Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He's said it in no uncertain terms; and that he'd grant waivers to everyone on day one.
I hate to break it to you, but he can't actually do that. The conditions for the waivers he's referring to are specified in the statute and they don't allow for for blanket exemptions from the ACA.
§1332(b)(1) (waivers for state innovation):
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may grant a request for a waiver under subsection (a)(1) only if the Secretary determines that the State plan--(A) will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined in section 1302(b) and offered through Exchanges established under this title as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services based on sufficient data from the State and from comparable States about their experience with programs created by this Act and the provisions of this Act that would be waived;
(B) will provide coverage and cost sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable as the provisions of this title would provide;
(C) will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents as the provisions of this title would provide; and
(D) will not increase the Federal deficit.
The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.
Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?
That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.
Immie
Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.
that's because they won't keep sick people alive
The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.
The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.
The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.
What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.
So if this was in the newspaper, why are we hearing about it now?
He's said it in no uncertain terms; and that he'd grant waivers to everyone on day one.
What are you trying to get at here? That Romney is for Obama policies? If you believed that for one second, you'd be thrilled. You'd get eight more years instead of four.
That's exactly what I'm worried about. Romney will push for the same shit as Obama with different trappings - and he'll get little to no push back from Congress. I'd rather see Obama flounder against a strong Republican opposition.
Obama is dangerous and undeserving. If a president fails in his first term, you don't give him a second term.
You guys can pretend all you want that Romney is for Obamacare; but the reality is he's promised to do away with it.
I'm sure Romney is not going to be the one to tell people with sick kids, "Hey, the insurance companies should totally be able to refuse to treat your child for a pre-existing condition."
Let me see if I can explain something to you, this is really hard, so pay attention.
Insurance companies do not treat people, doctors do.
Not having insurance does not mean your condition does not get treated, it just means that payment for said treatment is not part of a contract you have with a third party to defer risk.
Car insurance would be like LIfe insurance.
Tho, you wouldn't want to ponder about how you cannot replace a life, but you can replace your car...I hope that can be understood. very few people cannot follow that idea, guess they aren't smart.
So let's try again.
If you are going to have individual insurance instead of universal coverage, then what you really have is gambling.
The problem with the modern insurance industry is that it tries to rate the game.
If you are crashing your car every couple of weeks, they won't insure you unless you pay through the nose.
Similarly, if you are chronically sick, they won't want to insure you.
This is why insurance companies encourage employers to drop employees who run up a lot of medical bills.
It's why the go through medical histories trying to prove that conditions are "pre-existing", something they really didn't do ten years ago, but do not to cut costs.
Now, ObamaCare stops them from doing that, but it also requires everyone to actually have insurance. That keeps the insurance companies from cheating people, but it keeps people from cheating the insurance companies.
So let's try again.
If you are going to have individual insurance instead of universal coverage, then what you really have is gambling.
The problem with the modern insurance industry is that it tries to rate the game.
If you are crashing your car every couple of weeks, they won't insure you unless you pay through the nose.
Similarly, if you are chronically sick, they won't want to insure you.
This is why insurance companies encourage employers to drop employees who run up a lot of medical bills.
It's why the go through medical histories trying to prove that conditions are "pre-existing", something they really didn't do ten years ago, but do not to cut costs.
So, your complaint with insurance is that it's insurance. I tend to agree. It's a game, and the 'house' generally wins. That's why we should avoid it as much as possible.
Now, ObamaCare stops them from doing that, but it also requires everyone to actually have insurance. That keeps the insurance companies from cheating people, but it keeps people from cheating the insurance companies.
PPACA attempts to create "privatized" socialized health care. The difference between socialized health care and the risk sharing we engage with insurance is that the latter is voluntary - whereas socialized health care is coercive. PPACA is the worst of both worlds. It's a coercive program operated, for profit, by privately held companies.
The problem with a privatized system is that it can't truly exist unless we are willing to let people die in the street.
The problem with a privatized system is that it can't truly exist unless we are willing to let people die in the street.
I'm sorry, but that line is hysterical nonsense. No matter how many times demagogues throw it out there, it's a false dichotomy to pretend we must choose between the authoritarian state and social darwinism. Believe it or not, we can be a compassionate society without the state forcing it on us.
I think once you've said, "We will treat you irrespective of your ability to pay if your condition is serious enough", you've already taken a step down the "Socialist" path.
Because someone will end up paying for it if you can't. Whether it be the hospitals doing trick accounting to foist those costs on the paying customers or some kind of government subsidy or a mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance.
