I disbelieve it.
Many are simply too busy to have time to delve into it.
Some have raised the UK and Irish health care models. Well, Ireland just crashed and is now burning. UK is about to and is pulling back. I was surprised to learn that countries like Germany actually have ahybrid system.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 09:34 PM
JasKevin,
Unfortunately Medicare (and Medicaid) are fundamentally bankrupt now. The future unfunded liabilities of these systems are already well in excess of what can be paid—- before loading them up with ObamaCare… If they were business they would be in Chapter 7 liquidation, its that bad. Medicare alone has about a $37T (yes trillion) unfunded liability, as of this moment, over the next 75 years. That is guaranteed to go up. There is no possible way to pay this, none.
The government will shed these obligations, its just a question of when. They have no choice. Adding new entitlements and obligations and expanding already bankrupt systems is suicidal. The healthcare market needs to be returned to private competition based model without so much government intervention. There is no other practical way to continue to provide high quality care, continue to innovate and develop new drugs and treatments, and offer it to the maximum number of people without a more competitive market based approach. Our market economy gives us all kinds of great stuff at great prices, healthcare can to if we let it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 10:54 PM
JasKevin,
One more thing I noticed. You mentioned that you thought specific recommendations needed to be offered before repealing ObamaCare. I think you said “bird in the hand…” and “cart before the horse..”
In my view, this is a false argument/premise. Either ObamaCare can stand on its own merit or it can’t. Saying you can’t get rid of my terrible program until you have a better one doesn’t make a lot of sense. If ObamaCare is causing more harm than good, and IMHO it is, then it deserves to be judged on those merits (or lack thereof) independent of any alternatives. The point is that it is worse than the old status quo. Costs are increasing faster, they will increase even more rapidly, more people can’t afford insurance than before and for the numerous reasons already touched upon will degrade our care over time. It is a net negative and needs to be treated as such. This law is an avoidable train wreck. What we are saying is stop the train and regroup. That makes a lot more sense than running into a wall with our heads down at full speed which is what we are doing. There are tons of better ideas out there already proposed but stop the train first.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.25.11 @ 11:21 PM
Wireless: According to http://usdebtclock.org, it’s much worse than that, although I recognize that unfunded liability is far from an exact science and assumptions can also vary widely.
After watching the State of the Union bloviation tonight, I realize that we’re being ruled, not governed, by delusional maniacs. I use the plural because Congress has not yet proven to me that they will turn it around. Repeal of Obamacare is problematical and proposed cuts are way too little, way too late. Bankruptcy would seem almost to be an act of mercy.
Unfortunately once the credit card cushion afforded by the “World’s Reserve Currency” and the lunacy of Ben Bernanke wear off, we will be more like Russia in the 1990’s, or maybe Venezuela, if we are somewhat more well-managed.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.11 @ 12:09 AM
Wireless: I am taking JasKevin’s side on this one, even though I’m with you in spirit.
Why: People are suspicious of the Republicans for not addressing health care reform when they had the chance. Most do not even know that the GOP had alternative plans on the table while Obamacare was being foisted upon us, because the Democrats repeated the lying mantra that there was no opposing plan and the media stonewalled it.
At this point, they probably believe that our side wants to take the football away and leave then in the dirt, like in Charlie Brown. So, what harm would there be in at least discussing the parameters of a future healthcare accord? Obama made some oral concessions on tort reform tonight, which probably infuriated his trial lawyer supporters. Also multi-state health plan offerings. Those are basically govt. revenue neutral issues, but would hugely benefit consumers.
Some type of portability scheme would be a huge help, although it would need a funding pool arrangement, or would affect general rates. Ditto on prior conditions. To avoid the problem of buying “fire insurance,” people would have to start and stay on insurance early, with some portability protection, so they couldn’t just buy in after the “fire,” or it would hugely raise costs and unfairly shift those costs to healthier and more prudent people. All such schemes ask people participating in them to protect themselves while sharing the financing of risk coverage. It could work somewhat like auto insurance. Higher risks tend to pay higher rates. If they opt out, they stay out, unless they pay a reinstatement fee, which they may not be able to afford. I can’t design it on the fly right here, right now, but just offer a few talking points.
