The Conservative Case for Obamacare

[dblack]

That's because is this where our politics has led us: to a fusion of liberal and conservative principles. Cover more people, but do it using market mechanisms and private players.

Both presidential candidates have obviously endorsed this approach in their own ways. And at this point there isn't much out there in the way of alternatives.

Limiting our alternatives was the whole point of getting Romney nominated. The reason the Republican establishment fought so hard to push him to the fore (even to the point of alienating the core of the party and losing the election) is that they want control of health care just as much as the Democrats do.

 

[dblack]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

First, you are mistaken. It wasn't and isn't market mechanisms in either case, it is government mandated mechanisms.
Second, it isn't conservative to allow the government to force people to engage in commerce at either the state or national level.
Third, see the post from xsited1.

Can we chose not to have insurance ?

Not painlessly.

No choice is without pain, without tradeoffs. But the freedom to make it is essential nonetheless. Often the pain is worth it.

 

[hazlnut]

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national.

How does that make it vastly different?

If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it.

The States elected the President and the Senators and the Congressmen who passed it.

That's how a Republic works. Duh.

Welcome to America!!

Perhaps you should take a civics class before you embarrass yourself further...

 

[Murf76]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Bullshit. Obamacare is completely partisan, passed by Democrats on legislative bribery and procedural slight-of-hand. And just this morning, when we wake up and turn on our TV news, we're hearing about provisions which heavily fine hospitals for readmitting Medicare patients. And you know why they're doing that?... it's because they want healthcare RATIONED to the elderly. They want to force them onto hospice care so they can die without the most modern treatments because those treatments might be expensive. Mitt Romney had NOTHING to do with that. That's all on Obama.

Democrats want to decide when the fight for life is over and when "taking a pill" is good enough. And where will these people go when hospitals brush them off because they happened to have a relapse? Oh yeah... the grave.

If your parent or grandparent is on Medicare TODAY, they are at risk TODAY of not receiving the best course of treatment. But if you're an illegal alien... hey, you're in.
It's sick. And to say that Mitt Romney had anything whatsoever to do with such a morally twisted, evil thing is an absolute falsehood.

 

[xsited1]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

That is true. Even though it was passed through reconciliation and the majority of the voters disagreed with it, the proper rules were followed. The people should choose their leaders more wisely next time.

 

[Oddball]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

Must-purchase and must-cover mandates, along with laws against shopping out of state for cafeteria-style coverage, aren't market mechanisms, comrade.

You need to either quit going off script or get together with OIRA and come up with better talking points.

 

[Polk]

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

That is true. Even though it was passed through reconciliation and the majority of the voters disagreed with it, the proper rules were followed. The people should choose their leaders more wisely next time.

It's completely fair to think voters made a poor choice. I don't agree with you, but it's a legitimate argument. I'd also point out that most of the legislation was passed under standard procedure (only budget-related portions can use reconciliation).

 

[Polk]

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Bullshit. Obamacare is completely partisan, passed by Democrats on legislative bribery and procedural slight-of-hand. And just this morning, when we wake up and turn on our TV news, we're hearing about provisions which heavily fine hospitals for readmitting Medicare patients. And you know why they're doing that?... it's because they want healthcare RATIONED to the elderly. They want to force them onto hospice care so they can die without the most modern treatments because those treatments might be expensive. Mitt Romney had NOTHING to do with that. That's all on Obama.

Democrats want to decide when the fight for life is over and when "taking a pill" is good enough. And where will these people go when hospitals brush them off because they happened to have a relapse? Oh yeah... the grave.

If your parent or grandparent is on Medicare TODAY, they are at risk TODAY of not receiving the best course of treatment. But if you're an illegal alien... hey, you're in.
It's sick. And to say that Mitt Romney had anything whatsoever to do with such a morally twisted, evil thing is an absolute falsehood.

Most legislation is partisan. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

And you are completely clueless about the readmission provisions. The purpose isn't to ration care. It's for hospitals to pursue the right course of treatment the first time, instead of just doing enough to push the patient out the door. We shouldn't be giving incentives for hospitals to just patch someone up and throw them back out the door, then have them reenter the hospital a few weeks later.

