Skip to comments.Obamacare falls to critical condition (Republicans can draft real health care reform)
Posted on 12/24/2010 9:55:11 AM PST by Libloather
Obamacare falls to critical condition
Los Angeles Times Syndicate
Published: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:15 AM MST
In a statement shortly after the ruling, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) got to the heart of what bothers most opponents of ACA: Obamacares individual mandate always rested on the absurd premise that the Commerce Clause empowered the federal government to regulate Americans decisions not to engage in commercial activity. Adoption of such an argument would have vested the federal government with the power to regulate virtually every aspect of Americans lives...
King is correct. If the federal government can get away with ordering individuals to buy health insurance based on interstate commerce laws, it could order us to submit to any other practice it deems for our good based on similar misinterpretations of the Constitution.
Should Judge Hudsons ruling be upheld on appeal, a significant corner will have been turned in the Lefts march toward a socialist state. Polls, as reflected in last months election, show that a majority of the public has grown tired of ceding too much power to government, no matter which party runs it. Growing numbers of us have awakened to the misappropriation of funds we taxpayers have given Washington. It is time not only to stop them, but to begin reversing the process with legislative sunset laws, periodic reauthorization of all government programs and agencies, a reform of the tax code and lower tax rates that will return power to the people where it belongs.
(Excerpt) Read more at trivalleycentral.com ...
The whole turd needs to be flushed with extreme prejudice. Not just the mandate, but all the hidden taxes, regulation and fees in it.
Pubbies will insist on keeping “pre-existing conditions” coverage that’s in Commiecare thereby negating any real reform or allowing real free markets to work.
This is nonsense, I wish it were true.
Yes, the whole thing needs to go. Does anyone imagine that loading millions of federal bureacrats into every aspect of healthcare will be cheaper, or better, than allowing patients to consult directly with their doctors?
Instead of the doctor seeing you once a year for an annual physical, consulting his written records, and discussing what tests or procedures are recommended with the patient, he puts his findings into a computer, that does to the feds, travels through more than a dozen networks, winds up at a death panel somewhere, and THEY decide what step, if any, should be next.
Almost all the money would go to feeding the bureaucracy. Little or none of it would go to the doctors, nurses, hospitals, or pharmaceutical companies. It would be even less efficient than Government Motors, because far larger and more complicated. The only “positive” result would be to fund the public unions, which no doubt would be crammed full of designated minorities and illegal aliens.
You wish what were true?
The most ominous aspect of Obamacare is the million extra IRS agents.
The court decisions will redefine the battle over healthcare. The left will now realize that their ONLY option is to push for the “single payer system”
Yes, compassionate republican spending. Damn!!
Exactly right. Repubs don’t have the courage to tell people you can’t insure your house after it burned down because that would be heartless. Let your neighbor pay the higher premiums. Same thing they did to the banking industry.
Gummit needs to get out of business.
So you don't want anyone with a pre-existing condition to get insurance, period? What about those who had insurance at the time of being diagnosed with a disease then lose their jobs, are they screwed from ever getting insurance again too?
Or were your comments aimed at those who wait until they get sick to ever buy or try to buy insurance? Some clarification would help your point.
As someone who's carried insurance on his own since 18 years of age and being recently diagnosed with a crippling form of arthritis, if I lose my job and I've paid insurance premiums non-stop since 18 years of age should I be prohibited from getting insurance again because I now have a pre-existing condition?
You should be careful when using such broad brushes as to who you paint with your statements.
IMO there are three facts in play here, and neither is mutually exclusive:
Fact #1: Obamacare must be repealed. Period, end of discussion.
Fact #2: Insurance companies should be prohibited from just "dropping" people when they get sick, or finding ways to not insure them at all after they'd been previously insured, simply because they happened to get sick and require the insurance company actually provide coverage while they were sick. The fact is, insurance companies do this kind of crap all the time, I know plenty of people who can't get health insurance on a family member because that son/daughter was born with a condition, even though the mother and father both had health insurance where they worked. That's just wrong, and that's just one case I can talk about.
Fact #3: Those who abuse the system and do not purchase health insurance should be forced to bear the full brunt of the costs of their treatment when they get sick. In no way shape or form should they be allowed to foist their costs onto the rest of us because they failed to do the right thing and purchase health insurance to cover themselves.