The biggest problems with Obamacare are the extent off government involvement, extent of coercion and unconstitutionality. Many provisions should offer an opt out. It should not be interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, unless it is funding it and that should only fund the worst indigent safety net people, with bare bones safety net programs. It should have severe means testing and not cover law breakers here illegally or their offspring. So-called “Cadillac” plans are for people with Cadillac budgets.
I included some desirable reform items in a previous posting.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.11 @ 08:15 AM
Ok. For those of you who support this abortion of a bill; when are the Dems going to submit their bill to cut 500 million in Medicare? Hmmmm? When are they submitting their doc fix? Hmmm? When are they?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.11 @ 08:59 AM
Last night’s SOU speech was just further proof that we can’t afford even what we have. In between lip service to ““spending cuts” of $200BB/year were still more promises to spend, spend, spend.
“Sputnik moment?” Don’t make me laugh. Houston, we have a problem.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/empty-promises-5-reasons-why-barack-obamas-state-of-the-union-address-was-completely-wrong-about-the-economy
Pual Ryan’s response made far more sense, but it may be too late for even that.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.11 @ 04:40 PM
CaMaven, I agree-there was a lot of fancy rhetoric, but very little in the way of specifics to reduce the deficit and runaway govt spending. In fact, he actually proposed to increase spending by calling it “investments”. He still doesn’t get it, we are broke and have no way to pay for it other than Bernanke printing new money. Many people assume with a rising stock market that we are experiencing an economic recovery, but after the Fed finishes QE2 in June, we shall see if this so-called recovery is sustainable.
He pretty much said that he would not materially change the health-care law, other than minor insubstantial changes. He is trying to project an image of moderation and bi-partisanship, but the substance indicates no change. He is an ideologue and no amount of dissembling is going to change this.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.11 @ 06:05 PM
Yeah, Lou. Can he really be THAT stupid, or is he deliberately trying trying to run us off the rails? I have watched Bernanke’s body language when he presents. His lips literally quiver and voice quakes at times. I think he realizes that we are in very serious trouble, but is playing out his role in our Greek tragedy (unfortunately eerie metaphor, considering what is happening over there).
Even real academic (please excuse the apparent contradiction) Keynesians know that the current hyper-ideological version being practiced is just another form of “Voodoo economics,” to steal a phrase from Reagan’s old critics. It is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out.
From what I can tell from Williams’ http://shadowstats.com and other sources, our de facto GDP may be negative, real inflation at 8.5% and real unemployment north of 20%—depression territory. When you pull out all the funny money, real GDP is even worse!
Looking at other macroeconomic indicators, such as energy consumptiion and shipping indices, it helps confirm that there is significant real GDP shrinkage, in spite of the blizzard of lies we encounter daily. Real shrinkage is not necesarily all bad, if we are eliminating overblown credit and delveraging within reason, though.
But everything must be fine, because the Dow poked its head over 12,000 today, huh?
The powerzz that be will simply not give up control and will do ANYTHING to retain their privileged position, even if it means taking many of us down and creating major inflation.
We need to start rebuilding our manufacturing and export capability again, or at least making more stuff that we consume internally. We’re down to 14% mfg. share of GDP, half of what it was when I was young. We need to reduce the 25% Federal govt share of GDP.
While all this is happening, the man-boy “President” and fellow travelers want to rev up the hyper-expensive utiopian programs, while the MSM cheers them on.
All the numbers are moving in the wrong direction. With real debt/obligations at 8X+ GDP, it’s basically game over/start over and only the endgame timing and rate of descent are still partially negotiable. Green shoots- snorrrt! Recovery—LOL! that’s the sound of several trillion in poorly spent stolen and printed funds going up in smoke. “Sputnik moment” indeed. He will eat those words.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.26.11 @ 07:04 PM
He, someguyinsb, drop the racist class warfare bs and join those herein who are actually discussing the issue.
AN50, I’d be delighted to see a more competitive insurance system and I think that would start with the elimination of the powers of the states to minimize competition. I think also no one with any employment history in the insurance industry should be allowed into the insurance regulatory apparatus.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.11 @ 02:07 AM
I’m not lying Cindy Rivers, and I’m offended you would make such a ridiculous and unfounded accusation. Maybe that goes to the root of the problem. You don’t hear other viewpoints anymore.