 

[Murf76]

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Bullshit. Obamacare is completely partisan, passed by Democrats on legislative bribery and procedural slight-of-hand. And just this morning, when we wake up and turn on our TV news, we're hearing about provisions which heavily fine hospitals for readmitting Medicare patients. And you know why they're doing that?... it's because they want healthcare RATIONED to the elderly. They want to force them onto hospice care so they can die without the most modern treatments because those treatments might be expensive. Mitt Romney had NOTHING to do with that. That's all on Obama.

Democrats want to decide when the fight for life is over and when "taking a pill" is good enough. And where will these people go when hospitals brush them off because they happened to have a relapse? Oh yeah... the grave.

If your parent or grandparent is on Medicare TODAY, they are at risk TODAY of not receiving the best course of treatment. But if you're an illegal alien... hey, you're in.
It's sick. And to say that Mitt Romney had anything whatsoever to do with such a morally twisted, evil thing is an absolute falsehood.

Most legislation is partisan. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

And you are completely clueless about the readmission provisions. The purpose isn't to ration care. It's for hospitals to pursue the right course of treatment the first time, instead of just doing enough to push the patient out the door. We shouldn't be giving incentives for hospitals to just patch someone up and throw them back out the door, then have them reenter the hospital a few weeks later.

What a pantload. It's not a coincidence that Democrats couldn't get their end-of-life provision through and then settled upon another method to accomplish the same goal. There's no financial incentive for hospitals to dump out patients. That incentive comes from insurance companies who don't want to pay, Medicare being chief among them. To say that it's hospitals who are the problem makes no sense whatsoever.

Democrats are the ones who pushed this mess through. And they did it so they can legally RATION CARE to old people. That's who you stand with.... people who would encourage the death of your mother or your grandma in order to save a buck. If your loved one on Medicare today, suffers a heart attack, is hospitalized and treated, and a month later destabilizes and needs a pacemaker, the hospital is going to do its best to discourage her readmission. Neither she nor you will know who to trust or believe when it comes to her treatment.

Here's Obama insider, Stephen Rattner admitting it in a NYT op-ed dated Sept. 16th:
(bold is mine)

WE need death panels.

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

{snip}

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

cont...http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/o...form-beyond-obamacare.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

This is about pushing elderly patients toward palliative care, where life-sustaining treatments will be denied. They failed to incentivize doctors to make that push with the carrot, so instead they apply the stick to hospitals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute makes it today.

The counterargument to Obama used to be that the policy was perfectly fine, it just wasn't permissible to do it as a federal-state partnership (though, arguably, Romney's version already was, since it needed federal support). We found out in June that isn't the case and that Obamacare is just as constitutional as Romneycare. So now all that's left is the policy discussion and that's actually quite amenable to conservative principles.

The Conservative Case for Obamacare

IN the partisan war sparked by the 2008 election, Republicans conveniently forgot that this was something many of them had supported for years. The only thing wrong with the mandate? Mr. Obama also thought it was a good idea.

The same goes for health insurance exchanges, another idea formulated by conservatives and supported by Republican governors and legislators across the country for years. An exchange is as pro-market a mechanism as they come: free up buyers and sellers, standardize the products, add pricing transparency, and watch what happens. Market Economics 101.

In the shouting match over the health care law, most have somehow missed another of its obvious virtues: it enshrines accountability — yes, another conservative idea. Under today’s system, most health insurers (and providers) are accountable to the wrong people, often for the wrong reasons, with the needs of patients coming last. With the transparency, mobility and choice of the exchanges, businesses and individuals can decide for themselves which insurers (and, embedded in their networks, which providers) deserve their dollars. They can see, thanks to the often derided benefits standardization of the reform act, what they are actually buying. They can shop around. And businesses are free to decide that they are better off opting out, paying into funds that subsidize individuals’ coverage and letting their employees do their own shopping, with what is, in essence, their own compensation, relocated to the exchanges.

But perhaps the clearest indication of the conservative economic values underlying the act is its reception by many Democrats. The plan has few champions on the left precisely because it is not a government takeover of health care. It is not a single-payer system, nor “Medicare for all”; it does not include a “public option,” a health plan offered by a federal insurer. It is a ratification of market ideas, modified to address problems unique to health insurance. [...]

Clear away all the demagogy and scare tactics, and Obamacare is, at its core, Romneycare across state lines.