Personally, I'd support a bill that does #2 and #3 above. Those of us who work and play by the rules in #2 shouldn't get screwed because we got sick. Those who abused the system in #3 above should pay, period.
And yes, I'll say it again: REPEAL OBAMACARE. Don't "fix" it, drive a stake through it's heart and burn it to the ground. Any new legislation needs only to address #2 and #3 above to be successful.
“Almost all the money would go to feeding the bureaucracy.”
The bloated federal bureaucracy has a voracious appetite for money that is beyond anything that most people can imagine. Feds can ALWAYS find ways to spend your money and justify their empires. We must stop feeding the beast and put it back into its cage.
Obamacare was never about health: it is a program designed to extend the control of government over the most intimate aspects of life
Obamacare is an assault on an individual’s ownership of the most important property one possesses: his own body. A bureaucrat will determine whether you have sufficient value to the state to warrant various alternate levels of care. THUMBS UP! OR THUMBS DOWN! If you do not own your own body, you have NO property rights at all. That is the real intent: destroy property rights, individualism, freedom, liberty,
As Lenin famously said, “Medicine is the cornerstone of the arch of socialism.” This is about COMMUNISM, not health care.
IMO- that is the reason that this debacle will never go away. It was all about power and money.
How do Republicans behave when they are the majority party? Like a minority party. Bending over backwards for the Democrats in the name of cooperation and bipartisanship (a concept Republicans believe in and Democrats define as Republicans acceding to Democrat demands.)
The Tea Party folks will make a lot of noise at first, but it will be some time before they can get the real power that comes with seniority, committee chairs, chits from other members, etc.
And when it comes to the Senate, when you have the Freepers second most (irrationally) hated Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, claiming that Republicans have capitulated to Reid and Peolosi in the lame duck session, you know it is already business as usual.
I am not inclined to think that we will see much in the next year but a lot of posturing and screaming. I stand ready for Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Kyl, et al to prove me wrong.
I've been there. My first wife (God rest her soul) had a medical condition that required me to pay a higher life insurance premium on her than on me. The insurance company expected her to die early, and it turned out they were right. I saw nothing wrong with that practice, and still see nothing wrong with it.
As for losing your medical insurance when you lose your job, that's one of the worst features of our present system of tying medical insurance to a job. You should own own medical insurance policy, just as you own your life insurance, car insurance, and fire insurance. You don't lose those when you lose your job.
Please... With the way Senate Republicans are caving not a damn thing is going to change with Obamacare. Nothing!
The only ‘real’ healthcare reform the Pubbies should work on is getting the damn government clear out of it. There is absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY for any of their insufferable meddling. All their progressive platitudes aside, the government has NO BUSINESS in the health care business...and industry that did not begin to experience abnormal price increases until the Feds got their filthy hands involved.
I`m confused. Where in the Constitution does it mention govt. deathcare?
Just kidding. We know that useless piece of toilet paper was flushed down the crapper over 75 years ago.
IT DOESN’T NEED REFORM!
Can you hear us yet or must we shout louder?
There has never been an insurance contract of any kind that extended beyond one year. Some are renewable, some are not.
Do a search for the American Society of Actuaries and ask as many as you can contact if your wished-for scheme would ever work without government mandates, tax grabs and total governmental intervention and you will learn the truthful answers to the questions you asked.
Caution... You must be able to handle the actuarial truth, however.
Unfortunately, a few rotten apple companies have toyed with their policyholders over the wordings in their policies. This more than anything else has given rise to all this unnecessary controversy!!!
True. You have to be very careful which insurance company you choose. And even then, they can change over the course of a lifetime, as new managers rise to the top.
I am fortunate enough to have a university-backed insurer. They are less likely to play those sort of cheating games, because they don’t just risk offending some individual they don’t want on their roster anyway, they risk offending the whole university and all of its insurance holders. That would be a big loss for them.
The same would tend to be true of a health policy sponsored by a large corporation, provided that the corporation was decently run.
Less leverage for an individual, unfortunately. But word does get around, and there are some insurers I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.
They will create a “pool” for those turned down for pre-ex. The ins co’s will shuffle off all the undesirable risks to the government.
