text:
Virginia Leaders React to Supreme Court Ruling on Affordable Care Act
High Court ruled 5-4 today to uphold what some call 'Obamacare.'
Area leaders were quick to react today to the news that the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health reform law.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R): "Today's Supreme Court ruling is extremely disappointing for Virginia and for America. The PPACA will create a costly and cumbersome system that will impair our country's ability to recover from these challenging economic times, infringes on our citizen's liberties, will harm small businesses, and will impose dramatic unfunded mandates on Virginia and all states. Simply put, this is a blow to freedom. America needs market-based solutions that give patients more choice, not less." (For the governor's full statement, visit his Web site.)
On his Twitter feed, the governor wrote: "Simply put, this is a blow to freedom."
Alexandria Mayor Bill Euille (D): "This is a huge victory for the 30 million Americans who are uninsured and for the president. This will help them to move forward, to get insurance, especially the elderly. It demonstrates that this important piece of legislation was long overdue. It puts the United States on a level playing field with other countries."
Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-11th): "Obviously this is a historic day; it's a victory for anybody with a preexisting condition; it's a victory for people who suffer a catastrophic accident who won't be limited to an annual cap. It's a victory for families whose children can stay on their policies until they're 26...it's also a victory for consumers because going forth, this health care act will help bring down the cost curve of health care....I believe we will be seeing 10 to 15 years from now, a transformative moment where we finally got our arms around health care in a meaningful way and widened accessibility. I am proud of the fact I voted for this reform bill."
Congressman James P. "Jim" Moran (D-8th): "Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed what Democrats and President Obama have known for two years; the Affordable Care Act stands on firm constitutional grounds. People across the country are already benefiting from reforms in the Affordable Care Act, including 6.6 million young people who can stay on their parents' insurance, 105 million Americans who no longer have a lifetime limit on their coverage, and 5.3 million seniors in the 'donut hole' who have saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs." (For Moran's full statement, go here.)
Del. Scott Surovell (D-44th): "The President's health insurance reform legislation was a landmark effort to reform a dysfunctional healthcare system that has made health insurance unavailable to millions of Virginians, thousands of my constituents, and hurting the bottom line of Virginia's businesses who want to provide meaningful benefits to their employees. I'm pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed President Obama and Congress' effort to solve a very difficult problem."
George Allen, former governor, former U.S. senator and current Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate: "While disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision on President Obama's health care law, I believe it reinforces what is truly at stake during this pivotal election. This November the American people have an opportunity to choose new leadership in Washington who will listen to their voices and repeal this costly, harmful government health care law." (For more of Allen's statement, visit his Web site here.)
Tim Kaine, former governor, current Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate: "The Affordable Care Act is an important first step in curbing discriminatory insurance company practices and increasing access to health care, but more needs to be done to bring down costs. Our government, businesses, and citizens cannot continue to spend more than any other nation on health care while getting second-rate results. As Senator, I am committed to working with all stakeholders to find additional improvements to the Affordable Care Act that give all Americans affordable access to high quality services." (For more of Kaine's statement, visit his Web site here.)
Pat Mullins, chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia: "Today's decision is extremely disappointing, but it is not the end of the story. The American people will have the final say on ObamaCare this November at the ballot box. And in January, I look forward to standing with President Mitt Romney, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and newly sworn-in Senator George Allen as this law is repealed and replaced with common-sense, market based reform."
Fairfax County Democratic Committee: "In an historic decision today, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a comprehensive law providing all Americans with a most basic need – affordable, quality healthcare. Millions who were denied coverage in the past are today reassured that they and their loved ones can obtain the care they need despite a pre-existing condition, a life threatening illness or injury they couldn't otherwise afford.
"We commend the Supreme Court for rising above partisan argument and making a finding under the rule of law," commented Cesar del Aguila, chair of the Fairfax Democrats. "This Act gives the American people the security of knowing that they have access to affordable, quality care that they might not otherwise have."
Inova Health System: "Inova Health System has been an active participant in the Commonwealth of Virginia's efforts to go beyond federal health reform and thoroughly examine the health care system as a whole to meet the present and future needs of the communities we serve.
"By actively engaging stakeholders in the various discussions led by the Commonwealth, as well as serving on health reform task forces such as the Virginia Health Reform Initiative, Inova is committed to participating in the Commonwealth's efforts to improve the delivery of affordable health care coverage to more Virginia residents. As the implications of the Court's decision are evaluated in the coming days and weeks, we look forward to continuing those efforts with Secretary Hazel and Virginia's key health care stakeholders to drive the future of health.
"We share the belief that improving quality and value are integral components to ultimately bending the health care cost curve and most importantly, improving the health of our communities."
Read what the chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors had to say.
What's your opinion? Let us know in the Comments.
Patch will continue to update this story.
George Gaylord
12:19 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
One more freedom died with the stroke of a pin and a decision based on who put them there not what is constitutional. James Madison must be rolling in his grave to find that what he stood for in Marberry vs Madison means so very little now. As was said in Germany in 1936 "freedom dies to the sounds of thunderous applauses"
2:32 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Yes, George, it dies to the sound of the thunderous applause of teabaggers and the extreme right.
5:18 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Yes, having the freedom not to carry health insurance and thereby obligating your fellow citizens to pay for your care after you've incurred an impossible debt and taken a bankruptcy is SO important. There's nothing I like better than having to watch my tax dollars go to compensate hospitals and other health care providers left holding the bag on the uninsured and underinsured while the health insurance companies get to keep their huge profits because they used to be allowed to get rid of all the sick people and anyone else deemed likely to, you know, actually USE their insurance.
Louis Horvath
12:12 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I really empathize with our Republican tea-bagger neighbors, many of whom prefer to leave the US because of this action. Therefore, I've compiled a list of all first-world countries they can emigrate to that don't have such a burdensome universal health care system...here's your list. [empty]
8:05 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
The Supremes have voted that the AHCA was constitutional. That is what their vote was about. That is what the Supremes do.
Jean Halfabagel
8:38 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Gerry Connolly said: "This health care act will help bring down the cost curve of health care." Google it to find out what he means... another deception. It took the Supreme Court to tell us that this is a trillion dollar tax on working Americans.
9:34 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Jean, where's the trillion dollar tax? You pay a few hundred dollars fine on you income tax if you choose (for some reason) not to have health insurance. Health insurance, that will now be affordable. So where's the tax? 99% of the people will pay nothing. SO, WHERE IS THIS TRILLION DOLLAR TAX????
9:17 am on Monday, July 2, 2012
Why would James Madison be rolling over in his grave? Are you implying that as a slave owner he would be upset that affordable healthcare could now be available to all, including minorities?
I bet he would also have his knickers in a knot over the fact that we allow women to vote, work and wear short pants.
I think that as a country we would all be better off if we did not worry so much over what a bunch of narrow minded slave owners would of thought about our increasingly complex and evolving world that they would be unable to comprehend.
10:04 pm on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
As you can see George, the Patch is loaded with self-righteous leftists who believe they have the right to seize other people's money using proxies in government to make themselves feel better. I've already been attacked repeatedly with the usual name calling and epithets like "racist" all because I resent them thinking the rest of us are nothing more than servants to serve up whatever part of our incomes these progressives decide them want to have. They claim we're "selfish" for not sharing. Yet these morons have no clue how much some of us give to charity, including organizations which provide healthcare to those truly in need, like those very will but without insurance.
10:04 pm on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
I resent having government forcing me to pay hard earned money to programs which do nothing but give welfare to no loads. Obama's own aunt is just such a person. She came here from Kenya and stayed illegally and has lived for more than 20 years on the dole. Never worked a day in her life here in the States. Obama doesn't pay a penny to support her. He ensured she and his uncle, also here illegally and who has been arrested numerous times for drunk driving, were not deported. But he doesn't lift a finger to support them. They're both on welfare living off the taxpayers in Massachussets. The thing is, if the morons in Massachussets want to pay through the nose for that and keep electing politicians in their state who continue such programs, that's their business. If they wanted Romney care, that's their business. Anyone who doesn't like it can leave. But they now want it at the federal level because they don't want anyone to be able to escape their control. The liberals have bankrupted their states with this nonsense. They resent anyone escaping, and want to mandate it everywhere so we're forced to pay for their socialist society. That's what socialism is all about. Tyranny. It's a dictatorship. In their case, it's a dictatorship of the voting left. Instead of sticking a pistol to you head and demanding your wallet, they simply elect politicians to do it for them.
12:50 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Freedom of what? The right not to pay for health insurance yet to get health care anyhow, indigently, when needed, on the backs of those who do?
Tammi Petrine
12:51 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
One more freedom is upheld! Freedom from terror, economic and emotional, if one becomes sick! Yay!
Now US citizens begin to approach the privilege that every other person in most other advanced civilizations enjoy: universal health care for all!!!
(One hopes the removal of the stress of worrying about this will alone make us healthier.)
1:06 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Simply put: A person is ill; goes to a doctor; doctor diagnoses person wtih illness that requires hospitalization and surgery; person has surgery and other necessary treatment; person has no health insurance, nor enough money to pay for medical expenses; expenses must be paid by someone. Who pays? All of us. Hence: Thank you Supreme Court.
Richard Holmquist
10:37 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
What does the Supreme Court have to do with that? Your case defines the pre-Obamacare situation.
1:22 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Referring to this quote: Congressman James P. "Jim" Moran (D): "Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed what Democrats and President Obama have known for two years; the Affordable Care Act stands on firm constitutional grounds.
