He Was Agin It Before He Was For It
On the health insurance "mandate" Obama changed positions more often than Jenna Jameson
posted by Spencerblog at
8:00 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
posted by Spencerblog at
8:00 AM
RSS Feeds© Copyright The Delaware County Times, a Journal Register Property & part of Journal Register PA -- All rights reserved | Our Publications | About Our Ads | Privacy Policy/Terms of Service
25 Comments:
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20120701/OPINION03/707019918/0/BUSINESS01 Read this
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0
A State is a State. The entire country is an entire different matter! Health care needs in Florida are different from Alaska. Let the States do the work they need to do and let health care insurance compete.
Nice try Danny, but in this case we need a national standard on health care. Very few state governments have the wherewithal to improve health care access to a near universal level. Massachusetts was able to do so, but waiting for all other 49 states to pull that off would leave millions of Americans dead awaiting coverage.
Also, how are health care needs different from one state to another? Is being uninsured in Alaska vs. Florida make one less likely to die without medical treatment? A flu shot go in one’s arm differently in Oklahoma as compared to Virginia? Would the financial death sentence of having cancer and being kicked off of your policy hurt differently in New Jersey vs. Montana?
No sale man.
The point is, who is the bigger hypocrite? Healthcare is a mute point here.
The article helps cement the reality that BHO will go down in history as the evolutionary President. Gay marriage? Again it before his position evolved and he was for it. Mandate? Same thing. Enforcement of the well established immigration laws? Same-same. Thankfully he may have run out of special interest groups to evolve toward in order to get votes.
I really did want to not further post regarding Obamacare. Neither side of the argument is going to swayed by the other side. But then I saw this: "The White House insisted Sunday the consequence for Americans not having health insurance is a penalty fee, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is a tax, and said the debate on the Affordable Care Act should finally end.
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on "Fox News Sunday" that “when the Supreme Court rules” the country “has a final decision”
These guys just don't understand what they are saying. Or they are downright stupid. On the one hand, Obama's Chief of Staff Jack Lew says it is not a tax, it is a penalty fee.
Then he has the gall to say that when the Supreme Court rules it is a final decision. Hey, yo, Jack. They said it is a tax. That's the final decision. And this guy is in charge of the entire White House staff? Heaven help us that we can get through the next seven months until integrity can be restored to the Executive Branch.
Who says we need National standard? Not 65% of the population based on polls repeatedly taken over the last 18 months.
The way it is right now, no one is refused medical treatment at any ER.
Stop making it seem like people are left to die begging for care.
Danny. I"ve heard of people being turned away from one ER and sent to another.
I've heard of that too, Bob!
It was on the TV show, ER.
All non private hospitals, which is most of them, have to take people with no ability to pay.
Danny - http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=112127
So you're OK with paying more, and your insurance rates going up to pay for someone elses care?
Cmon Bob......
Did you read that story?? She was not refused medical care, she left because SHE was unhappy with waiting.
I mean really??? She didn't know she was pregnant? Did she miss health class too?
"Abney had no idea she was pregnant when she began having severe pains."
No one sent her home, she left!! Woman sometimes are in labor for 24 to 36 hours......
Danny:
People die from lack of insurance:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917
"Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters."
co-founded the Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates a single-payer health system, or socialized medicine.
"The authors of the Harvard study interviewed the uninsured only once -- and never saw them again; this alone undermines the integrity of the findings.
* A decade later, the researchers assumed the participants were still uninsured and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes."
Lies, damn lies and Statistics, Mike!!
So a Left Wing Socialist Harvard doctor says it, and that's fact?
Danny:
1) So if a right wing blowhard doesn’t like math, it makes statistics lies?
2) Here are some other studies you can cross reference
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/
Mike....
Statistics can be made to show anything, it can be manipulated.
Math is a certain science.
From the article you linked?
"The 45,000 estimate is at the high end of estimates, but earlier studies also have put the number of excess deaths from lack of insurance coverage in the thousands."
So 45,000 can be as little as 2,000? or even 9,000. It sure doesn't say 10s of thousands.
Who immediately grasped this story?
"The 45,000 deaths figure became the basis for an eye-catching billboard from the Health Care for America Education Fund, a group associated with Health Care for America NOW, a coalition of liberal and union groups backing health care overhaul efforts."
Danny,
You're seeing the 5 point liberal playbook at work:
First, find an obscure study that hasn't been peer tested, funded by a left-wing advocacy group.
Second, pull out the most crazy statistic from this fraudulent study.
Third, disperse this crazy stat to the Democrat, media and public sector talking heads.
Fourth, repeat frequently
Fifth, tell anyone who questions your study or statistics that the science is settled.
Ok Danny and Jake. There are 50 million Americans as of 2010 who lack health insurance. You both clearly don't like the current attempt to solve this problem.
Suggestions?
Happy to replace Obamacare, Mike,
First, insurance companies should be permitted to sell across state lines.
Second, medical malpractice awards need to be capped.
Third, no medical coverage should be provided for illegal immigrants.
Fourth, all legislators and public sector employees have to buy their coverage in the standard market. No Cadillac programs allowed on tax dollars.
With the savings realized from these modest steps, the economy will improve, more workers will be hired and more coverage will be available for the uninsured.
