WOW! “SHOW ME STATE” SHOWS OBAMACARE THE DOOR Prop C Passes By Over 70%

[Bfgrn]

More states should follow this line that MO took.

Its unconstitutional for the federal government to demand that I buy a product from a private company in order to be a citizen in good standing.

AMAZING loss of memory by right wing pea brains...


Health-care reform bill included big GOP idea: individual mandate

The Miami Herald

MIAMI — The 13-state lawsuit against the new health-care law is focused on a provision long advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.

The lawsuit, a Republican-led effort including Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."

In fact, requiring each American to have health insurance was created by a conservative economist in the 1980s and slowly gathered momentum until the insurance industry embraced it in 2008.

Mark Pauly, a free-market economist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he came up with the proposal for the first Bush administration. His proposal required only catastrophic coverage — as an alternative to those pushing for all employers to offer insurance.

The idea was picked up in 2006 by Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor crafted a health-care law that requires almost all state residents to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote then in The Wall Street Journal. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group, made a stunning announcement: It favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of pre-existing conditions.

After being adamantly opposed to an overhaul during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind — based on one condition: Any plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties.

AHIP's reasoning: Without an individual mandate, Americans could wait until they got sick and then sign up for insurance — a financially disastrous situation for insurance companies.

Nation & World | Health-care reform bill included big GOP idea: individual mandate


A Republican Idea

House Republicans continue to see the individual health care mandate as the most problematic and controversial provision in the Affordable Care Act. For right-wing activists, it represents an unprecedented assault on liberty. For right-wing grandstanders, it represents the basis for litigation. The whole idea is supposed to be so red-hot that it forces Dems to run in the other direction.

But as long as the GOP keeps pushing this, I'm inclined to remind them that the individual health care mandate is a Republican idea. It was always a Republican idea, ever since it started gaining traction in GOP circles in the 1970s.

Indeed, this isn't an idea Republicans were willing to tolerate in years past as part of negotiations with Democrats, but rather, this was an idea Republicans came up with.

The roster is pretty long of prominent Republicans who've either endorsed the individual mandate, voted for a plan with an individual mandate, co-sponsored legislation with an individual mandate, or all of the above. It includes George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Judd Gregg, among others.

All of them have supported an individual mandate -- a provision that Republicans now believe to be an unconstitutional freedom-killer that must be eliminated for the sake of American liberty.

As the GOP continues to hyperventilate over the mandate, keep this relevant detail in mind.

The Washington Monthly

How the hell does any of that make it constitutional? I would think you of all people would understand that just because the republicans do or back something doesn't make it right and constitutional.

Check my avatar, read my signature and dont mistake me for something I'm not.

Try getting out of that box once and a while man.

I have read enough of your ignorant dribble to know you are a right wing pea brain. At one point early on, I thought you might have a brain, but you proved that was an aberration.

Here's something REAL for you to contemplate...the number one problem we face as a nation and as a people is NOT the deficit. There's no doubt it is a long term concern, but it will not feed a single mouth or create one job. The immediate and number one problem we face is making sure the lives and well being of hard working Americans is not ruined by the economic crisis we are in. All your tea party rants and attacks on Democrat's attempting to help people in this dire economic fiasco is destructive to this country.

 

[saveliberty]

Yet ignoring the deficit will slow the recovery and most likely cause a major crash down the road. Why not man up and take the hit yourself, instead of placing this crushing burden on the next generation that had no say in your drunken sailor spending?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet ignoring the deficit will slow the recovery and most likely cause a major crash down the road. Why not man up and take the hit yourself, instead of placing this crushing burden on the next generation that had no say in your drunken sailor spending?

Ignoring the deficit will accelerate the recovery. The economy must be stimulated. To 'have' a next generation, this one must survive.

 

[Navy1960]

AMAZING loss of memory by right wing pea brains...


Health-care reform bill included big GOP idea: individual mandate

The Miami Herald

MIAMI — The 13-state lawsuit against the new health-care law is focused on a provision long advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.

The lawsuit, a Republican-led effort including Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."

In fact, requiring each American to have health insurance was created by a conservative economist in the 1980s and slowly gathered momentum until the insurance industry embraced it in 2008.

Mark Pauly, a free-market economist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he came up with the proposal for the first Bush administration. His proposal required only catastrophic coverage — as an alternative to those pushing for all employers to offer insurance.

The idea was picked up in 2006 by Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor crafted a health-care law that requires almost all state residents to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote then in The Wall Street Journal. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group, made a stunning announcement: It favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of pre-existing conditions.