The Federal government's lawyers argued it was Constitutional via this order of arguments:
1) It falls under the Commerce Clause (The Supreme Court disagreed; it is unconstitutional via this argument)
2) It falls under the Necessary and Proper Clause (The Supreme Court disagreed; it is unconstitutional via this argument)
3) It falls under the right of the government to levy taxes (The Supreme Court agreed).
You can put lipstick on a pig... but it's still a pig.
1:23 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
p.s. in 2009 Obama said that this wasn't a tax: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/
Laurie Dodd
11:20 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
The penalty provision that the SCOTUS interpreted as a tax is the same as the penalty provision in Romney's health care law in Massachusetts. Romney also denied raising any taxes. So he is in the same boat as Obama here.
Uncle Smartypants
1:34 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
1:36 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
"The notion that the state somehow bears responsibility for the indigence of the aged is not far removed from that demoralizing supposition that the state is somehow responsible for the criminality of the criminal. I will not deny that the dislocations of capitalism afford some ground for the former….The point here is that no society is healthful which tells its members to take no thought of the morrow because the state underwrites their future. The ability to cultivate providence, which I would interpret literally as foresight, is an opportunity to develop personal worth. A conviction that those who perform the prayer of labor may store up a compensation which cannot be appropriated by the improvident is the soundest incentive to virtuous industry."
-Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences
T Ailshire
1:38 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
While I wouldn't call myself a "conservative" as today's world knows it, I see the other side of the coin. What some call "selfishness" I see as a desire to allow, nay, require, others to stand on their own two feet WHEN THEY CAN.
Unless I see emergency rooms able to turn away every sniffle and hangnail as non-emergency, all we've done is shift the burden of payment...that is what is socialistic about it.
Uncle Smartypants
4:13 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge", said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?", asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons", said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?", demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still", returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?", said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course", said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude", returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing! I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die", said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Kim Moore
2:04 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Affordable Care Act requires responsibility from all citizens. ERs are not intended to treat sore throats. Insurance premiums should not increase because of those who choose not to buy insurance, then then require care and do not pay for it.
Socialized health care already exists. It is called Medicare. I cannot count the number of times that I have seen Teaparty seniors say, "the government has o place in health care, but don't touch my Medicare!"
Increased premiums are a "tax" that most citizens have been paying for years. Now, the tax will be shifted to those who choose not to act responsibly.
Last week, some major insurers had already agreed to maintain health reform aspects that they had in place. 22-26 year-olds on their parents's plans are a good pool of healthy premium payers. That us smart business.
2:18 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Herein lies the problem that I do not think will ever, ever be solved: "The Affordable Care Act requires responsibility from all citizens. ERs are not intended to treat sore throats."
We as humans are selfish. When this all goes into effect our ERs and Dr.'s offices will be full of people with runny noses and other ailments that as of today most of us would self-treat with a day of rest and trip to the pharmacy.
This is where I think a lot of proponents of the plan are not considering all the effects this law will have. When they are put on a waiting list for something they feel they deserve ("Hey. I never had to wait 2 weeks for an appointment before!") there will be a whole new set of complainers about this law.
Teresa Thompson Selove
3:05 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
The positives of this act FAR outweigh the negatives, if there are any. Most people who are against this seem to have no real knowledge of the details and have relied more on fear-inducing or hysterical propaganda. Everyone wins with this law. Everyone. How can anyone object to not being turned down for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to remain on a parents' policy through age 26, that the majority of the money made by insurance companies goes towards healthcare and not to pure excessive profit for a few managing CEOs, credits for businesses providing health care services, not allowing an insurance company to drop a client when they actually become sick, assistance for the elderly with prescription costs, no lifetime limits for use of insurance. No one is invincible. TEveryone will need health insurance at some point whether it is through aging, preventative care, or an accident. It really is common sense. We were already paying for uninsured patients through higher costs (created by the companies themselves, NOT Obama), so this is simply a more transparent way of doing the exact same thing. Those who cannot afford to pay will be able to get the help and healthcare they need without discrimination. I am more than happy to have some of my tax money go towards helping others, as charities cannot possible keep up with all of them.
11:51 am on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Never mind that, if you guarantee coverage of pre-existing conditions, nobody will buy health insurance UNTIL they get sick, ACA is a disaster. More than 85 percent of Americans are just fine with their health insurance. Now, to take care of part of the rest, we will go trillions and trillions of dollars into debt. Government will attempt to save by micromanaging every penny it/we spend(s) on healthcare. But the money will never add up. Think of it this way: Everyone eats too much at a buffet. Why? Because there is no cost consideration to getting that second main course or third dessert. It is catastrophic public policy. It will expand government, drive up costs, reduce innovation, curtail freedom, destroy the patient-doctor relationship, force rationing and lay ruin the world's best healthcare system. Other than that, it's cool.
George Gaylord
2:09 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Freedom of choice, the freedom to choose insurance or to pay as I go. I don't need the government to deside for me. I thought iT was suppose to be a mandate not a tax . So when that doesn't fit lets just call it a tax. Now let them figure how to inforce it. BIG BROTHER STRIKES AGAIN!
5:28 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Oh, you must be one of those people who's decided that he's never going to be in serious need of very expensive medical care. Got it all worked out, have you? Never going to get cancer or a heart attack or a stroke? Never going to develop diabetes or congestive heart failure? Never going to need that insurance, are you? What you're REALLY saying is you should have the "freedom" to go without insurance so when one of those things happens to you and you've run up a humongous bill at the hospital you should be able to walk away with your bankruptcy while the taxpayer absorbs the costs of your care. Hmm, sounds like freeloading, not freedom, to me.
1:00 pm on Thursday, July 5, 2012
Dusty, your 5th grade English teacher called. She wants you to take remedial classes so you can learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
George Gaylord
2:15 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
tHANK GOODNESS WE STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, NEXT WE WILL BE TO STUPID TO DO THAT. I will be voting Republican in November I don't need the goverment telling me how to live any more, and yes I work, yes I have insurance, and yes I believe all should have access to coverage , but of mo choosing ,not because of some mandate with the threat of a tax!
5:25 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Haven't been shopping for health insurance lately, have you? Bet you've never been turned down, as so many have, nor have you used your insurance only to find yourself without coverage after the company penalizes you by rescinding or terminating your contract. You speak with the complacency of someone who thinks all is well in his world, so why worry about anyone else, and in the smug self-assurance that what you have will be yours for as long as you want it. Guess what, George? If it hadn't been for Obamacare there would have been no reason for your company to keep you as a customer as soon as you started using your coverage. It's childish to declare wrong requiring people to get coverage so they won't become a public burden and requiring those providing the coverage to keep providing it even when those who paid for it actually use it. That's the way a little kid thinks, not a thinking, educated adult citizen of a society who understands when people get sick someone must pay for their care.
The BSD Guy
2:19 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Let us not forget that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare, and just a few years ago it was the Republicans claiming this sort of plan was a good idea.
This only became "Socialism" when the Republicans were taken over by the radical right wing, whose heroes are the Three Stooges of Republicanism: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.
I have this vision of Sarah Palin standing in front of a crowd, rallying them with talk of conspiracy theories, telling them that Obama "pals around with terrrerrrists (her annunciation)," and that he's a secret Kenyan muslim. As the crowd works itself into a fevered pitch, it starts chanting "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah...." Finally, the speech reaches a fevered pitch and Sarah raises her fist in defiance and shouts out:
The crowd goes crazy with adulation!!!!!
.....now if only they could convict Holder of a program that basically didn't exist and wasn't even started in the Obama administration.
George Gaylord
2:34 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Then why is OBAMA hiding behind his privilage to uphold the documents you believe will find him free of all blame? The NANNY STATE is always placing blame. I guess The AK-47 walked to Mexico by itself, and just for your information Palin was 4 years ago. If it wasn't for the Three Stooges we would have never known about it. It just amazes me that when you dont abide by the liberal mindset we have to attack what you are unwilling to understand, ie. a different oppinion.
11:56 am on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Let's also not forget Romneycare was a state-level reform and not a multi-trillion-dollar federal boondoggle. You can escape Romneycare by moving to Vermont.
2:27 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
A new "right" has been created by the SCOTUS and given to federal bureaucrats.. to dictate personal behaviour and then tax them for not complying. For example, if the government decides it does not like fat folks, the fat lady should be prepared to be taxed while she sings
Plus the ACA will increase medical costs, reduce choices of plans and doctors (and for some quality) and not insure nearly as many as promised, eventually morphing into 100% government medical care as has always been the Dem strategy.. just like Canada with the waiting lines and someone deciding for you if you can have elective surgery. Been there, done that!
George Gaylord
2:39 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Well said. Now they get to take care of you from birth to grave. Oh but they will deside how , when, and if they will treat you if you are to old. No thanks. It DOSEN'T WORK IN EUROPE, THEIR BROKE.
Kim Moore
2:42 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The "fat lady" example that you gave does not apply. Congress, the states and localities apply a variety of taxes on tobacco, snack foods, alcohol, etc. those are user-based taxes. The health insurance "tax" is for a failure to have coverage.
Quality-based payments are already becoming a reality in private insurance and Medicare/Medicaid.
100% government health care has not been a Dem strategy. Since I began working in health policy 20 years ago, the Dems and Republicans produced a number of options to health care reform. In fact, my first job, working in Congress, was to assess Pres. G.H.W. Bush's proposed health reform plan.
Decisions for elective surgery are already being made by private insurance. Medicare does not have a pre-authorization program. If no coverage policy exists, it is up to the physician to provide the service and then wait to see if s/he gets paid or if s/he needs to appeal to receive payment.