If I didn't actually think for myself, and actually thought there were only two choices, the fact that Democrats hate it might lead me to like it. Since that does not describe me, I can still fight against it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's because is this where our politics has led us: to a fusion of liberal and conservative principles. Cover more people, but do it using market mechanisms and private players.

Both presidential candidates have obviously endorsed this approach in their own ways. And at this point there isn't much out there in the way of alternatives.

There are no liberal or conservative principles in Obamacare, everything in it is progressive and statist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not changes to healthcare

Yes, changes to health care. This is where Romneycare and Obamacare diverge, as the latter is comprehensive health reform that encompasses health care, health insurance, workforce development, public health, the public programs (Medicare and Medicaid), you name it. Romneycare, on the other hand, only focused on health insurance.

But in their approaches to health insurance markets, Romneycare and Obamacare are very similar indeed.

Obamacare has nothing to do with health care, all it is worried about is controlling access to health insurance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One is a state program.

The other is a federal program.

That argument lost its legs in June: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Given that there's no constitutional issue, it's just good policy now. Even--or especially--Mr. Romney would agree! Besides, exchanges remain in state hands, just as Romney's Commonwealth Connector has and will.

Bill Frist explained the virtue of this state-based approach not too long ago: "Why both parties should embrace ObamaCare's state exchanges"

State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as "laboratories for democracy." We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation.

Want a more conservative, small-business focused exchange that bans abortion coverage in all its plans? Try Utah and its state exchange, originally founded under Gov. Jon Huntsman. Think that President Obama missed a huge opportunity to steer the nation towards a single payer system? Try Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system, Green Mountain Care, that will offer coverage to all state residents. With soaring health care costs one of, if not the most, dangerous threats to America's greatness, a new round of national health care experimentation is exactly what we need.

An approach that's conservative to its core.

Stop lying.

Do you have any idea how many challenges there are to various aspects of Obamacare? Given that these challenges actually exist, and are raising various constitutional issues that have not yet been settled, only a fucking lying sack of shit would claim there are no constitutional issues.

 

[dblack]

Not changes to healthcare

Yes, changes to health care. This is where Romneycare and Obamacare diverge, as the latter is comprehensive health reform that encompasses health care, health insurance, workforce development, public health, the public programs (Medicare and Medicaid), you name it. Romneycare, on the other hand, only focused on health insurance.

But in their approaches to health insurance markets, Romneycare and Obamacare are very similar indeed.

Obamacare has nothing to do with health care, all it is worried about is controlling access to health insurance.

That's the obvious focus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

It isn't conservative when any government interferes with the market. There are, however, different levels of conservatives with different goals. Some conservatives only worry about containing the federal government.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it.

Your logic is fatally flawed considering Congress voted for ObamaCare. Fuck you're dumb.

But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

Sorry but your wrong.

From Mitt Romney:

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy.

USATODAY.com


Population of Mass is 6.5 million. If 440,000 (~7%) were previously uninsured and 98% are insured now, that means ~91% were insured before RomneyCare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

Every piece of legislation I don't like is being forced down my throat, just like the ones you don't like are being forced down yours. You just happen to be dishonest enough to not care about the force when you like the legislation.

boo hoo

 

[Murf76]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it.

Your logic is fatally flawed considering Congress voted for ObamaCare. Fuck you're dumb.

But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

Sorry but your wrong.

From Mitt Romney:

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy.

USATODAY.com


Population of Mass is 6.5 million. If 440,000 (~7%) were previously uninsured and 98% are insured now, that means ~91% were insured before RomneyCare.

Who are you to be calling anybody else "dumb"? You support this mess, don't you?
These people sold you a bill of goods, telling you that you and your family would get some healthcare when basically the whole idea is to RATION CARE. Seems to me it's pretty dumb to fall for something like that. You don't plan on being old some day?... don't care about anybody who already is?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.

That is true. Even though it was passed through reconciliation and the majority of the voters disagreed with it, the proper rules were followed. The people should choose their leaders more wisely next time.

It's completely fair to think voters made a poor choice. I don't agree with you, but it's a legitimate argument. I'd also point out that most of the legislation was passed under standard procedure (only budget-related portions can use reconciliation).

Stripping out the entire language of a bill passed by the House and inserting an entirely new bill pretending the House voted on it is normal procedure? Can you provide examples to prove that?