After being adamantly opposed to an overhaul during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind — based on one condition: Any plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties.

AHIP's reasoning: Without an individual mandate, Americans could wait until they got sick and then sign up for insurance — a financially disastrous situation for insurance companies.

Nation & World | Health-care reform bill included big GOP idea: individual mandate


A Republican Idea

House Republicans continue to see the individual health care mandate as the most problematic and controversial provision in the Affordable Care Act. For right-wing activists, it represents an unprecedented assault on liberty. For right-wing grandstanders, it represents the basis for litigation. The whole idea is supposed to be so red-hot that it forces Dems to run in the other direction.

But as long as the GOP keeps pushing this, I'm inclined to remind them that the individual health care mandate is a Republican idea. It was always a Republican idea, ever since it started gaining traction in GOP circles in the 1970s.

Indeed, this isn't an idea Republicans were willing to tolerate in years past as part of negotiations with Democrats, but rather, this was an idea Republicans came up with.

The roster is pretty long of prominent Republicans who've either endorsed the individual mandate, voted for a plan with an individual mandate, co-sponsored legislation with an individual mandate, or all of the above. It includes George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Judd Gregg, among others.

All of them have supported an individual mandate -- a provision that Republicans now believe to be an unconstitutional freedom-killer that must be eliminated for the sake of American liberty.

As the GOP continues to hyperventilate over the mandate, keep this relevant detail in mind.

The Washington Monthly

Just a thought here Bf, you know I make no bones about the fact that I am a Republican , however that does not mean I agree with every Republican idea that came down the pike especially that one. Of course the Insurance industry would be in favor of an individual mandate , why not, it forces people to buy their product, heck what business would not like to have a law that forces people to purchase from them. It still does not make it right. A bad idea is a bad idea, even if it comes from my own party or for that matter was adopted by the other party.

As a liberal, I am not enthused with the outcome, especially in light of the way the debate started; with talk of a strong public option. IMO, the only solutions forwarded that would have benefited the average working man came from progressives and the left...single payer (which mistakenly was never on the table) to the public option...everything after that was more and more of the 'corporate' option.

I know you are a Republican Navy, but the Republicans were nothing but obstructionists. If you know the details and intent of the Frank Luntz memo, then you also understand that there was only the intent by Republicans to KILL reform and hand Obama his 'Waterloo'

I suggest you tear up your Republican affiliation card Navy, because any party that acts that unethical, irresponsible and divisive on a piece of legislation as important as health care borders on criminal.

I haven't always voted for Democrats in the past. But I don't see myself ever voting for a Republican again. The party has been taken over by zealots like Grover Norquist that are out to dismantle the middle class.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru

You know Bf, I have always thought that the goals of healthcare at least the large one's are shared by most people Democrat and Republican alike. That people would like to see healthcare affordable, available, and high quality for those that need it and want it. I believe that the problem comes in when those on the far right and those on the far left are unwilling to budge on their ideas. and accept that maybe just maybe everyone has something to contribute. I honestly believe that something as important as healthcare reform should include as many idea's as possible to achieve the goals I mentioned. On a personal level I feel it is a issue that lacks a clear and solution and we as voters elected the wrong people, both Repbulican and Democrat to craft that solution. I do think though that rather than trying to get rid of the healthcare bill, which I don't see happening unless the Court strikes parts of it down, why not emplore those that represent us to stop wearing the R and D team jerseys for a little bit and actually modify the bill to achieve those goals? Let me give you an example of something, you know for almost a year I heard one side talk about how the insurance companies eveil, etc etc you can fill in the blanks, and the other talk about socialized medicine, now lets look at that for a moment, on the one hand we ended up with a bill , that will come as the biggest reward to those very same evil insurance companies ever and on the other hand to argue against socilaized Medicine and then turn around and complain about a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare seems nonsense. The point here is, perhaps few of those that had a real interest here really wanted to pass real healthcare reform and left the rest of us right back where we started, except looking for a way to pay for it.

 

[Samson]

I have read enough of your ignorant dribble to know you are a right wing pea brain. At one point early on, I thought you might have a brain, but you proved that was an aberration.

Here's something REAL for you to contemplate...the number one problem we face as a nation and as a people is NOT the deficit. There's no doubt it is a long term concern, but it will not feed a single mouth or create one job. The immediate and number one problem we face is making sure the lives and well being of hard working Americans is not ruined by the economic crisis we are in. All your tea party rants and attacks on Democrat's attempting to help people in this dire economic fiasco is destructive to this country.