Richard Holmquist
2:55 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
In fact, universal health care does work in Europe -- at half the price and with better results.
3:08 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
KM.. and the "fat lady' tax will have to be paid if she does not comply if the bureaucracy deides she should skinny up by law. Taxes are levied on tobacco, etc., but the govenment has not yet decided to dictate thier use one way or the other.. just wait.
Kim Moore
4:06 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
I think that you are reaching. Physicians are not being removed from the process. Physicians will advise if a person needs to lose weight. Taxing fatty foods or sugared soads, right now, are local issues (a la NYC).
Getting covered so that you can see a physician is the "tax". Do you honestly think that being a part of our health care system--17% of the federal budget--is that big of a deal?
Virginia drivers have to prove that they have insurance or kick into the uninsured driver fund. That rule applies in many states. How does that differ from having health insurance or kicking into the fund via what the SCOTUS calls a tax?
When you become of Medicare-age and need to be hospitalized, will you argue against that? You've paid into the Medicare Part A and some of the Part B funds via taxes for years. I am not seeing the difference.
Kim Moore
4:33 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
For disclosure, I am a type 1, insulin-dependent diabetic. Got it at 10 years old. I am now 45. My lifestyle had nothing to do with my illness. While planning my wedding in 1992, my COBRA coverage, which I paid out-of-pocket for each month because my new employer would not cover me, was running out. My fiancé and I married 5 months early in a civil ceremony so that I could get on his health insurance.
When his company's insurance changd, it decided to apply pre-existing exclusions to my coverage.. Having diabetes would have prevented their covering anything as simple as strep throat. "You've got strep? Must be due to you diabetes."
I now receive care for a variety of side-effects of my diabetes. No amount of exercise will eliminate my diabetes. Removing pre-existing conditions and lifetime coverage caps are huge for me and many like me. There is a huge difference between choosing poorly (eating poorly, never exercising) and doing what everything that you can yet still not getting covered.
Should gainfully-employed persons with chronic conditions be denied coverage? Thankfully, the ACA said no, and the SCOTUS agreed.
The responsible should not have to endure the costs of the irresponsible. With that, Health Insurance Exchanges will reduce the cost of coverage for families who earn too much for Medicaid eligibility.
George Gaylord
3:05 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
T-BIRD, I am neither a teabagger or extreme right, just a person who believes the constitution says what it says, not what you want it to say. Thats why they wrote it. Just dont say a law says one thing and then if it doesn't fit say it a tax. Next it will be if you drive a SUV we need to tax you cause you scare all the Prious owners or lets make airline seats even smaller than24 inches so we can tax people who dont fit into the design we want, and yes I am 6' 4" and weigh 259. When I fly I expect to pay more. But where does it stop. If I can't make a choice about insurance without Federal help how will I ever survive? And let us not forget those evil guns, cause they will be the next target, we have not forgotten 1994 and another Democratic President .
Lee Hernly
3:12 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
@Richard -
Greece, Spain, U.K., France, all have universal, expansive health care coverages and their economies are literally imploding under the weight of the cost of providing such service. Only Germany has succeeded recently with health care reform.
Germany does not use a government-run, Medicare-like health insurance plan. They rely on purely private, nonprofit or for-profit insurers that are goaded by tight regulation. So to blanketly say 'universal health care does work in Europe' is utterly false.
Mark Carolla
6:40 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Nein, Lee. Germany indeed has private non-profit or for profit insurers that are tightly regulated but according to German doctors and other health care professionals that I know, there still is a basic national insurance safety net that precludes the travesties of the pre-ACA system, such as KM describes. There are millions of hard-working Americans such as KM who are going to be liberated from fear of bankruptcy or worse due to our current profit-motivated insurance system. As for Europe - Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, and the Netherlands all have so-called "socialized" medicine and are far from imploding . I've had to use it in Germany, Sweden and Finland and it is exactly as my German friends describe it. On being treated for an injury in the ER of a Swedish hospital the doctor told me when I asked about the bill - (the hospital was actually an associated provider of my then insurance) - "You know, you Americans have an uncivilized and bureaucratic health insurance system - it is going to cost us more in time, arguing, and money to get them to repay us and you than it is worth - we're treating you for free under Swedish national health care rather than deal with your bureaucracy." The European economies are imploding largely from demographics - shrinking tax base - and a wide range of things other than health insurance...and despite that several of them, such as France have a higher standard of living than the US.
Richard Holmquist
11:15 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
@Lee -
Look around you. OUR country's economy is imploding under the weight of health care - and ineffective health care at that.
The countries you cite are actually far better off than the USA in regard to health care spending, and results too. As a percentage of US per-capita health care, they pay 42% (Greece), 41% (Spain), 45% (UK) and 53% (France).
The average life expectency in these countries exceeds that of the USA by 1.3 (Greece) to 2.7 (Spain) years.
So, no, I don't back down from my statement that the European universal health care model works, at least as far as affordability and effectiveness, but aren't those the two most important aspects?
8:41 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Actually, the healthcare in France is very low. Very low. The country pays for medical schooling, and places limits on lawsuits. I haven't looked into Greece and Spain so I can't comment on that. There's a huge market medical tourism. Surely you know this.
10:56 pm on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
France does NOT have FREE UNIVERSAL health care. I know because I am married to a Frenchman. You are using an fallacious argument.
5:03 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The new SCOTUS invented right to tax mandated personal behavior (behavior that was once exclusively a personal choice) now has a constitutional and legal foundation. The potential for overreach by policy makers in Washington that think they know better that we do what is best for us is alarming.
The other issue is that the ACA is probably one of the worse thought-out and written policy document is US history, all 2700 pages of it (that few if anyone has read cove to cover). It was railroaded through an all Dem Exec and Congress with merely symbolic cooperation with the opposition, and finally passed by bending the legislative rules and using bribes for the final decisive votes. Not one Republican voted for the final passage. And as KM pointed out this for 17% of our economy
It is nearly a certainty that without significant changes or replacement, employees will begin to lose their policies (and doctors) as businesses find it is less costly and administratively burdensome to simply drop health benefits and pay the fine. We will see how the folks cheering today, like scrambling around finding a new carrier then.
But you can bet the same know-best Feds will be ready to step in., perhaps with some recruited public sector workers from the motor vehicle bureau to handle our pleas.
8:28 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
The "new" SCOTUS? I am trying to understand the adjective used.
9:37 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
You are not trying hard enough.. does 'new SCOTUS-invented right' help you? Or perhaps you just want to rebut without understanding?
I hope you don't mind paying the new penalty tax should you decide not to buy the Chevy Volt (or anything else) the bureaucracy could now mandate with this new constitutional precedent. Heaven knows we need to save the planet at all costs and 'green' is the new liberal mantra!
5:33 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
It's hilarious to see "Transvaginal Probe" Governor Bob McDonnell denouncing this decision as an invasion of liberty or freedom or what-all it is he's claiming so violates our rights. This is the same guy who has no problem with forcing women seeking abortions to go through a totally unnecessary, uncomfortable, and expensive, invasive procedure. IOKIYAR.
8:26 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Yes, the guy requiring unnecessary medical procedures is now unhappy that he has to participate in necessary medical procedures.
T Ailshire
6:07 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
KM wrote "With that, Health Insurance Exchanges will reduce the cost of coverage for families who earn too much for Medicaid eligibility."
Perhaps true, but ONLY because the costs are shifted to other people. The costs are NOT going down. There is no financial reward for watching out for one's health.
Kim Moore
6:37 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wrong. Health Insurance Exchanges are for those who do not qualify for Mediciad and have no other access to insurance. Adding healthy and not-healthy people to the exchanges will spread the cost and reduce the number of people who either choose to their local emergency room as a primary point of care or who otherwise would go bankrupt from health costs. It is spreading the cost of care across all participants,
Think of life insurance--something I pay dearly to have--you pay into it at a young age, hoping never to have to use, yet some in your pool will die and their benefits will be paid. Your premiums cover that person's death. No one ever said that insurance would have a financial reward.
If you never have a car accident, does that make your car insurance less valuable? If you pay life insurance for 20 years so that your kids' college tuition is covered, and you out-live the policy, does that make it worthless?
7:58 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The fact is there are 50 state exchanges, none yet fully defined and no HSS definition of required minimum policy provisions.. and no idea what those policies will cost.
In the meantime, the SCOTOUS ruling today was that individual state participation in ACA Medicade coverage was not binding and therefore may not be available. The CBO says 20 million workers will lose employer insurance, so whatever employers were paying (less the fine aka tax) will fall either to new policy holders or to the taxpayers.
I predict in the end it is taxpayers and federal borrowing that will be making up any net losses. CBO seems to agree as they say deficits in the long run will increase under the ACA as written.
The ACA is a typical liberal solution to social issues,, the intent is all that counts and blinders are on as to the future implementation and cost.
8:22 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Mostly they are interested in vaginas, but once in a while they are coerced into doing the right thing.
3:43 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
"Vagina"? Aww, you wrote a naughty! No more testifying before legislative bodies for you. Words like that make uptight, "conservative" males very squirmy and squeamish.
Arnold Smithson
12:08 am on Monday, July 2, 2012
The government should stay out of healthcare, unless it has to do with vaginas, then the government should interfere in literally the most invasive way possible. Or something like that, Republican talking points often confuse me.
Sherry Watkins
9:11 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
To Bob McDonnell
I am currently applying for a home equity loan to help pay for the $11,500 cost of getting a growing bump removed from my right jaw. At great risk to me, I have put off this surgery for five years due financial difficulties and have finally scheduled my surgery for July 20, 2012. I have a $10,000 deductable.