Perhaps you have an experience that’s different from mine? Let’s hear your experience and how it’s guided your beliefs instead of just bashing other people and making unfounded accusations.
I’ll bet if you sat in a room full of CEOs of small and mid-sized companies many of you hardcore right-wingers would be shocked at what you might hear.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.11 @ 11:16 AM
Well gang, the hits just keep on coming. Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law—holding down costs and allowing everyone to keep their insurance if they like it—are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare’s Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee on Wednesday.
Why again did we do this? The evidence continues to pile up that this law is a total train wreck unfolding before our eyes. This law needs to repealed before it does permanent damage.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.11 @ 11:43 AM
PS. We are still waiting for a cogent and reasoned defense of this law…....
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.11 @ 12:05 PM
Wireless, et al:
- House of Reps already voted repeal by a larger margin than its original passing. Critics say this is just a “symbolic” act to appease the Tea Party, but it’s far, far more than that.
-First, it delegitimizes Obamacare, because a large majority of The People’s reps have now repudiated it soundly.
- Next, the vote lays the groundwork for systematic defunding and taking apart the bill piecemeal, while we wait for a GOP Senate and the removal of an unqualified (and more) aberration from the White House, who slipped in during a “Perfect Storm” in the nation’s history.
- The vote is also a close shot over the bow of a Senate that is only still Progressive because only 1/3 is up for election every two years. Something like 23 Senate seats are in jeopardy in 2012. Senators must be looking carefully at what is going on in the post 2010 election environment.
- The vote is also getting the attention of courts which will be ruling on the Constitutionality of Obamacare. 26 states have now challenged the law.
- Over 700 organizations have applied for waivers to the law.
- Most polls show a strong desire for repeal, in spite of the furious media and left wing politicians’ “spin.” As the people learn about our government and media lies about the bill, a crescendo af angry cries to repeal or moderate it will only grow.
- The CBO has already repudiated the fallacious assumptions given it to evaluate the bill, which they had to use under the law.
- Insurance companies have pointed out why the law will greatly increase costs and have followed up on those announcements with huge rate increases, backed by data.
- Finally, multiple state level Tenth Amendment Obamacare nullifications are underway.
This is easily the greatest repudiation of a federal law since Prohibition. In fact, there is already talk of massive civil disobedience, just like during Prohibition- “23 skidoo, kiddo!” (Most of you may not be familiar with “Flapper” era slang,
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.11 @ 12:22 PM
Hmmmm. Interesting. More waivers from ObamaCare issued in the last few days. Department of Health and Human Services just issued 500 more waivers for unions, companies, and states to avoid some of the many restrictions and mandates contained in Obamacare.
Just last week the list of escapees was 222.
Now: The list now at 729 - plus 4 states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee). The total number of union waivers stands at 182.
Like Tom asked in the article we’ve been discussing: since when do people want waivers from good laws and sound policies?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.27.11 @ 12:25 PM
Speaking of Senate action ....
By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Sen. Jim DeMint planned to introduce a bill on Wednesday that he said will serve as the main Senate Republican legislative vehicle for repealing Barack Obama’s signature health care law.
DeMint, a Greenville, S.C., Republican elected to his second term in November, said 31 of the Senate’s 47 GOP members had signed on as cosponsors of his measure, and that he expected more to add their names.
“There is just strong unity in the Republican Party that we need to repeal this and start over with the right ideas,” DeMint told McClatchy on Tuesday. “We just need to remind people that more and more economists are saying this is a fiscally dangerous law.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a military lawyer, was on Air Force Reserve duty in Afghanistan and had not cosponsored DeMint’s bill by Tuesday evening.
Kevin Bishop, a Graham spokesman, said the Seneca Republican would “very, very likely” sign on to the DeMint legislation.
Graham planned to introduce a narrower measure next week with Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, that would authorize states to opt out of the new federal mandates requiring all but the smallest firms to provide medical insurance to their employees.
“We are committed to repealing ObamaCare, and I appreciate Jim’s hard work on this effort,” Graham said. “Whether it’s an outright repeal, a state-based opt-out, delaying implementation of its major provisions or withholding funding, we will use every tool to repeal and replace ObamaCare.”