Frothy Rant >>> Ignorant Dribble

 

[saveliberty]

I have read enough of your ignorant dribble to know you are a right wing pea brain. At one point early on, I thought you might have a brain, but you proved that was an aberration.

Here's something REAL for you to contemplate...the number one problem we face as a nation and as a people is NOT the deficit. There's no doubt it is a long term concern, but it will not feed a single mouth or create one job. The immediate and number one problem we face is making sure the lives and well being of hard working Americans is not ruined by the economic crisis we are in. All your tea party rants and attacks on Democrat's attempting to help people in this dire economic fiasco is destructive to this country.

Frothy Rant >>> Ignorant Dribble

Your ignorant meter is in top condition. The rant meter might be off a bit. I thought he was more foamy than frothy.

 

[Samson]

Just a thought here Bf, you know I make no bones about the fact that I am a Republican , however that does not mean I agree with every Republican idea that came down the pike especially that one. Of course the Insurance industry would be in favor of an individual mandate , why not, it forces people to buy their product, heck what business would not like to have a law that forces people to purchase from them. It still does not make it right. A bad idea is a bad idea, even if it comes from my own party or for that matter was adopted by the other party.

As a liberal, I am not enthused with the outcome, especially in light of the way the debate started; with talk of a strong public option. IMO, the only solutions forwarded that would have benefited the average working man came from progressives and the left...single payer (which mistakenly was never on the table) to the public option...everything after that was more and more of the 'corporate' option.

I know you are a Republican Navy, but the Republicans were nothing but obstructionists. If you know the details and intent of the Frank Luntz memo, then you also understand that there was only the intent by Republicans to KILL reform and hand Obama his 'Waterloo'

I suggest you tear up your Republican affiliation card Navy, because any party that acts that unethical, irresponsible and divisive on a piece of legislation as important as health care borders on criminal.

I haven't always voted for Democrats in the past. But I don't see myself ever voting for a Republican again. The party has been taken over by zealots like Grover Norquist that are out to dismantle the middle class.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru

You know Bf, I have always thought that the goals of healthcare at least the large one's are shared by most people Democrat and Republican alike. That people would like to see healthcare affordable, available, and high quality for those that need it and want it. I believe that the problem comes in when those on the far right and those on the far left are unwilling to budge on their ideas. and accept that maybe just maybe everyone has something to contribute. I honestly believe that something as important as healthcare reform should include as many idea's as possible to achieve the goals I mentioned. On a personal level I feel it is a issue that lacks a clear and solution and we as voters elected the wrong people, both Repbulican and Democrat to craft that solution. I do think though that rather than trying to get rid of the healthcare bill, which I don't see happening unless the Court strikes parts of it down, why not emplore those that represent us to stop wearing the R and D team jerseys for a little bit and actually modify the bill to achieve those goals? Let me give you an example of something, you know for almost a year I heard one side talk about how the insurance companies eveil, etc etc you can fill in the blanks, and the other talk about socialized medicine, now lets look at that for a moment, on the one hand we ended up with a bill , that will come as the biggest reward to those very same evil insurance companies ever and on the other hand to argue against socilaized Medicine and then turn around and complain about a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare seems nonsense. The point here is, perhaps few of those that had a real interest here really wanted to pass real healthcare reform and left the rest of us right back where we started, except looking for a way to pay for it.

Bfgrn is the typical partisan hack: Nothing short of complete acceptance of his dogmatic approach to throwing Federal Resources and a presumably bottomless pit of Tax Payer Funding at any problem will suffice.

There is no number of examples of previous failures of this absurd dogma that can alter the ridiculous course.

 

[Bfgrn]

As a liberal, I am not enthused with the outcome, especially in light of the way the debate started; with talk of a strong public option. IMO, the only solutions forwarded that would have benefited the average working man came from progressives and the left...single payer (which mistakenly was never on the table) to the public option...everything after that was more and more of the 'corporate' option.

I know you are a Republican Navy, but the Republicans were nothing but obstructionists. If you know the details and intent of the Frank Luntz memo, then you also understand that there was only the intent by Republicans to KILL reform and hand Obama his 'Waterloo'

I suggest you tear up your Republican affiliation card Navy, because any party that acts that unethical, irresponsible and divisive on a piece of legislation as important as health care borders on criminal.