Please stop trying to block Virginians like myself from participating in all aspects of The Affordable Care Act.
11:33 pm on Sunday, July 1, 2012
Once it was possible to obtain some treatment at the student dental clinic at Virginia Commonwealth, though it was mostly ordinary preventative care. Still, perhaps worth looking into. Best wishes for a fully resolved situation soon.
Margaret Williams
9:43 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Justice Roberts is responsible for the health & well-being of untold millions in the USA today. His decision has renewed my faith in our Supreme Court. This was a very good day.
A Johnson
9:54 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I so agree. I am English and grew up with "socialized medicine". I've lived in Germany too and believe me, it works - there's no fear of losing your house just because you got sick. What about that isn't a good thing?!!!!
10:06 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Constitution is now officially dead. The bill of rights has been replaced by government fiat.
Isaac Smith
9:08 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Tom, it sounds like you are anti-American, which I don't appreciate. We are a government of rules and since the early 1800's the Supreme Court decides what laws are constitutional: anyone applying for citizenship knows this, as well as my four year old daughter. If you don't like our democracy, I suggest that you leave.
2:16 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Tom.. I would not call the Constitution "dead". I would say that we have a Constitution in order to protect the people from an oppressive Congress and President, and we have a Supreme Court which should also be interpreting the Constitution to ensure the people are protected.
We still have the Constitution, but the Chief Justice has just demonstrated that the Court is willing to ignore the unconstitutional ACA as written under the Commerce clause, and in effect rewrite it to make it constitutional and therefore declare it the law of the land.
Obama said the mandate penalty was not a tax, the case was argued before the court by the DOJ as not a tax, but yet Roberts called it a tax to in effect legislate a new ACA version from the bench.
A sad day for us all, even for those doing the victory dance, many of whom probably do not care about the Constitution anyway.
3:49 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
"Dead"? How come with you tea party types every time the Supreme Court or government does something you don't like you declare the Constitution dead? I'm sick to death of you people pretending to know something about it when most of the time you misrepresent it and you've had such as Glenn Beck, a guy who never completed two semesters at a community college, "teaching" you what's in it. Well, you know what? I have multiple degrees in history and government and a law degree, and I took courses in Constitutional Law (my favorite) in law school, and have had a lifetime of studying it, and I have to tell you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and all the other people whining about how unconstitutional it all is are wrong, too.
Here's what the Constitution says about Congressional authority: "Art. I, Sec. 8, [1] "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ..." Sounds pretty sweeping to me. What part of the Constitution can you point to which says otherwise? BTW, the 10th Amendment only works for powers NOT reserved to the Federal Government, so that's not available to you. Go ahead, read the document and tell me where it says the Congress had no authority to pass this law or the Supremes to affirm it.
5:03 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Congress has the constitutional authority to tax, but this SCOTUS decision opens the door to an entirely new form of taxation.. to mandate by law that a citizen purchase a commercial product or behave in a prescribed way under penalty of being individually taxed if he does not comply.
It is the first in history and certain to be exploited by bureaucrats that are more than willing to substitute their will on issues that heretofore were strictly personal acts of individual freedom.
This new congressional "right" sounds too close for comfort, to the punitive China one-child policy that is also based on the noble idea of universal benefit. Laugh now if you wish, but no one ever envisioned the Commerce Clause being stretched as far as it has either. The door is open!
10:10 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
God bless Justice Roberts for doing the right thing, regardless of political affiliation. I would like to see how many of those smug, righteous right-wing conservatives would retain their beliefs in a "hands-off" government if they or one of their dependents get hit with a medical problem that later becomes what the insurance companies consider a pre-existing condition. Many insurance companies refuse to offer coverage to anyone with pre-existing conditions (which can range from anything such as allergies to medical issues stemming from accidents, etc.). My bet is that if anyone from their families became affected by this, they would be howling for government intervention. It's easy to pooh-pooh the ACA when you have a job and you don't have serious health issues, but it's much harder when you find yourself on the other side of the fence. Those who say they don't need health insurance are inevitably the ones who run to emergency rooms and hospitals when they get hit with a major health crisis, and then they expect the rest of us to bail them out. Have some compassion, people! I thank God every day that we have medical insurance. Even with it, we end up paying $$$ out of pocket every year. I don't know how those who can't afford it are able to handle medical problems.
8:19 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Unfortunately, too many people do not consider the scenario you describe. The ill and the poor are a minority that do not deserve consideration.
I have never been without medical insurance, but in my job, I have seen too many bankruptcies because of medical bills. Sure the poor can get medical care, but the only way to get rid of the debt is to write it off in bankruptcy. This medical debt just gets passed on to other customers.
10:14 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
The tenth amendment specifically states powers NOT specifically inumerated there in the Constitution remain with the states, or with the people. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to force people to engage in particular commerce at the government's direction and with its approval. Today the nature of the relationship between the people and the federal government shifted dramatically, from the government serving the whole people to the people serving the government. It doesn't matter that those of you here in the People's Democractic Republic of Metro Washington wanted this. Over 73% of the population said no. We wanted change, but not THIS change.
3:59 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Yeah, um, you might take a look at Article 1, Section 8, paragraph [1] before parading your ignorance about the Constitution for all the world to see. It clearly reserves the power to tax to the United States Congress, just as paragraph [3] gives the Congress authority to regulate Commerce (aka, the Commerce clause), which at least 4 of the Justices also found valid reason for upholding the law. Since the Constitution CLEARLY relegates power over taxes AND interstate commerce (which health care is) to the Congress, your argument using the 10th Amendment is unfounded. IT only comes into play for "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution". Therefore, it does NOT apply.
As for the population saying no, let's talk about those numbers. First, MOST Americans have no idea what's REALLY in the ACA because they've been lied to in a steady stream of deliberate misstatements from Fox News and every right wing radio and TV host in the country and there's been a well-funded campaign by extremely rich right wing astro-turf organizations to inculcate fear and trepidation over this modest improvement to health care access.
Second, even people who THINK they're against the law immediately reverse themselves when they're told what's in it. In fact, polls which have asked for reactions to specific provisions reveal the more people know, the more they like it. EVEN the mandate when its purpose is explained to them.
Sorry. You lose, and America wins.
10:14 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
This monstrocity is, as Nancy Pelosi said when it passed, "just the first step" in the federal government's seizure of control over all of our healthcare. The federal government now has the power to determine who can "afford" health insurance and who can't, and will simply buy it with tax money for those who don't want to work. Illegals? Fully covered by this program. The professional welfare class? They now will have the same insurance those of us who work our butts off have, and at our expense. They will no longer have to go to the county hospital and wait in line. They'll start loading up the doctor's offices soon. And when some doctors refuse to take on new patients, the government will expand its new found power and start telling doctors who they must accept as patients and what care they must provide -- or cannot provide.
Let the rationing begin!
4:03 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
"Rationing"? What in blazes are you talking about? Do you have ANY idea how many people have had their health care rationed to the point of their death or permanent injury by a health care industry invested in profit instead of patients' welfare? Are you aware that the Harvard Medical School concluded in a major study a couple of years ago that TENS OF THOUSANDS of Americans DIE every year from lack of health insurance, which in turn means they cannot get the care they need? Do some research, Tom. You sound like you get all your news from Fox, which isn't actually a news organization.
6:01 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
It has to lead to rationing. The ACA adds tens of millions, dismisses pre-exisitng conditions (which is not insurance bu a social safety net), and adds 5 years to children on their parents policies. All noble goals, all very expensive. THe truth remains that it will be cheaper for businesses and individuals to renounce their current policies and pay the "tax." If you need emergent health services, you can simply buy one then at the same price as when you did not need it. THe only possible way to keep this under control is to ration medicine. That will be done through regulations determining which health care is cost effective and which is not.
The truth is no one really knows what exactly the ACA will do, which is one reason why businesses have been reluctant to hire and why they have been reluctant to expand.
10:19 pm on Thursday, June 28, 2012
Roberts has stunned everyone by pulling a Sandra Day O'Connor -- pretending to be conservative and then unleashing hell when important cases come up. This week the man thumbed his nose as the Constitution twice. First he decided that it's okay that the president is disregarding U.S. law and making up his own immigration laws -- thereby usurping Congress' role -- and at the same time said States do not have a right to protect themselves from swarms of illegal aliens overrunning them and wreaking havoc on their citizens. Now he's decided that the government can dictate what products and services we MUST buy.
What's next? I shudder just thinking about it.
8:12 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Gosh, the next thing we know the US will allow funding from other countries to buy elections. Opps - I guess that already happens with supper PACs.
8:10 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I would like to be able to vote for posts that I like, but do not see a way to do that.
8:50 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
re: Judge Roberts - In hubris he imagined himself Marshall; in practice he is revealed as Taney
Uncle Smartypants
9:31 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Hey, does anyone know how I can get on one of these "death panels" the right wingers keep going on about? Cause that sounds like fun.
6:04 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
That will not be hard. There will be Boards assessing cost effectiveness of medical practices. Those it deems to be cost ineffective will be denied.
And while you say it wth sarcasm (at least I hope you do), it is an extraordinary power that is dangerous in the wrong hands. What is to stop a government officials form using it as a club against (real or perceived) enemies? Nothing.
Cathryn S
3:00 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
We already have those boards. Currently the insurance companies do that.
9:15 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
One can sue an insurance company now that denies coverage. You can't sue the federal government. People will have no recourse for denied coverage.