Jake:
Fair starting point, but;
- I agree that that insurance market should be opened up to allow companies to sell policies across state lines. Injecting that type of competition into the marketplace seems reasonable.
- Tort reform, although I think elements of it are an excellent idea, does not reduce the cost of health care or give access to healthcare to the currently uninsured.
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html?printArticle=y
- I don’t think taxpayers or hospitals should get stuck footing the bill for illegal aliens. There is a wide debate about how much cost they add to the system in any state:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm
How about this? I don’t want to see people dying for lack of medical care and I don’t want health care professionals to have to screen for immigration status in the ER. So I propose that we require all employers nationwide to use the Social Security Administration’s SS# verification service. Because almost all illegal alien problems are caused by unscrupulous employers who want to pay low wages, they should foot the bill for illegal aliens using the healthcare system. I would do this via $10,000 fines for the employer of each and every illegal alien found working for any employer on the first time that the employer in question is caught employing illegal aliens. On the 2nd time that business is caught employing illegal aliens, that business is seized by the government and placed into receivership until it is sold. This coupled with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens (as proposed by Presidents Regan and Bush II) should start collecting more than enough revenue to avoid taxpayers and hospitals having to pay for the medical treatment of illegal aliens.
- I’m not sure how the disbandment of “Cadillac plans” allows more people who currently lack insurance to purchase it on their own. A middle class family in Rose Tree Media School district pays $4000 a year in property taxes on most homes currently selling for $250,000. If the “Cadillac plans” were turned into “no plan” that would reduce district spending by 10% at most. That extra $400 dollars isn’t going to make the difference between insuring one’s family or not.
- In your conclusion you state a belief that higher employment will result from your programmatic steps. This very well could occur IF all of your reforms drove down the cost of private insurance. I just don’t see how they’d do that in a significant manner.
- A few questions to you as well:
Are you going to reinstate; the ban on pre-existing condition discrimination, the ending of lifetime caps, elimination of policy rescission, and the ability of underemployed younger adults to stay on their parent’s policies through age 26?
Jumping in here late, and not sure you guys look back at old posts.
BUT... jake has the right idea.
I would add tax advantages to businesses that carry quality health insurance. I would allowing pooling of organizations. So the Rotary, or Chamber of Commerce, or members of the NRA or AARP have options for group plans. Allowing them to buy across state lines would be competitive and effective IMHO.
Also, pre existing conditions I am good with and I would be OK with States legislating it.
The insurance until 26 thing is a grabber for me. Why was 26 chosen? My kids in college he is covered.
Explain to me again why younger adults should be allowed to stay on their parents coverage, I don't get this one? Why 26? They are legal adults at 18, able to drink at 21, graduate college at 22. Why 26? Why not 30?
If businesses had better options for competitive pricing and if businesses were rewarded by the government for their employee coverage, then this might not be an issue. right?
Lifetime caps, I will have to study, Mike. How many people on eternal ventilators can we handle? That is a much deeper discussion than just an open approval, do you agree? That's where these ugly death panels come in.
Danny:
- I believe that employer provided health care is already allowed to be accounted against an employer’s expenditures to create a tax break. I’m unsure how an expansion of that would help get some more people covered. I really haven’t read anything on that either way.
- The “pooling” idea is very sound. I agree with you 100%! Can you imagine the savings to the taxpayers of PA if every single state, municipal, and school employee was covered under the same insurance policy that would need to be awarded to the most competitive bid? If every restaurant and bar could pool together, how many more service workers would have access to more affordable care? As somebody who currently works in the school system, I’d have no problem being pooled with every other person in public employment in the state.
- The 26 year old element of the current law reflects that there are a lot of current young people who have trouble finding full time work with benefits when they enter the work force. Many of us had to work part time after graduation until we found full time work. I was lucky to get through with no major medical problems while having no insurance (except for one year) from age 23 through 28.
- I agree with your call for further study on the cost/benefit of the eternal ventilator gang. Where are we wasting money on a Terri Schiavo vs. dooming a family to medical debt bankruptcy because their child needs chemo or a new kidney?
I am glad to see we have some strong starting spots of agreement.
The business tax benefits I am talking about is for the little businesses, with less than 25-50-100-250 workers. I would extend the breaks for them somehow. make it a graduated curve based on number of employees. But not graduated to benefit laying off people to save more $.
I think you hit it straight out of the park on your difference between Shiavo and bankrupting a family. I'd rather be on a jury sentencing someone to death than to be on that panel
Nice to see we can agree, but I still don't want the Federal government legislating it. Change the business tax laws, yes. Entice employers to hire, yes. Run healthcare? GOD I hope not.
In this little blog, several laymen have come up with 5 or 6 different ways to improve health insurance, not requiring a government takeover.
Yet, Obama and his liberal Democrat conspirators chose to cram this trillion dollar monstrosity down the throats of the American people without trying a single one of them.
How can any reasonable person not be in favor of repeal and replace?
Or perhaps desired some dough, kredyt online bez zaświadczeń however simply don’t obtain it till salaryday? It again arises kredyt bez bik in order to scores of Individuals country wide each day. An issue pops up and you also need pożyczki bez bik some dough, however your investigate isn’t put in the account but. If perhaps szybki kredyt citibank it has the way to wyświetl stronę secure a cash payday loan on the web, ideal?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home