I haven't always voted for Democrats in the past. But I don't see myself ever voting for a Republican again. The party has been taken over by zealots like Grover Norquist that are out to dismantle the middle class.

"We're going to crush labor as a political entity"
Grover Norquist - Republican economic guru

You know Bf, I have always thought that the goals of healthcare at least the large one's are shared by most people Democrat and Republican alike. That people would like to see healthcare affordable, available, and high quality for those that need it and want it. I believe that the problem comes in when those on the far right and those on the far left are unwilling to budge on their ideas. and accept that maybe just maybe everyone has something to contribute. I honestly believe that something as important as healthcare reform should include as many idea's as possible to achieve the goals I mentioned. On a personal level I feel it is a issue that lacks a clear and solution and we as voters elected the wrong people, both Repbulican and Democrat to craft that solution. I do think though that rather than trying to get rid of the healthcare bill, which I don't see happening unless the Court strikes parts of it down, why not emplore those that represent us to stop wearing the R and D team jerseys for a little bit and actually modify the bill to achieve those goals? Let me give you an example of something, you know for almost a year I heard one side talk about how the insurance companies eveil, etc etc you can fill in the blanks, and the other talk about socialized medicine, now lets look at that for a moment, on the one hand we ended up with a bill , that will come as the biggest reward to those very same evil insurance companies ever and on the other hand to argue against socilaized Medicine and then turn around and complain about a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare seems nonsense. The point here is, perhaps few of those that had a real interest here really wanted to pass real healthcare reform and left the rest of us right back where we started, except looking for a way to pay for it.

Bfgrn is the typical partisan hack: Nothing short of complete acceptance of his dogmatic approach to throwing Federal Resources and a presumably bottomless pit of Tax Payer Funding at any problem will suffice.

There is no number of examples of previous failures of this absurd dogma that can alter the ridiculous course.

WOW, thank you for proving you are a Fox Snooze spoon fed pea brain that can only spew right wing corporate propaganda. A public option would require citizens to PAY for health insurance, or have those little inconvenient 'nuances' not been explained to you by your ignorant right wing media???

America is the ONLY first world country that doesn't have comprehensive health care for it's citizens. And, because of it, manufacturers from countries like Japan eat our competitive lunch every day.

Don't believe me, then ask someone that ran a corporation...

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.
Lee Iacocca

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting that 0bama went the route that only benefited government control of our health care system and the associated power that comes with it. Fixing it was never really considered.

 

[Greenbeard]

I believe that the problem comes in when those on the far right and those on the far left are unwilling to budge on their ideas. and accept that maybe just maybe everyone has something to contribute. . . . Let me give you an example of something, you know for almost a year I heard one side talk about how the insurance companies eveil, etc etc you can fill in the blanks, and the other talk about socialized medicine, now lets look at that for a moment, on the one hand we ended up with a bill , that will come as the biggest reward to those very same evil insurance companies ever and on the other hand to argue against socilaized Medicine and then turn around and complain about a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare seems nonsense. The point here is, perhaps few of those that had a real interest here really wanted to pass real healthcare reform and left the rest of us right back where we started, except looking for a way to pay for it.

This law is full of ideas from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Notable ideas pushed by the right that appear in the law include:

• the individual mandate (introduced by conservatives in the last '80s as an alternative to the liberal-favored employer mandate)
• ending the infinite tax exemption for employer-provided health benefits (in this case that took the form of taxing those benefits above a certain threshold, a variation of an idea frequently pushed by conservatives)
• using the tax code to promote health insurance uptake (the details vary here--the Democratic proposal is structured in a more progressive fashion than some alternative ways of doing this--but the spirit is the same)
• interstate insurance purchasing
• tort reform (this differs from Republican proposals in that it's intended to trigger state-led tort reforms)
• emphasizing transparent state-based marketplaces to foster competition and choice (health insurance exchanges are actually in the Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, et al. Patients' Choice Act)

And more. And of course there are bipartisan ideas that both sides agree on (e.g. wellness programs, dependent coverage extending into the mid-20s, ending rescissions).

As for the arguments against evil insurance companies, as I recall, most of those were predicated on two things: underwriting and rescission. Both of those are essentially eliminated by the law so I'm not sure what you're finding hypocritical. However, to try and align as the saviors of Medicare while simultaneously decrying "government-run health care" was a bit much.

 

[Greenbeard]

Interesting that 0bama went the route that only benefited government control of our health care system and the associated power that comes with it. Fixing it was never really considered.

Of course, fix it! Why did no one think of that? It's all so clear now.