9:34 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I applaud Justice Roberts for doing what he is supposed to - ruling based on the law, and not on political agendas. It's interesting that when Romney did this in Massachusetts it was okay, but now that someone from the opposite party is championing this, it is "taking away people's rights". You need to remember that the justices are not there to rule on political agendas - their focus is much more narrow and based on what is correct regarding legal issues. I've read that Roberts does not personally agree with the ACA, but he did the right thing and ruled based on what is legally allowable. To those justices who looked at this with a political slant - shame on you!
David P
9:57 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I especially like INOVA's statement, which is verbose, apolitical and seemingly supportive of motherhood and apple pie. I wonder what they think of the SCOTUS ruling?
10:49 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
It doesn't matter what the GOP say about repeal of this healthcare business. As unbeleivable as it is, the truth it's too late. Once a government program is underway, there is no way to dial it back. Tragic.
11:01 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
To T-Bird: It is no wonder that you support this if you think it doesn't cost anything. Read any analysis (particularly the CBO analysis), and the cost is close to $1 trillion over 10 years. The administration themselves cost it at $800 Billion over 7 years. The governement picks up 100% of Medicaid costs for millions more people for 3 years and then 90% of their costs forever after that. I don't know if you pay federal taxes, but I do. My taxes will be raised to pay for this.
12:01 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Medicare for all was the answer. This bill is a give-away to insurance companies, hospitals, and Big Pharma thanks to back-door deals made by Obama, Max Baucus, and the former insurance executive who actually wrote this bill. One deal allows insurances in the exchange to charge premiums that are three and half times higher for those 55-65 yrs of age. Such a deal for those who most need the coverage.
Sally Spangler
1:19 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
I pay $299.70 to Medicare quarterly. For this when my statement comes in after I have had routine care from my doctor and the routine blood drawn to see if I am responding to the pills, that the money for the visit - $128.00 $116.94 approved and Medicare paid nothing. The last column says I may be billed for the $116.94. HUH?
Why am I paying $1,198.80 a year? What actually is Medicare doing with my money for MY CARE? Seems to me there is a huge staff somewhere being paid to review the statements for care and then the rules say, the staff gets paid - but not the people/hospitals/laboratories get little or nothing? Bet is I could get a real answer out of the Medicare Corporation I would get only senseless expressions and reasons why so little or nothing at all is given to the people/hospitals/laboratories. At the end of the conversation or letter, I still would know nothing as the answers would be so much hot air and bluster.
4:56 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Your problem sounds like one of erroneous coding, in that the bill sent to Medicare, for whatever reason, was not correctly coded by whoever in the doctor's office is tasked with filing claims. It's one of the little known problems of our system that the entire system IS built upon coding for particular services instead of upon paying for treatment no matter what it is. Being a fee for service system, if the service provided is not properly coded, then the coverage doesn't kick in and the patient gets a bill. Contact your doctor's office and speak to the office manager and try to get them to adjust the coding and refile the claim. Be firm with them.
6:09 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Finding a doctor willing to accept MediCare is a growing challenge. It's just not worth it.
In the UK, doctors hold private appointments 2 afternoons a week. Those are beyond coveted. NHS is great if you are healthy or have an obvious injury. But if you are sick, forget it. Medicine is practiced in UK by regulation -- there really is no need for a medical license (which explains why fewer than half their doctors are native born -- the smart Brits come here is they want to practice medicine).
The Analyst
1:54 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
I have little to no sympathy for Wall Street execs, Republicans, or insurance companies.
Wall Street executives have led this country down the path of disaster, all due to deregulation. Since the bailout there have been 3 major catastrophic financial events caused by their incompetence, with J.P. Morgan (now est. to be $9B, not the "mere" $3B loss reported a few weeks ago) the most recent. And what have the Republicans got to say? "Keep up the good work."
Incompetence is incompetence. The insurance companies were well on their way to self destruction. Having people pay premiums and then terminating their policies when they got ill is not insurance, it's stealing. Wasn't it the head of US Healthcare that gave himself a $1B bonus, funded primarily by these very types of policy terminations.
Wall Street is unfortunately tied to most of our 401K's, and health insurance is tied to life and death. The leaders of both groups have demonstrated nothing but total incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, the government should have completely taken over both, weeded out all the garbage at the top, and turned them back to the market when they were clean and ridden of incompetence and greed. Republicans can whine about being socialism, I'd call it justice.
Only in America can a CEO drive a company to bankruptcy and award himself a multi-million dollar bonus as a golden parachute.
2:29 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Of course Mr. Analyst, the Government and Democrats are never "incompetent".
Suggest you take your blinders off as start to appreciate what is good about this nation (like everyone together), and not dwell on the negative and on who you perceive to be your only enemies. You are drinking too much Dem Party cool aid in my view.
2:33 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
The Analyst must have sympathy for the out of control federal spending resulting in a debt nearing $16T. Talk about leading this country down a path of disaster.
4:09 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
@SP, yeah, I'll bet you were REALLY concerned about all that federal spending when Bush was in charge, leading us into two unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare Part D, and a completely unnecessary and catastrophic series of tax cuts for the wealthy. For your information the rate of federal spending under President Obama has shrunk to the rate it was at the end of the Korean War. He has actually done quite a bit to rein in spending, but the problem is that once commitments have been made then years later their effects are still being felt and he can't simply willy-nilly stop spending on stuff for which funding has already been allocated. But, why bother yourself with the very real complexities of the day-to-day operations of the government when you can fall back on poster-sized slogans which don't tax anyone's brain to repeat?
10:11 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
Yep. And I recall numerous companies doing just that during 2000, and most gave huge donations to the DNC. In fact, the guy who trashed Global Crossing, which eventually sold for pennies on the dollar and was bought up by a Chinese Billionnaire -- the same one whose holding company now owns the Panama Canal (thanks a lot Jimmy Carter!) -- walked with $175 million, after ruining the company, and one year later, while playing a game of Golf with non other than Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton and Terry McCauliff (Clinton buddy and head of the DNC at the time), handed bill Clinton a $1 million check for his "presidential library." He had also given a sizable donation for Hillary for her senatorial campaign.
If you look at the collapse of the stock market, which started before Bush was ever elected by the way, the majority of those companies whose values were falsely inflated and allowed their CEOs to walk with investor's money leaving everyone holding the bad on worthless stock were big DNC donators, not GOP donators. I know, because I lost my ass on several of them thanks to the utter idiots at Morgan-Stanley Dean-Witter. They had no idea what they were talking about when they made their recommedations, and then paid Bill Clinton $100K for a one-hour speech in the middle of the crash. I'd already fired them and pulled what was left of my money by then. But many wealthy investors threatened to pull all their money after that little stunt.
4:57 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Tom - come out of your little fantasy world. Sure it will be unpleasant for you, but in the end you will be better off than the place you cower in now. There's much to see besides blaming everything on the democrats. I guarantee that if you look, and if you pay attention, you will find that the crooks on Wall Street are also Republicans and maybe even more than Democrats.
The Analyst
2:43 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
No, I'm not saying they're competent, I'm saying their more competent than what we've got.
As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are now, officially, a dead party. They are a quack party. I'm surprised they haven't started running ads saying Obama is a space alien (OOOOPs!!! Did I just give them an idea!!)
What the Republicans have done is try to centralize themselves, almost into a corporate-like entity, with very limited variance in opinions tolerated. It might work for a corporation, but it won't work and hasn't worked in a representative Democracy.
Propping up incompetent imbeciles as "job creators" that have really done nothing more than mastered the art of taking money out of other peoples pockets and putting it into their own is not an American value. If a Republican actually dared to speak against this, the right wing media would pounce, possibly ruining that individuals career. The Republican party is probably completely controlled by no more than a few hundred people. It has nothing to do with democracy any longer.
Hopefully in the near future a new party will emerge to replace the Republicans. I cannot see this party surviving any longer than ten years. And please, don't try and turn this into a thread about the Democrats, they're just as disorganized as they've ever been.
4:00 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
This is what Republicans get for doing nothing about healthcare when they were in control. The three good reforms the Dems always bring up are to be applauded except that people with pre-existing conditions have to go into their state's high-risk pool-- how affordable will it be? But Obamacare does nothing about the cost of health care or the control insurance companies have of our entire medical system and creates a huge number of new overcompensated government employees to oversee the massive new regulations. Hospitals are spending huge amounts of money (that will be passed along to us somehow) to comply with the law. Then there's all the pork contained in the bill such as tuition for minority health care workers and subsidies for the training facilities that will train them. No one should worry about dying or losing all you've worked your whole life fore because you are unlucky enough to have a drastic accident, stroke, brain tumor etc. that you can't pay for. Here's a common sense plan: Have insurance exist only to pay for health care over the cost of the common deductible of $2,000. This gets the insurance companies out of our lives and will reduce the cost of insurance. Stop paying "fee for service" and bill for care by the hour & do something about malpractice insurance costs. Insurance still not affordable? Have the states work out a plan of action.
Do illegal immigrants have to buy insurance? If not, then their costs will still be passed on to those who do.
5:13 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
Excellent points Jody. I too feel fed up with the GOP for not making changes when they had control but some say they were thwarted. I don't have the time to go tit for tat with the politics of this oncoming mess. Any time the federal government gets involved things get worse and massive layers of government to fight through. Why do people feel the federalization of our medical system will be any different from other government agencies?
4:21 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
SouthArlJD just had to bring Bush into a conversation. Truth is that for at least 10 years, the federal government has spent significantly more money than they brought in, adding to the debt, now nearly $16 T. If you would take the time to look for facts about the President's budget proposals and compare with actual spending, you might be suprised to know several Trillion have been added to the debt on his watch. I don't care what party affiliation you want to bring to the conversation. Whether Democrat party controlling Congress and passing the annual spending bills from '07 to '11 or GOP the previous 6 years. Get off your tired talking points and toxic partisan mumbo jumbo.