DeMint’s said his bill will be similar to repeal legislation the House passed last week by a 245-189 vote, with three Democrats joining all 242 Republicans in supporting the law’s annulment.
“Republicans are standing with the American people, who are demanding we repeal this government takeover of health care,” DeMint said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said last week he wouldn’t permit the Senate to take up any repeal measure.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insisted Tuesday that he will force a Senate vote on overturning the major legislative achievement of Obama’s first two years in office.
“In the Senate, it’s difficult to deny a vote,” McConnell told reporters. “If (Democrats) choose not to have it in a voluntary way, we will have it, I assure you.”
Even Republicans succeed in forcing a repeal vote, they face an uphill struggle to Senate passage. With 47 seats now in GOP hands, at least four Democratic senators would have to vote to repeal the health care law.
In the Senate’s 60-39 passage of the original health insurance measure in December 2009, all 60 Democrats voted for it. The party lost seven seats last November and now controls 53 posts.
Obama, who defended the law to extend medical benefits to millions of uninsured Americans in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, has vowed to veto any bill overturning it that emerges from Congress.
Republicans do not have enough votes in either the House or the Senate to reach the two-thirds constitutional requirement – 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate—for overriding a presidential veto.
Republicans, though, are pursuing repeal votes in Congress as part of a multi-prong attack on the law that also includes court challenges by GOP governors and attorneys general.
South Carolina is among 25 states that have joined Florida’s lawsuit against the health insurance law.
A federal judge in Virginia last month ruled that the requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, but other judges have upheld the law. The case is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
DeMint gained national attention in July 2009 when he urged prominent conservative activists to block Obama’s bid to give all Americans medical coverage.
“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo,” DeMint said then. “It will break him.”
Reading DeMint’s quote aloud verbatim a few days later, Obama upbraided him for having tried to make their policy differences personal.
“This isn’t about me,” Obama said. “This isn’t about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America’s families, breaking America’s businesses and breaking America’s economy.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/26/107449/sc-sen-demint-aims-to-...
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.11 @ 09:33 AM
Rather than arguing about repeal, how about debating what a good plan would include, while being affordable.
Obviously, a plan that includes totally realistic assumptions regarding Medicare funding is flawed.
Clearly, leaving tort reform out of the current bill fails to address a major cost issue.
Mathematically, health insurance plans can’t work if only sick or unhealthy people sign up, so requiring everyone to participate made financial sense.
And leaving out a public option is anti-competitive, as is leaving insurance regulation in the hands of the States.
Why not agitate to fix problems like these instead of wasting energy debating repeal?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.11 @ 10:37 AM
I think there two reasons that won’t happen John. One, there is way too much animosity over how the current bill was railroaded onto the public. Many see repeal as message to those that would abuse their power for policy. Second, there are way too many things wrong with this bill, like hundreds. Probably better to repeal and do over, with a wee bit more transparency.
The way this bill was introduced and foisted on us broke what little trust anyone had in our government. If Obamacare was the panacea it was preached to be it could have been done in the light of day and with more bipartisan support. It was not that panacea though; it was a Trojan horse instead. Everyone including the president knows it.
The truth is, its Harry Reid’s laws, not Obama’s and if Obama would shake loose the ideological bond he is enslaved to, he could let the law be repealed, blame Reid and come out ahead in the end. If he digs in, he’s through.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.11 @ 12:33 PM
John- RE:
“Rather than arguing about repeal, how about debating what a good plan would include, while being affordable.”
I’ve already done that, in a previous posting.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.11 @ 01:47 PM
First step has to be to clear the board, take what is good, add in plans will actually help…then pass it. But I truly think that these arguments are all about playing in the forest. Step back. The real issue is debt. Period.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.11 @ 08:21 PM
You did indeed, CAMaven, and I agreed with them in a subsequent post. My last post was addressed to those who insist on making this a pro/con repeal debate or a Rep/Dem debate. As John Adams correctly observed over 200 years ago, the creation of a two-party system will result in the parties fighting with each other instead of determining and following the will of the people.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.28.11 @ 10:45 PM
Hi John: I don’t even think it’s so much Republican vs Democrat anymore, as multiple dimensions:
- Conservative vs Liberal/Progressive
- Statist vs small govt
- Nanny state vs individualist
- Planned economy vs private sector-driven
- God-loving vs secular
- Interventionaist vs islolationist
and more ....