Why couldn't Obama have snapped his fingers and said "fix it" instead of allowing Congress to wade through policy proposals for months. The fools!

 

[Bfgrn]

Interesting that 0bama went the route that only benefited government control of our health care system and the associated power that comes with it. Fixing it was never really considered.

BULLSHIT!

You can't have it both ways...you can't accuse Obama of caving in to lobbyists, corporations and special interests AND then claim the government took over heath-care.

WHY are you right wingers so fucking stupid? Did your parents feed you paint chips?



"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[Navy1960]

Come now Green lets be fair here the Interstate portion of the bill allows states to form interstate compacts with other states, So if New York and Mass. wanted to share insurance purchasng they could, thats a far cry from the bill proposed by John Shadagg (Az.) that allows from all Americans to purchase policies anywhere they choose regardless of what state that policy may be in.

As for Tort reform, lets be honest here, while Tort Reform is a Rebublican Idea for the most part, there is no meaningful tort Reform in this bill , even the Presdient admits that, as well the CBO notwithstanding.

Of course this bill contains Rebublican idea's but is far from a bi-partisan bill, I might add you neglected to mention the increasing to 133% of the Federal poverty level in 2014 to qualify for state Medicaid which will add about 16 million people to Medicaid. With no clear way to fund it, other than through cuts in Medicare to the tune of 500 Billion Dollars and a heavy reliance on state's that are already in trouble financially. Further, there seem to be this over-looking of the fact that there is no Dox-Fix in the the current edition of this bill and there is a real issue in both Medicaid as well as Medicare of providers accepting it. So while yes while perhaps , being able to make the claim of saying we insured more people, there has been virtually nothing done to address the quality of care. Again this bill was an effort to get a legisltive win at all costs, and did not represent the wishes of many Americans and that is why this legislation is finding push back in the form of law-suits from many directions as well as at the ballot box.

On the issue of insurance companies, I seemed to recall a number of Democrats on the hill drone on endlessly about the evils of the insurance companies and at the same time heard the chatter of socialized medicine. So there is plenty of that to go around, but does not solve any of the glaring problems with the current edition of the bill.

 

[Samson]

You know Bf, I have always thought that the goals of healthcare at least the large one's are shared by most people Democrat and Republican alike. That people would like to see healthcare affordable, available, and high quality for those that need it and want it. I believe that the problem comes in when those on the far right and those on the far left are unwilling to budge on their ideas. and accept that maybe just maybe everyone has something to contribute. I honestly believe that something as important as healthcare reform should include as many idea's as possible to achieve the goals I mentioned. On a personal level I feel it is a issue that lacks a clear and solution and we as voters elected the wrong people, both Repbulican and Democrat to craft that solution. I do think though that rather than trying to get rid of the healthcare bill, which I don't see happening unless the Court strikes parts of it down, why not emplore those that represent us to stop wearing the R and D team jerseys for a little bit and actually modify the bill to achieve those goals? Let me give you an example of something, you know for almost a year I heard one side talk about how the insurance companies eveil, etc etc you can fill in the blanks, and the other talk about socialized medicine, now lets look at that for a moment, on the one hand we ended up with a bill , that will come as the biggest reward to those very same evil insurance companies ever and on the other hand to argue against socilaized Medicine and then turn around and complain about a 500 Billion dollar cut in Medicare seems nonsense. The point here is, perhaps few of those that had a real interest here really wanted to pass real healthcare reform and left the rest of us right back where we started, except looking for a way to pay for it.

Bfgrn is the typical partisan hack: Nothing short of complete acceptance of his dogmatic approach to throwing Federal Resources and a presumably bottomless pit of Tax Payer Funding at any problem will suffice.

There is no number of examples of previous failures of this absurd dogma that can alter the ridiculous course.

WOW, thank you for proving you are a Fox Snooze spoon fed pea brain that can only spew right wing corporate propaganda. A public option would require citizens to PAY for health insurance, or have those little inconvenient 'nuances' not been explained to you by your ignorant right wing media???

America is the ONLY first world country that doesn't have comprehensive health care for it's citizens. And, because of it, manufacturers from countries like Japan eat our competitive lunch every day.

Don't believe me, then ask someone that ran a corporation...

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.
Lee Iacocca

As per norm, you're offering fool-hardy solutions to a non-existant problem.

Comparing Japan Inc. Costs for EVERYTHING is fucking ludicrous you moron. Their ecomony is, and has been in shambles for the past decade or more.