Kim Moore
6:35 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Medicare is a horrible example of a working system. Most seniors incur 50% of their health care expenses in the last few years of their life; making Medicare a high-risk insurer. Does anyone wonder why the Medicare system is constantly seeking ways to cut funding?
Private insurers need to stop separating out our seniors and include them in their plans. Corporate welfare is somewhat responsible for our federal government's needing to cut spending. It used to be that companies provided pensions and life-time health insurance to retirees. Then, companies cut out life-time health insurance and pushed everyone on to Medicare.
Now, pensions are going away, and 401ks/403bs/527s are corporate and state saviors.
Don't hate the federal government. Direct you ire at the employers who pushed retiree needs onto the backs of tax-payers and then complain that their tax-breaks not go far enough.
8:53 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
KM - the world is certainly changing, particularly employers. Businesses are giving all profit to their CEO's and show zero support for their retirees. It's more like a trickle-up plan.
9:32 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Some schmuck named Isaac said....
"Tom, it sounds like you are anti-American, which I don't appreciate. We are a government of rules and since the early 1800's the Supreme Court decides what laws are constitutional: anyone applying for citizenship knows this, as well as my four year old daughter. If you don't like our democracy, I suggest that you leave."
I'm not going anywhere and I'm hardly anti-American. I spent a career protecting the Constitution, starting as a police officer and then deciding to serve as an officer in the military. Since the late 1800s, the Supreme Court has been making some really outrageous decisions based on the personal political desires of the justices rather than the Constitution, and it's been getting a lot more frequent in the past half century. I know this because of my considerable study of the Constitution over the years for a variety of reasons, because it related to my job.
9:41 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
In more recent years in my study for a series of historical novels I'm writing about our Navy in the early years, which has exposed me to a LOT of original documents, including letters and articles from our founding fathers and their colleagues. It's astounding how far we've drifted from the original intent.
You showed YOUR ignorance of the Constitution and the founding of this country right off the bat when you called us a "Democracy." If you actually knew anything about the founders and their philosophy and what they actually did, you'd understand they DID NOT create a Democracy, which they had no use for. They were against a Democracy because as they noted at the time, it's nothing more than a dictatorship of the masses. Democracy is "MOB RULE." Just look at Egypt. Look at what the Palestinians elected several years back. Eighty percent of the voters chose HAMAS, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel as their government. So, so much for "democracy."
9:41 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
What our founders did was carefully craft a Democratic Republic, which is quite different. They balanced majority rule with protections for the minority with the two houses of Congress and three different branches of government with strict separation of powers. Each has its role, and they denoted EXACTLY what powers each branch had. This has been trashed repeatedly by the "Democratic" left over the years. The checks and balances have been thrown out in many court cases by activist judges who preferred something that the Constitution didn't allow. So, they simply ignored the Constitution and SAID whatever it was they were voting on was Constitutional, whether or not it was. Political expediency by the courts has been the single greatest threat to us for some time now. A perfect example of this was several years ago when it voted 5-4, with Kennedy selling us out, on the abuses going on around the country over "imminent domain." (More on that later.)
9:41 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Before any "fundamental change" to our society can be accomplished, especially one so critical as property rights, there is an amendment process which needs to be followed. But the left knows they most often will not get their way relying on the required supermajority of two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states. So, they've made it their mission to stack the courts with activist judges who will override the real meaning of the Constitution and give them what they want with a simply majority. So many cases they've managed to force massive fundamental changes to the nature of our society with simply majorities, often 51 percent to 49 percent. This was NOT the intent at our founding. But then again, the people doing this have very little use for the founders or what they intended. Their most interested in a socialist Utopia.
Here's the bottom line. Our founding fathers understood that times would change and in different circumstances modifications might be necessary. That's why they created the amendment process. The left resents the roadblock and therefore choose politicians and judges who ignore the law and make up their own rules.
9:51 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
The problem is the left CANNOT get its socialist agenda passed with such a majority. So, it simply ignores the Constitution and treats everything, no matter how outrageously egregious, as Constitutional. As I said before, a perfect example of this was the utter abuse of the "imminent domain" law several years back in I think it was Connecticut. Kennedy stunned people when he joined the "usual suspects" in trouncing on the Constitution by determining it's perfectly acceptable for a local government -- any level of government actually -- to seize people's personal property, at a price the government sets, even if it causes a loss to the property owner, and then to sell it to another private party -- in this case a developer -- who claims they'll building something there that will create a greater tax base. This city stole people's homes at a much lesser price than the people were willing to even consider selling at, and handed the property to a developer who wanted to build a shopping area and condos, etc. They promised a much greater return in tax revenues to the city. The people sued to protect themselves, but the courts ruled against them, forced them out of their homes and the developer -- strange how in this case the liberals didn't consider them an "evil corporation" for doing this -- pursued building this huge monstrocity. Turned out it did NOT work out. People lost their homes for nothing. The city got nothing in return.
9:53 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
Fortunately, a number of Republican run states have since passed laws prohibiting such actions in their states by either the state or local (county or municipal) governments. Yes, it has in each case been liberal Democrats who have been seizing people's property and giving it to developers. NOT Conservatives.
9:58 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
I could go on and on with such examples, but I realize now, as I should have before posting on this yesterday, that the hordes of liberals in James Moran's district would right away launch attacks, call me names, such as acusing me of being a "tea bagger," etc., etc.
No, Isaac, I understand the Constitution all too well. So much so that my signature page on all emails at work end with a quote from President George Washington taken from his farewell speech to Congress in 1796, as he left office, in which he admonished all about the sacred meaning on the Constitution and the importance of maintaining a strict adherence to its tenets.
Uncle Smartypants
11:35 am on Monday, July 2, 2012
Thank you Tom for the awesome idea! I just changed the signature page on my work emails to "E = hv where h is Planck's Constant" and now I totally understand quantum mechanics.
9:58 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
-- George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796
10:01 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
The liberals I know at work often have ZERO use for this statement or any other made by the founders. In fact, they often "ridicule" them and demean their intents with snotty comments. AND THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UPHOLDING THE LAW! That should worry people.
2:11 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
I for one, am so grateful this law passed and I REALLY hope to have another 4 years of the current president. However, this thread does not shock me one bit. I am use to the Manassas area by now and the majority who live in it. But hopefully for a friend of mind struggling with stage 4 cancer who had to quit working due to her health, now has a chance to get the care she needs. I for one don't mind seeing my tax dollars go towards those who need it. If you want to drive a car you are told you must have insurance, the same should be required and allowed in order to live. Everyone and yes that includes poor people deserve good health. However, I also expect to be one of the very few in this area who actually feels that way.....pretty sad, when I think about it!
9:10 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
I am wishing your friend better days. It's amazing to me that everyone does not realize we may all fight cancer some day. We certainly all will have health challenges and ultimately die.
10:38 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
First of all, anyone who drives doesn't have to drive. It's a privilege. You don't want to pay for car insurance? Don't drive. But it's all a farse anyways. I've been hit twice by uninsurance motorists, once in California, and once here in Virginia, both of which have such laws. NOTHING WAS DONE to the uninsured parties. The police refused to write a report or any tickets, even though I was hit and the other drivers were clearlhy in the wrong.
10:40 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
This healthcare law is an abdomination. It will be the same thing. The way its written leaves it wide open for freeloaders getting free healthcare insurance paid for by the government (read, the taxpayer). Most of us were for reforms which would resolve the issues you mention. But THIS monstrocity will not do so. It will only result in trashing what system we have. People have NO idea what's coming on 1 January 2013.
10:43 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
I keep hearing about people "loosing their homes" over a lack of healthcare insurance. Who has ever lost their home? I have several friends who have no insurance and have had catastrophic health issues. NONE of them has ever lost their home or faced loosing it. In fact, my best friend had triple bypass surgery a little over two months ago. The total bill was over $400K. They knew he couldn't pay up front, yet he got into a good hospital and was operated on by a leader in the field. The State of Mississippi has solved its problem of good working folks like my friend who drives a truck and who can't get healthcare coverage due to preexisting conditions -- he had bladder cancer twice and other things, which made the rates available to him way beyond his ability to pay. Mississippi uses funds from the State Lottery program to provide coverage for people like him. You NEVER hear about such things from the left. NEVER! I would really like someone herein who has actually honestly known someone first hand who "lost their home" or was turned away from life-saving care because they couldn't afford it. I've never seen it happen. I've heard a lot about it, but never had an actual case presented to see.
10:48 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
We've had a number of hospitals in Texas and other border states with Mexico driven out of business because of the federal unfunded mandate they not turn anyone away. One particularly outrageous case was the Mexican family from Nogales that snuck their father, who was suffering from heart disease, across the border, dropped him off at a local hospital emergency room, and ran off. They found him needing a triple bypass. Because he was deemed as likely to die if transported a long distance, they had to do surgery there. They did so, and this guy's surgery and aftercare cost nearly $1 million! A few weeks later he got up, walked out of the hospital, and crossed back over the border into Mexico, as good as new. Not a dime paid for by the socialized medical system of Mexico. The Texas hospital was stuck with the bill, which it had to pass on in higher costs to everyone else.
The point is this sick system we have which REQUIRES treatment to even illegals, and then allows them to walk away leaving others with the bill is driving costs up. And none of this will be resolved with Obamacare. In fact, it will encourage more. This time they'll be lining up at the doctor's offices. Anyone who the government decides cannot afford healthcare will get it paid for by the taxpayers. All it was meant to do is be a massive transfer of wealth to buy votes.
