Posted on 10/03/2010 10:01:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Leftists who opposed Obamacare because it was not the British-style National Health Service or the Canadian "single payer" system should take another look.
Constitutional conservatives who feared that Obamacare was a blueprint for an incremental roll out of "single payer" have been proven right.
California's governor is about to sign legislation to set up that state's Health Benefits Exchange. The HBE is authorized under Obamacare and is supposed to be a place where small business and individuals can access the best insurance plans at the cheapest price—a real exchange where customers can compare benefits and price in a competitive atmosphere.
Not in California. The main feature of the California HBE allows the exchange governing board to meet in secret and determine not only which insurance companies can participate and what must be covered, but also what they can charge.
Exchange employees would not be limited by Civil Service pay rates and personnel decisions would also be secret. The exchange would operate independent from either legislative oversight or the governor's authority.
The main goal of this California HBE is to impose government price controls on insurance while mandating the expanded coverage that policies must provide.
California appears to be fulfilling the real intent of Obamacare. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius assailed the "free rein" which insurers had before Obamacare to set any price they wished. Obamacare she vowed would bring "accountability" to health insurance price.
States already regulate the health insurance industry. Responding to higher premium costs driven by new benefits mandated in Obamacare, the HBE in California and soon in your state will destroy what’s left of the insurance free market.
We've seen this slow motion nationalization before.
Decades ago, flood insurance carriers were hit by a political flood when Congress criticized alleged high premiums, slow response and stingy payouts following severe Mississippi flooding. Mandated coverage, de facto price controls, and federal subsidies from Congress eventually forced private insurance carriers to drop flood insurance.
These days, flood insurance is a federal program. Environmentalists should be livid. The federal coverage is so generous that homeowners in flood prone areas have built new homes after every flood. Taxpayers foot the bill. This year the federal flood insurance program is running a deficit over $25 billion. Is this the model for "affordable" health insurance under Obamacare?
The architect of Obamacare, Sen. Harry Reid (D.-ev.), tired of being hammered by challenger Sharron Angle on Nevada's worst in the nation unemployment, has gone on the attack defending Obamacare.
Ignoring the public revulsion over the midnight secret bill drafting, the bribes to individual senators to secure votes, the fact that senators voted on a bill that they did not read, and the repeated lies about what was in the bill, Reid brought Sebelius to Reno, Nev., to tout the benefits of Obamacare.
Democrats vowed to "run on our record." And what a record it is.
Sharron Angle continues to point out that Obamacare will force everyone to pay for coverage they may not need because the federal government will dictate through the political process what coverage is required in every policy. You may not want a transgender operation, but you're covered for it and will pay for it anyway.
The Reid/Sebelius retort was to present 5 year-old Brennan, an autism patient, whose father (an admitted Reid supporter) claimed he could not get insurance coverage for the expensive autism treatment.
No further facts were offered, leaving many questions. Did he have individual or group insurance? Was the father's preferred "treatment" different from a treatment allowed for autism under the coverage? Was the autism a "pre-existing" condition? Did the father try to get insurance before or after the autism diagnosis?
Reid's appeal to emotion clouds the fact that mandated coverage coupled with price controls would eventually put the sky-rocketing costs of medical coverage on the backs of taxpayers was not lost on Angle. In a Reid TV ad meant to slam Angle, she is shown saying "Take off the mandates for coverage... You're paying for things you don't even need."
True. And it's another reason Angle is right and Reid just plain wrong for Nevada and for the country.
What an awesome post! Thank you so much!
“I hope Sharron Angle stomps Reid flatter than a tortilla.”
Ohhhhh...I am SO there!
Did you even read my responses?
Are you even trying to understand my point?
Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Okay...explain this...
“Most of the guys who voted for Obamacare will win and get sent back.”
That’s just one thing that I don’t understand.
Then, there’s this...
“There is a reason Nancy Pelosi is smiling: cause she just took a dump on the American people and she’s not even facing a re-election challenge in her home district.”
Every single member of the House is up for re-election...even Nancy Pelosi.
She will be re-elected, but she won’t have the power, anymore.
In fact, I suspect she will retire, shortly.
“Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?”
Everyone who knows me knows that I don’t do that.
“Wrong. She’s a ranking Democrat part of the Democrat leadership in the House. She’ll keep that.”
She has seniority, but whether she will have any power at all after the election will depend on how the ‘rat caucus vote goes. There will be many/some who won’t be inclined to vote for again after her abysmal performance as party leader, and SOTH.
This remains to be seen.
“Most of the guys who voted for Obamacare will win and get sent back.”
This was my point of contention, and you still haven’t answered it. Or, maybe I missed something in the translation? It seemed like a pretty forthright statement to me, though.
“Now - 217 of this bunch voted for Obamacare. If 100 of them are voted out, that’s less than than half the guys who voted for Obamacare.”
Fuzzy math...
First...if one person loses a seat, that’s a swing of two seats. Take away one seat from one party, add that seat to the other party, and that amounts to a two seat swing.
Dems have 75...Reps have 25. Say 25 Dems lost.
75 - 25 + 50. Right?
However, 25 Reps + 25 Dem losses = 50 seats.
So, even though the Dems had 75 seats, and lost 1/3 of them...thus giving the Reps 25 more seats to add to their 25 current seats...it leaves them tied at 50 seats each.
If 100 are voted out, that’s a 200 seat swing.
You’re right...it’s simple political math.
“But in the big picture, it’s pretty sad.”
The entire years since November 4, 2008 has been pretty sad, but things are looking way up, now.
“75 - 25 + 50. Right?”
That should be 75 - 25 = 50.
Sorry...
If you say so.
...I’m starting to realize why we’re in trouble as a nation...
“...I’m starting to realize why we’re in trouble as a nation...”
Me, too.
If there are only two sides, and one is taken from one side, the only place for it to go is to the other side.
Are you into basic math, or the really new math?
“Most of the guys who voted for Obamacare will win and get sent back.”
BTW. you still haven’t answered that...
But, he has. I think his point is, even if the most optimistic scenario we have pans out, less than half of the rats who voted for Obamacare will still be tossed out, hence most would be re-elected. Your thinking of the swing in balance, which is not the same thing.
I give up.
You clearly don’t understand my point, and I don’t understand yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.