But, let's not let that, or the fact that there are practically no government programs that have succeeded, stand in the way of throwing another government program at a problem.

And yeah, what about that $8,000 bill to the Emergency Room? What if their House Burns down? What if they're in a car wreck? What if one dies? Why doesn't Uncle Sam insure them for fire, liabilty, and life insurance??

After all, there's a bottomless pit of money, right, idiot?

 

[ekiosity]

The government can't "fix" healthcare. It can only make it worse. Regulation in health care increases costs by about 25% according to this article (cato org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf).

Here's the story of a doctor trying to treat patients for $79/mo shut down by NY regulators.
(vosizneias com/28392/2009/03/04/new-york-ny-doctor-trying-to-help-uninsured-patients-with-annual-low-fee-is-being-fought-by-state-bureaucrats)
He says he can afford to charge such a small amount because he doesn’t have to process mountains of paperwork and spend hours on billing.

“If they leave me alone, I can serve thousands of patients,” he said.

 

[saveliberty]

Interesting that 0bama went the route that only benefited government control of our health care system and the associated power that comes with it. Fixing it was never really considered.

Of course, fix it! Why did no one think of that? It's all so clear now.

Why couldn't Obama have snapped his fingers and said "fix it" instead of allowing Congress to wade through policy proposals for months. The fools!

I guess if your stupid enough to think government can fix your health you deserve whatever you get. Personally, I think Americans ought to wake up and take better care of themselves through diet and exercise. That is why we are behind other industrialized nations at this point.

 

[Greenbeard]

Come now Green lets be fair here the Interstate portion of the bill allows states to form interstate compacts with other states, So if New York and Mass. wanted to share insurance purchasng they could, thats a far cry from the bill proposed by John Shadagg (Az.) that allows from all Americans to purchase policies anywhere they choose regardless of what state that policy may be in.

There are three mechanisms in the bill that allow plans to be sold across state lines:

• National multi-state plans that can be sold in any state in the country (at least two of these must be offered through every state exchange).
• Exchanges may be multi-state if states which to merge their insurance markets.
• States wishing to enter compacts can do with with guidance and technical assistance offered by the feds.

All of those allow--at least theoretically--for greater choice and competition, all within the context of a governance structure scaled to that enterprise. The national plans are subject to national standards. Interstate compacts would be subject to rules agreed to between states, as would multi-state exchanges.

Now, if what you're really asking for is simply deregulation (or perhaps allowing insurers to write regulations for themselves) so that insurers can shed any risks--i.e. deny or drop any coverage they please--they please and aren't subject to any meaningful standards for the products they offer (i.e. removal of any and all consumer protections for purchasers), you should say so. But you can't at the same time pretend you'd like decent coverage to be available to all since the entire mechanism for lowering costs under the proposal is to (1) keep people who need care the most out of insurance pools and (2) significantly scale back on coverage offered.

That's just another way of asking for deregulation, as Shadegg's scheme relies on governance of health insurance policies that isn't scaled to the size of the transaction. That's why under Shadegg's bill every insurance policy now gets this lovely disclaimer:

‘This policy is issued by XXXXX and is governed by the laws and regulations of the State of XXXXX, and it has met all the laws of that State as determined by that State’s Department of Insurance. This policy may be less expensive than others because it is not subject to all of the insurance laws and regulations of the State of XXXXX, including coverage of some services or benefits mandated by the law of the State of XXXXX. Additionally, this policy is not subject to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of the State of XXXXX. As with all insurance products, before purchasing this policy, you should carefully review the policy and determine what health care services the policy covers and what benefits it provides, including any exclusions, limitations, or conditions for such services or benefits.’​

You might shorten that to: "This insurance policy may be cheaper because it's a piece of shit offered in a state with no consumer protections. Good luck."

This is a destructive idea.

Right now insurance companies have to base themselves separately in every state they wish to sell in, obtaining a license in that state and obeying the state's law (and building their risk pool in that state separate from other states). If you go to Anthem's web site you'll find a drop down menu of all the states they're operating in. Right now, each of those Anthem operations is segmented and subject to different rules or mandates. Under Shadegg's proposal, Anthem picks one state to set up its national operation and call home; it's no longer based in 50 separate states.

Under Shadegg's proposal, Anthem--no longer 50 separate operations but now one giant operation--can sell in any state it likes without having to worry about being licensed or knowing their laws. Everywhere it goes, it carries a little sphere of its home state's laws around it. So if it sets up shop in South Dakota, it's free to sell insurance products in New York. And those products only have to comply with South Dakota law, not New York law.