4:08 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Tom - you do quite a lot of mouthing but without much thought or research.
"Even after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2019, about 23 million Americans will remain uninsured. About one-third of these will be undocumented immigrants, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.
This is by design. Illegal immigrants will not be permitted to buy insurance through government-run exchanges even if they pay with their own money. They will not get federal subsidies to buy insurance and will remain ineligible for Medicaid and Medicare; and even legal immigrants will have to endure a five-year waiting period before they can sign up for Medicaid."
4:21 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Tom, when a person received medical care, that person is billed for that work. Without insurance, a hospitalization bill may be a hundred thousand. So perhaps the person will not or cannot pay it, but that bill will remain on their credit report and will affect most future financial transactions. Even if the bill is only 1,000, the medical judgement will affect whether or not the person can get a car loan, car insurance, or a home. The judgement remains on your credit report forever, and for 10 years after it is paid. I guarantee that.
Richard Holmquist
1:00 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Tom, the fact that you would deny health care to a dying man, regardless of his immigration status, says the world about you. I'm with Olivia in thanking President Obama and the U.S. Congress for passing this health care legislation, but I don't think it has anything to do with your complaint. With or without this new legislation, it's the obligation of hospitals to treat any critically ill people regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay. Fortunately, most Americans are compassionate and share this view.
One thing that's great about the new legislation is that 30 million people will become insured and will be more likely to treat illness before it gets to a critical stage, saving the patient from the agony and saving the taxpayer or other insured the costs of those expensive bills.
I wonder how much racism plays a part in Tom's thoughts. Would Tom feel the same about denying treatment to a dying undocumented person if she were the white child of a British university student who had overstayed her visa?
4:14 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
I am against the ObamaCare plan because the US can not afford socialized medicine. Secondly, Massachusetts now has a 2 to 3 month wait for a doctor appointment now so that is what will be coming down the pike for all of us. Thirdly, I don't want to deal with the federal government for my medical coverage. My father died and it took the federal government over two years to reissue his final pay check. The Congress could have offered credits to help purchase private insurance and it would have been less expensive. Allowing companies to sell private medical plans across state line and not requiring people to have to have these cadillac medical plans that are so expensive. All this to insure the 1% uninsured in this country is just a reason to control our lives more than they do. And the wealthy people will have easy access to the doctors that won't accept the federal plans just like the ones that won't accept Medicare and Medicaid. There already was insurance in place for people that didn't have it. A friend who didn't have insurance, needed heart surgery and a hospital social worker got him enrolled for free surguery and future free medical coverage. This was already in place, at least in Virginia. Leave it to the states to decide what we can afford.
4:20 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
The federal government feeds school children now during summer vacation due to "food insecurity" whatever means. So in other words, parents are too stupid to feed their children now is the message to our kids. All about control is what is going on. This feeding children started in the early 90's when a co-worker told me that they were giving free school lunches and didn't check to see if the child's family needed assistance. So this co-worker said she was getting her daughter to get free lunches since the government wasn't monitoring this. Now everyone almost takes the free lunches when they can really afford to feed their own children. In Fairfax Country, 54% of the budget is just for education. All this is about controlling our lives and our money. Sadly, most Americans seem to be falling right in line with this thinking they are getting something for nothing. Wait until their net paycheck is 10% of their gross and they have no choices except what the government dictates to give them and then maybe they will realize what they voted for. If socialized medicine doesn't work elsewhere why would it here. Why do Canadians come to the US to get an MRI? Because there are only 12 MRI machines in all of Canada and a really long waiting list.
9:12 pm on Monday, July 2, 2012
I am in favor of the national insurance plan, but I also feel we should do better to stop the free loaders who take advantage of the system. This happens on the federal, state and local levels.
1:31 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Bah, humbug! Let the children starve! Good grief, are you serious? If somebody you know is taking advantage of the system, turn her in, but don't deny food to hungry children.
2:18 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
1% uninsured? Sure about that. Only 12 MRI machines in all of Canada? Sure about that one too?? Well, I'm sure you are, but it sure does show your ignorance and how patheticlly uninformed most people who object to health care reform actually are on the facts. A damn stubbron thing when you really have no legitimate point.
T Ailshire
10:01 am on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
April, I'm not sure who you're quoting when you place this paragraph in quotes: "Even after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2019, about 23 million Americans will remain uninsured. About one-third of these will be undocumented immigrants, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office." but it is fundamentally and horribly flawed
It says 23 million AMERICANS will not be covered, the goes on to talk about illegal immigrants. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, AMERICANS.
1:48 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
April, if the intent was to just go after the "free-loaders" (previously referred by the Democrats as the "uninsured" so you have the Democrat talking points down) they could have done that and left the rest of us who had insurance alone. The intent is control. If anyone thinks the libs in this country are not going to insist on medical attention for illegals, they are not being truthful or just naive. This will also be a bigger incentive for more illegals to enter the US. Global economy and no borders apparently, is where we are headed and this is just one step. The problem with this concept as there will always be people like Putin or Chavez or Castro who are greedy, leaders and the uptopia life of one-big happy earth will never happen because humans will never be perfect and sharing. Someone always insists on being top-dog and others try to topple the top-dog.
5:47 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
THere is no chance illegal immigrants will be excluded from Obamacare. We will hear terribly tragic stories and government will respond. That is what government does -- it responds to loud constituencies. Normally, that is how our government works but it is also why government stinks at business.
4:52 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
I didn't want to bring politics into this discusstion but geez, feels like I have paid Dems responding to every comment that doesn't follow their mantra. First, T-Bird the uninsured figure provided by the Dems changes constantly so it is like picking a figure out of the sky. 1% is just a viable as any figure that Democrats mention as it doesnt include illegal uninsure. Next you resort to name calling which is why I refer to "paid" or professional Democrat person blogger responding. Disagree with my MRI numbers which maybe low but that also changes. Either way, there is a 4.5 month waiting list to get a MRI in Canada. (That waiting time changes too but it is longer than in the US and the Canadians come to the US facilites for a reason and pay for an MRI vs. waiting for their "free" one in Canada. As for Kim with her outlandish statement of starving children in the US. One can hardly find a picture of a child in the US anymore that is below average weight. Most are over-weight from those great federal food programs. I have never heard of a government hotlines to call in for people abusing the free school lunch meals. Why doesn't the government ask for proof of income to see if a child's family can't really afford the lunches? Because they don't want to hear about that.
7:00 pm on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Calling someone what they are is not name calling. You seem to ignore the facts that don't support your point of view. That is ignorant. Better yet, you make up "facts" that do support your point of view. That is also ignorant. Then your rational is that you "believe" others do the same. You seem to have confused actually trying to quantify a difficult and ever changing statistic with not blindly repeating talking points someone tells you. People like you always have "firm" numberss because you just make them up. As for politics, you're repeating party talking points and you're not trying to bring up politics? Wow, have you now convinced yourself that you're just not right with your made up facts, but that you're morally superior too? And let me get this straight: there's no starving children anywhere in the US because YOU haven't seen a picture of them lately??? Wow. You know, if you want a real discussion, you shouldn't start with insulting our intelligence.
9:06 pm on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
I have recently worked with underprivileged children who depend on the free or reduced-cost breakfasts and lunches at school. Most are not over-weight, although the food their parents can afford to buy for them is usually higher in calories and lower in nutritional value. Although I haven't checked into the requirements for reduced-price meals, I know that getting other services in the county requires proof of need, having helped a family through that maze.
5:44 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
I looked up how many MRI machines there were in Canada because of the statistics being tossed around. Apparently, this became quite the scandal in 2010 with how few machines there were. There was a 12-18 month wait for an MRI in the public health system. When they need an MRI quickly, Canadians either came to the U.S. or sought private MRIs.
One link is below but there are quite a few others. THe below says that there are more MRIs in Pittsburgh than in all of Canada. No wonder this became a bit of a row.
8:51 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Interesting and insightful article Haunches. Another friend had a kidney stone attack on a Monday and had to leave for a cruise to Sweden/St. Petersburg on Friday. US doctor did a laser stone break-up so he could pass the stones and my friend made his trip. Once on the cruise he met several passengers from Europe who all told him that if he had lived in their countries he would never have made the cruise as their systems aren't as responsive as the US. I can only go on what I have been told from honest people I know and what I read from reliable sites. I also read that in the last year or so the Medicare program finally purchased the same software that the private insurers use to find fraudulent/deplicate claims. I was shocked after hearing for decades about Medicare fraud the federal government had never upgrade their system with software that they must have known that private insureres used. Also, Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion. His offer was rejected twice to get our health care costs under control. Our healthcare system is costly and that is what needs reform not the entire system. But cost reforms were rejected (tort reform, selling across state lines, etc) and therefore, one can only gather cost wasn't the concern but further control of the American people's lives is.
Richard Holmquist
9:08 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Haunches, you make this out like it's the worst thing in the world. In my mind, it indicates some financial responsibility in health care. The Canadians choose to sacrifice some convenience for a massive reduction in health care costs. If I have the choice to pick health care that's 50% less expensive at the cost of delaying some non-emergency treatment, so be it, especially if the health care system provides better overall results, as it does in Canada. You will find that most of those multi-million dollar MRI machines sit unused much of the time in the USA so that you can have that spur-of-the-moment & often unnecessary MRI.
If you can figure out a way to have the best of both worlds, good for you, but there's not a single person in the political world today who's suggesting a system that cuts costs by 50%, yet improves quality and keeps all the so-called convenience of the current system.