I think once you've said, "We will treat you irrespective of your ability to pay if your condition is serious enough", you've already taken a step down the "Socialist" path.
Because someone will end up paying for it if you can't. Whether it be the hospitals doing trick accounting to foist those costs on the paying customers or some kind of government subsidy or a mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. But there's no reason we need to continue down that path. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I think reversing the path wouldn't help, either.
I don't think there are easy answers.
We could just do what the rest of the world does and make health care a public service. The ironic thing is, if the SCOTUS plays politics and strikes down the Mandate, that might be the only option we are left with.
The big ugly secret of ObamaCare (AKA ROmneyCare 2.0) is that the insurance companies know that the long term, the status quo doesn't work. Companies can't afford insurance anymore despite all the redaction and screening, and it's waaay to expensive for anyone to buy on their own. That's why they went along with this whole mess.
The status quo only exists because of government mandates, assistance, etc. If companies were simply to convert what they paid for group policies into increased salaries, then the older worker would never be able to afford insurance and the young wouldn't buy it to start with.
Like I said, no easy answers... but maybe the first step is an honest conversation that doesn't involve, "We were all for Mandates until Obama proposed them."
We could just do what the rest of the world does and make health care a public service. The ironic thing is, if the SCOTUS plays politics and strikes down the Mandate, that might be the only option we are left with.
The big ugly secret of ObamaCare (AKA ROmneyCare 2.0) is that the insurance companies know that the long term, the status quo doesn't work. Companies can't afford insurance anymore despite all the redaction and screening, and it's waaay to expensive for anyone to buy on their own. That's why they went along with this whole mess.
Like I said, no easy answers... but maybe the first step is an honest conversation that doesn't involve, "We were all for Mandates until Obama proposed them."
We could just do what the rest of the world does and make health care a public service. The ironic thing is, if the SCOTUS plays politics and strikes down the Mandate, that might be the only option we are left with.
Why would that be the only option? Lots of different ways we could improve the situation that don't indulge the Wasthington's corporatist horsetrading. PPACA represents the ugliest of precedents - essentially establishing the power of corporate interests to use government to force us to their will. If the Court strikes it down, it will give us one more chance to force our leaders to actually address the problems.
The big ugly secret of ObamaCare (AKA ROmneyCare 2.0) is that the insurance companies know that the long term, the status quo doesn't work. Companies can't afford insurance anymore despite all the redaction and screening, and it's waaay to expensive for anyone to buy on their own. That's why they went along with this whole mess.
Exactly. The entire program is a bailout of the insurance industry. They've painted themselves into a corner and now they want all of us to go down with them. It will be a painful transition, but sooner the dysfunctional insurance model goes down in flames, the sooner we can figure out a better alternative. And when I say "we", I mean people - individuals, consumers, entrepreneurs and health care providers working it out. The last thing we need is government telling us how to solve our problems.
Like I said, no easy answers... but maybe the first step is an honest conversation that doesn't involve, "We were all for Mandates until Obama proposed them."
Agreed. The politics of it are silly. It's patently absurd that Republicans have invested so much energy in fighting PPACA and are now nominating the only jerkoff in the country who's done more to further the cause of mandatory insurance than Obama.
Unfortunately, the only answers people like JoeB and the President are willing to discuss are the ones that involve a government take over of our personal freedoms.
As stated, there are no "easy" answers, but if the President's answer is us giving U.S. politicians a "blank check" so to speak, I fear for the continuation of our nation as a somewhat free society.
Immie
Unfortunately, the only answers people like JoeB and the President are willing to discuss are the ones that involve a government take over of our personal freedoms.
As stated, there are no "easy" answers, but if the President's answer is us giving U.S. politicians a "blank check" so to speak, I fear for the continuation of our nation as a somewhat free society.
Immie
I wonder about this bizarre interpretation of freedom that people have that if the wealthy corporations aren't free to abuse us, none of us are free.
Or something.
I think if you've ever had to fight with an insurance company to get medical treatment, as I have, you wouldn't go bleating on about "freedoms".
BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate
Red State ^ | March 2, 2012 | Erick Erickson
BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate | RedState
Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.
In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.
On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.
But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
The op-ed no longer appears on the USA Today website but is archived on the Mitt Romney fan site "Mitt Romney Central" and is accessible on the former Governor's old website via the web archive.
Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.
Romney continues further down in the op-ed bringing up the individual mandate dreaded by conservatives.
Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.
Mitt Romney's Advice For ObamaCare: Look At RomneyCare
On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.