All it has to do is find one friendly state to set up shop. And by friendly I mean "industry-friendly," a state with an extremely lax regulatory climate. A state--South Dakota in our example--can even actively entice Anthem to set up its national operation there by lowering or even eliminating its health insurance regulations. Maybe they'll even let Anthem write the legislation that does that, the way South Dakota let Citibank write its usury laws. Once they do that, every Anthem customer in the United States, no matter what state they're in, is protected only by South Dakota's (now, in our example, virtually nonexistent) consumer protections.

The exact same system was put in place for credit card companies after the Marquette decision in 1978: they can operate in any state but are subject only to the rules of the state they're based in. What did credit card companies do? They relocated to states that literally let them write the legislation governing them (i.e. the elimination of state usury limits):

In an effort to stimulate the local economy, South Dakota was in the midst of eliminating its usury laws. Mr. Wriston [then chairman of Citibank] told Mr. Janklow [then governor of South Dakota] that if South Dakota would quickly pass a bill inviting Citibank into the state, he would bring 400 jobs. To preempt concerns from local banks about new competition, Citibank also promised to open only "a limited" bank. "We'll put the facility in an inconvenient place for customers and we'll pay different interest rates," Mr. Wriston recalled telling Mr. Janklow. "All we want to do is use it to issue cards.''

For Mr. Janklow, it was an easy decision.

"To me, this wasn't a credit card deal, it was a jobs deal," he said. "It was an economic opportunity for the state. I was slowly bleeding to death."

With bipartisan support and backing from South Dakota's banking association, Janklow proposed a special "emergency" bill. "Citibank actually drafted the legislation,'' he said. "Literally we introduced it, and it passed our legislature in one day."

The arrangement ultimately brought 3,000 high-paying jobs to South Dakota and a host of new suitors from banks across the country. Citibank seemed to just be the beginning.​

But, you say, what about other insurers? Note that in our example South Dakota didn't create an Anthem-friendly regulatory climate, it created an industry-friendly climate. Or as that article noted with regard to credit card companies in South Dakota: "The arrangement ultimately brought 3,000 high-paying jobs to South Dakota and a host of new suitors from banks across the country. Citibank seemed to just be the beginning." Other insurers will no doubt join Anthem in setting up their national operations in South Dakota. Or at least in states that behave in the same way to lure them in. Insurers that remain based in states like New York--with numerous consumer protections--will be the only insurers that sicker, older, or otherwise more expensive customers can hope to buy insurance from because the unregulated insurers based in South Dakota won't have any reason to take on their risk. Those regulated pools will thus become disproportionately full of expensive people, as all the less expensive customers start buying unregulated products from South Dakota. Markets like New York's then very possibly enter a death spiral or at the very least drive out those insurance companies (which creates more incentive for New York to shed its consumer protection laws).

That's why this proposal is invariably referred to as a race to the bottom. If you want to increase choice and competition through interstate sales, there are constructive ways to do that. Deregulation ala Shadegg is not it.

As for Tort reform, lets be honest here, while Tort Reform is a Rebublican Idea for the most part, there is no meaningful tort Reform in this bill , even the Presdient admits that, as well the CBO notwithstanding.

There is no national tort reform in the law. There is funding for state-based work to experiment with changes to their tort laws.

Of course this bill contains Rebublican idea's but is far from a bi-partisan bill

It's bipartisan in content. The fact that Republicans have chosen the electoral strategy they have--with its sister legislative strategy--isn't particularly interesting from a purely policy perspective.

I might add you neglected to mention the increasing to 133% of the Federal poverty level in 2014 to qualify for state Medicaid which will add about 16 million people to Medicaid. With no clear way to fund it, other than through cuts in Medicare to the tune of 500 Billion Dollars and a heavy reliance on state's that are already in trouble financially.

It's ironic, the Medicaid expansions were done because they're cheap. If we made everyone eligible for exchange subsidies (say, give the poor a voucher to buy private insurance) that would make this bill much, much more expensive. That said the "cuts" in Medicare are mostly reductions in overpayments to private insurers (turns out partial privatization actually made Medicare more expensive--who knew?) and decreases in the growth rate of non-physician reimbursements.

Further, there seem to be this over-looking of the fact that there is no Dox-Fix in the the current edition of this bill and there is a real issue in both Medicaid as well as Medicare of providers accepting it.