Richard Holmquist
9:10 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Mandy, nice to hear that your friend was able to make his cruise. I rest my case.
9:27 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Richard, how do you rest your case? My friend was a US citizen and received US medical care under a private insurer provider by an employer that covered premium costs partially. The point is tht if he was under socialized medicine, he would not have received the laser surgery in time to be on the boat on Friday.
9:32 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Mandy -- Tort reform is a key issue on controlling costs. Other countries that have reformed health care successfully instituted tort reform as part of the process (like Germany). The trial lawyer lobby in the U.S. is too powerful to permit any tort reform, so we pay for an insane amount of defensive medicine.
The U.S. medical system is so strong that it is able to deliver timely and high quality medical services despite the built in disadvantages. If we were ever serious about tort reform, we would see health costs (including premiums) drop like a rock.
Richard Holmquist
9:51 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
One of the reasons your friend's cruise-mates pay less than half as he does for health care is because they sacrifice medically-unnecessary expediency for tremendous cost savings. Ensuring that a spoiled rich guy makes his next cruise on time shouldn't be the baseline goal of our health care system unless that guy is kicking in a pile of extra money to cover the extra costs of managing such a system. Would I always like to be treated at the drop of a hat for my convenience? Yes, of course. If someone can design an affordable health care system that can do so, great. Tort reform doesn't get us anywhere close. I would much rather sacrifice some convenience for a 50% cost reduction, saving our country from bankruptcy and ensuring that every American has quality health care instead of just the wealthiest.
By the way, this discussion has little to do with the new health care law. The types of cost savings measures that you decry and I support are not part of the new law, nor are they likely under the competitive system of private insurance companies.
10:07 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Mr. Holmquist -- That's the rub. Putting tort reform to the side for the moment, the only other way to reduce costs is to reduce the demand for medical services. The 2010 scandal in Canada was that wait times for a simply MRI was 12-18 months, so Canadians who needed the service found it privately or traveled to the U.S. The need did not just go away because supplies were unavailable.
Obamacare will necessarily involve rationing of this type. That is the only way to control costs if there is no tort reform at all. If there is no rationing, premiums and taxes will explode to pay for things like adding tens of millions to the insured rolls, increasing children to 26, etc. That has been the experience of every nation that has gone down this road, and we are not special.
10:11 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Now that I think about it, Mr. Holmquist, you may have a point. Proponents told us not to worry our pretty little heads off about what the law would do. After all, we needed to pass it to find out what's in it. We still have no real grasp of whats in it. Somehow, I think if proponents sold it like you are, i.e. what the big deal about non-emergency medical services, that costs too much, go to the back of the line and wait your turn while we asses whether you are worth the cost of treating, I suspect not to many people would have supported the law. And not many supported it to begin with.
10:39 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Okay. I've tried twice, and this idiot Patch site refused my password and erased my comments. I'm not going back to restate everything. But I'll say this...
Mandy, Haunches, I'm sure by now you've realized what we're dealing with here. You cannot debate with a liberal without the name calling coming out. Richard has also pulled the "race card" on me, without knowing a thing about me. It really doesn't matter if I am or not. The purpose is to ridicule and attempt to silence people with fear. Unfortunately, many people are 'fearful' of being labeled. To me, it just goes to show the pettiness of the individual I'm dealing with.
I've read both of your ongoing comments and have no further statements in that regard as you've said it all. That, except that I have few family here, but lots of family in europe. What I learned about the Italian system over the past ten years is eye opening. Theirs is better than most, as Michael Moore pointed out in his propaganda film, "SICKO." But not for the reasons he used. It's because Italy has a burgeoning private healthcare system supplementing the national healthcare system.
10:40 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
As my wife, who is from the Milan area and whom I met through my cousins there, told me.... the national healthcare system they instituted after WWII worked fine for the first generation. But before she was even an adult they came to see that the system wasn't sustainable as it was. Since the early 1980s, there has been this considerable growth of private healthcare providers and insurance companies. ALL her family, mine, and everyone they know up in the Lombard Region and surrounding area carry supplemental healthcare insurance. The national healthcare system is fine for routine things, but if you have a serious, and especially life-threatening illness, it's straight to the private sector they go. There aren't any long waits like in the national system and the care is usually superior. My brother-in-law is a private practice dentist. Wonderful practice. He has a state-of-the-art facility and everyone comes to him paying cash out of pocket rather than going to the "free" national healthcare dentist.
10:46 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The sad part is the incredible costs they pay for the monstrocity of the national system that they don't use anyway. $8.00 a gallon gasoline. Huge tollway fees throughout the entire country. High income taxes. An average VAT (Value Added Tax) of 28% placed on top of every item you buy. My mother and sister in law go crazy shopping when the come here because of the reasonable prices on goods. They, like us, are overrun with Chinese made products. Only over there they're just about as expensive as everything else because of the taxes added. They're amazed at the clothes you can buy here without breaking the bank.
The intent of this administration is to make us just like them. Massive taxes on everything. The lion's share of our income going to support government programs with us being left whatever that part of our earnings our "government masters" decide is prudent.
The thing is, I don't really care if they want to sell themselves into slavery. What I DO resent is being forced to join them. What I really resent is that such a small minority can run slipshod over the rest of us in passing such legislation, and by such dishonest means as was done herein.
10:57 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
As for April's claim about illegals. Yes, you're right. "Illegals" won't necessarily be covered, which is precisely why Obama is trying an end run around Congress, and the American people, illegally using "executive orders" to literally rewrite our immigration laws. He gave speeches before Latino groups before Obamacare was passed noting it would be difficult to get illegal immigrants covered, which he followed with stating "This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform." That's liberal code word for amnesty.
Clinton pulled this in 1996. Just before the election he usurped power not given to the president by the Constitution, and unilaterially provided hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had not yet met the required time in country yet to become citizens overnight citizenship. His pollers indicated they would overwhelmingly vote for him to begin with, but especially if he gave them citizenship without them having to complete the process. He did so and they did so. He BOUGHT about a half million votes overnight by fiat. This is how the Democrats roll. It's whatever it takes political machinations to get their way. Like Woodrow Wilson a century ago, the progressive left has nothing but contempt for the Constitution and the limitations it places on the federal government .... limitations which are only overcome legally by obtaining the consent of the "whole people" before hand through the amendment process.
11:05 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
I swore to uphold the Constitution first as a police officer, and then later -- when I got fed up with the corruption in Chicago and left Illinois never to go back -- as a naval officer. Unlike many who take the oath, I know it forewords and backwards, and I understand the original intent. And this latter I have particularly learned over the past decade in my research, which I've conducted -- on and off between mobilitizations to Iraq, etc. -- working on a series of historical novels I'm working on. My books, if I get published, will be much like C.J. Forester's HORATIO HORNBLOWER and Patrick O'Brien's Jack Aubrey series, only in my case the stories, including the characters, are all real. After spending a lifettime reading about our early navy and spending a career in the navy, I've learned much. I wanted to bring the stories to life, with the hopes of them being made into a mini series. We'll see if it happens, but the point is, my research has taken me into various archives and libraries both here and in Europe, and what I've found is amazing stuff. And I've really come to appreciate what our founders were all about. They were brilliant men. Unlike what one sarcastic moron herein claimed about them ... being slave owners and simpletons who couldn't possibly understand the complexities of modern society.... they were far superior in their intellect than 99.9% of the population today.
11:17 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
What has been done to the society they created is a travesty. We've been steadily sliding from a Democratic Republic with the checks and balances they carefully crafted into the system to a Populist Democracy, with all the pitfalls its entails. As Mark Levin has so aptly put it, "we've come to create a system now, by ignoring the Constitution as it's been convenient, whereby temporary politicians are making massive and permanent changes to our society, and without our consent." Those responsible for foisting this Obamacare monstrocity on us were ousted in the very next election, and yet this disaster they created is here to stay. The only way to repeal it is to not only win the White House and the Senate, but the latter with at least 60 seats. That isn't likely to happen. So, with a simple majority for a very short period, we've been saddled with a permanent change to our system which has completely change the nature of the relationship between citizen and government. Progressive politicians view us as servants of the state and themselves as our rulers. They finally have their foot in the door on our healthcare as they have wanted since FDR.
11:19 pm on Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Liberals are always very generous..... with other people's money.
7:59 am on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
People without health insurance are much less likely to go to doctors early on when they get sick. They tend to wait until they are very sick, and then go to ERs - which costs much more money than a doctor's visit. And they may go when their illness is advanced enough that treatment is very expensive, versus if caught early. Those higher costs are passed on to the rest of us in insurance premiums and higher hospital costs.
Sound decision for many reasons.
9:24 am on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Tom and Haunches, I really enjoyed your posts. I love reading conservative posts as they deal with facts and reality (what a country can afford without putting us in deeper, dire financial conditions, etc) while omiting feel-good wishful dream statements of how people want life to be. I love how liberals always add their own bitter fantasies to the argument as Richard does by stating my cruise friend was some "spolied rich guy" (Not at all. He is just a person who worked since he was 15, lives within his means and took a vacation he paid for himself. What a sin. A self-supporting vacationer.) In 10 years I would love to revisit this site with the same people and see which of us was right. I would love to be wrong but logically and truthfully, I don't see how that is going to be possible.
10:59 pm on Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The part that I don't get is why so many seem to think that anyone who doesn't have health insurance is some kind of scum. I work for the college system in Virgina. Gues what? They don't offer me insurance. I'm not scum. Trust me on that. Or is it that those in opposition to the ACA don't want others to have what they have? When you come up with a better solution, fill us in on it.