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.29.11 @ 10:23 AM
Obama said in the SOU “anything can be improved.”
Both Obama and Bachmann agree that medical malpractice reform is needed.
There is room for compromise and improvement. The good things about health care reforem (universal coverage among them) should not be rejected because of legitimate disagreements about cost controls - the cost controls issue should be addressed!
The following article from the Salt Lake City newspaper (remember, Utah is one of the reddest states around) is both rational and constructive:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51138396-82/health-care-solution-insurance.html.csp
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.29.11 @ 10:34 AM
You’re quite right, CaMaven, and a nuanced thinker. I appreciate your posts.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.29.11 @ 11:04 AM
WWonka,
Thanks for the link. The problem is fundamental with ObamaCare and it has serious structural flaws. These flaws make it unworkable in my and many others view, which is why we believe nibbling on the edges of something that went 180 degrees in the wrong direction is not a viable alternative. When you make a wrong turn you need to turn around.
ObamaCare at its core is a government driven program that attempts to manipulate the health care industry through mandates and cost shifting. That just compounds the problems we have with our current system, it makes it worse. The primary problem we have is one of cost and ObamaCare clearly is aggravating our cost problem.
In the original article we’ve all been discussing it was pointed out that ObamaCare kept in place the primary structural flaw in our current system and made it worse. That being the third party payer system. That system leads to significant overuse because people perceive someone else is paying for it. Adding more “freebies” that aren’t free at all and mandating more coverage and cost shifting is just going to make things worse, its basic economics and already being borne out by rapidly increasing premiums.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.11 @ 04:05 PM
There is a God! Federal District Judge strikes down individual mandate for ObamaCare as unconstitutional. In his ruling he deals with the non-severability of the mandate from rest of the law, meaning the entire law was ruled null and void.
This is significant as 26 states were co-parties to the suit. Clearly on its way to the Supreme Court but this whole enterprise is on increasingly shaky ground.
Comments you fans of ObamaCare??
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.11 @ 04:18 PM
John- re:
“You’re quite right, CaMaven, and a nuanced thinker. I appreciate your posts. “
OMG- those are words the Left uses to describe people like John Kerry, so I may not take it as a compliment :-).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.11 @ 04:29 PM
There is a God! Federal District Judge strikes down individual mandate for ObamaCare as unconstitutional. In his ruling he deals with the non-severability of the mandate from rest of the law, meaning the entire law was ruled null and void.
This is significant as 26 states were co-parties to the suit. Clearly on its way to the Supreme Court but this whole enterprise is on increasingly shaky ground.
Comments you fans of ObamaCare??
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 01.31.11 @ 06:48 PM
The actual RULING !!! :-)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/Opinion - 2.pdf
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.01.11 @ 04:03 PM
I’ve been reading more of Judge Vinson’s ruling on ObamaCare. This is a devastating ruling for fans of the law. His logic is well reasoned and documented with other case law. In order for the government to prevail on appeal they will somehow have to negate all of their own previous arguments as the Judge used their own arguments against them in his decision to void the entire law. He did so with devastating effect.
You never know how things will go in court but this law is in big trouble despite some liberal commentators protestations to the opposite. This ruling rips this law to shreds.
Yesterday was a good day for liberty.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.01.11 @ 04:31 PM
In honor of the Gipper’s 100th Birthday, take a listen to what Ronald Reagan thought about socialized medicine. Worth the listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AYrlDlrLDSQ#
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.11 @ 10:04 AM
In honor of the Gipper’s 100th Birthday, take a listen to what Ronald Reagan thought about socialized medicine. Worth the listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AYrlDlrLDSQ#
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.02.11 @ 10:03 PM
Let me get this straight . . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase andfined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people,without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! ‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?’
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.08.11 @ 01:00 PM
Here is some more wonderful news on the disaster that is ObamaCare. Health ensurers are leaving the market. As predicted:
http://www.galen.org/fileuploads/Health_Insurers_Withdraw_from_Markets.pdf
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
Weather: Fair 62.0º
Search Noozhawk »