Medicaid primary care reimbursements are being temporarily increased to Medicare levels (they're currently only a fraction of that) starting in 2014 to address access issues during the expansion. And the permanent SGR fix was in the House bill, unfortunately that wasn't allowed to go to conference. But it will be addressed.

So while yes while perhaps , being able to make the claim of saying we insured more people, there has been virtually nothing done to address the quality of care.

That's a bit ironic, since your primary aims for "real" reform seem to revolve around tort reform, interstate insurance purchasing, and high deductible plans, none of which have anything to do with care quality. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point, though, as I've already pointed you to resources on the delivery system reforms that make up the bulk of the law. There's lots and lots of new support for accountable care organizations, medical homes, comparative effectiveness research, investments in wellness and prevention, incentives for discouraging re-hospitalizations and unnecessary care, performance payments, payment bundling, primary care workforce development, the CMS Innovation Center which gets to try out and rapidly implement on a wider scale new models of care aimed at improving quality and coordination, and other things I can't think of offhand.

Aside from specific initiatives (and there are dozens) the law itself, broadly speaking, is moving the system toward a new sort of systems approach: it presumes a data rich future for our system in which measuring services, quality and outcomes is the norm for evaluating and improving care. Put this together with the HITECH Act and you have, for the first time, a real system-wide move toward quality improvement as a primary emphasis of the system.

Again this bill was an effort to get a legisltive win at all costs, and did not represent the wishes of many Americans and that is why this legislation is finding push back in the form of law-suits from many directions as well as at the ballot box.

Given what people were saying they wanted the month the reform bills were released, I think they came pretty close to fulfilling the wishes of Americans.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn is the typical partisan hack: Nothing short of complete acceptance of his dogmatic approach to throwing Federal Resources and a presumably bottomless pit of Tax Payer Funding at any problem will suffice.

There is no number of examples of previous failures of this absurd dogma that can alter the ridiculous course.

WOW, thank you for proving you are a Fox Snooze spoon fed pea brain that can only spew right wing corporate propaganda. A public option would require citizens to PAY for health insurance, or have those little inconvenient 'nuances' not been explained to you by your ignorant right wing media???

America is the ONLY first world country that doesn't have comprehensive health care for it's citizens. And, because of it, manufacturers from countries like Japan eat our competitive lunch every day.

Don't believe me, then ask someone that ran a corporation...

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.
Lee Iacocca

As per norm, you're offering fool-hardy solutions to a non-existant problem.

Comparing Japan Inc. Costs for EVERYTHING is fucking ludicrous you moron. Their ecomony is, and has been in shambles for the past decade or more.

But, let's not let that, or the fact that there are practically no government programs that have succeeded, stand in the way of throwing another government program at a problem.

And yeah, what about that $8,000 bill to the Emergency Room? What if their House Burns down? What if they're in a car wreck? What if one dies? Why doesn't Uncle Sam insure them for fire, liabilty, and life insurance??

After all, there's a bottomless pit of money, right, idiot?

Japan has a the highest life expectancy in the world. But you right wing Pharisee never figure one penny of human capital in anything you measure.


Health Olympics
This concept has been used by the Population Health Forum at the University of Washington to rank countries by life expectancy (using annual United Nations data). As the chart below indicates (Click to see larger version), the US is not winning any medals in the Health Olympics.

Population Health Forum - Issues

NON existent problem? WOW that is a TRUE right wing pea brain statement...

The Cost of Doing Nothing
Why the Cost of Failing to Fix Our Health System Is Greater than the Cost of Reform

Affordability
As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.

The Cost of Doing Nothing | NewAmerica.net

 

[daveman]

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Last week, enviro author Bobby Kennedy Jr. (Crimes Against Nature) took his book tour to Yelm in Thurston County to speak at the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, where channeler JZ Knight holds court with Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old entity from Atlantis who speaks through her. Warned by a critic that he was addressing a cult, the broad-minded activist said, "I guess it would be OK if I spoke at Bob Jones University," reported The Olympian. Then he flattered his audience of more than 1,000 by assuring them, "You're good people with good values, and all the values this country is supposed to stand for." That would be mom, apple pie, and—Ramtha? When RFK Jr. was in Seattle in January, he tried to explain the gap between the expressed values of red-state voters and how they vote. His conclusion: It's ignorance. "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on," he proclaimed. A funny line, but maybe he's got a few knowledge gaps of his own to deal with. KNUTE BERGER

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Charts are hillarious sometimes.

Look at Japan and compare it to denmark. The difference is ~5 years but man does that chart make it look WAY MORE drastic.