You realize that health insurance companies are risk pools with the risk of the insured in the pool spread out amongst those in the pool via premiums, correct?
So are you advocating 'weeding out' the sick who've paid their premiums year after year to lower your premium?
Talk about death panels ....
If I've paid my premiums year over year to my insurance company and I get sick, I expect coverage. That's in the contract. Of course if I were not paying my premiums I'd expect to get screwed.
Correction: GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE is based on Risk Pooling.
Really? I have a 20 year Term Life insurance contract that says otherwise.
It most certainly does! Start with Tort Reform and end the medical malpractice lawsuit abuse which is the #1 driver rising health care costs. You and I see that in our premiums increasing every year.
Title I of HIPAA prohibits preexisting conditions for group policies for longer than 12 months. Additionally, they regulate what can be determined “pre-existing” conditions.
So whats the inexpensive answer? More groups/pools not much taxpayer burden in that. And probably doesnt even need Congressrats involved. A bonus.
A pre-existing condition cannot be “insured” because it has already happened and trying to do something like that will bankrupt the system and drive it to a government solution (which will be far worse in terms of quality of care and ultimately due to rationing)
People get sick and die. We are not going to stop that. A free market solution means the most people will get the best care. Just like it has meant that the most people will rise in their economic standing and create the envy of th world when it comes to standard of living and individual wealth.
That is really what this debate is about. The socialists and marxists wanting to foist control on the economy and destroy the free market.
Agreed. Merry Christmas.
Health, based again on a one person contract can change to a lifetime of expensive and on-going treatments that can arise out of MULTIPLE causes. The one person, if part of a large group can spread this far different risk, but only a little depending on the size of the group.
Other than those two differing actuarial assumptions, and you are having a tantrum over emotional and anecdotal feelings about how you'd wish things to be. That would not be reality!!!
However,the Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity!
What? Pre-existing conditions are insured every day across America and you all act like that's the #1 thing bankrupting the system when it's not. Lawsuits and medical malpractice suits are. So stop with this nonsense of "weeding out" the sick so your premiums can be lower. The net effect of your solution will be pennies on the dollar whereas fixing the system by enacting tort reform ending lawsuit abuse and multi-million dollar settlements which is the real cause of escalating health care costs is the real answer.
In the spirit of the day, wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas!
Ahh, which means let the rest die even though they could continue to live productive, taxpaying lives if they got the care they paid for. Is that your position?
Talk about death panels, eh? Will you be sitting on one?
“IT DOESNT NEED REFORM!
It most certainly does! Start with Tort Reform and end the medical malpractice lawsuit abuse which is the #1 driver rising health care costs. You and I see that in our premiums increasing every year.”
Yeah. No. I meant health care reform, not legal reform.
You were the one who made the statement that NO INSURANCE CONTRACT OF ANY KIND extends beyond one year, and you've been proven wrong. So now that you've been proven wrong, why should I bother responding to the rest of your falsehoods?
and you are having a tantrum over emotional and anecdotal feelings about how you'd wish things to be. That would not be reality!!!
Once again, I stated FACTS, who's having the emotional tantrum using the multiple exclamation points above as if shouting is going to make your point? The fact is, you can't find a single error in my post, period. What I stated happens every day.
Again, the fact is health insurance is based on risk pooling. The bigger the pool (as you correctly stated) the more that risk is dispersed. The smaller the pool, the more that risk is felt via higher premiums for those in smaller pools.
Rather than rely on Capitalism to solve the problem, YOUR and others solution is to "weed out" anyone who's done the right thing by carrying insurance in the first place, from any "pool" you yourself are a member of, so as to lower your own premium.
Based on that, I'd wager you support Obama's Death Panels 100% if I were a betting man.
Here's my fix: If you don't like the fact that you're in the same risk pool with someone who has a pre-existing condition, how about you go start your own health insurance pool with a bunch of 100% healty people who've never had a pre-existing condition or disqualifier? You'd best check their families and their family histories too before you let them into your pool lest any family history or predispositions drive your costs up.
If anyone wants to live in a "perfect world" it's you. For your own sake, you should mark your posts on this thread and pray every day you or one of your family members never gets sick lest you suffer the same fate you're condemning anyone with a pre-existing condition - no matter how minor in your replies above.
If that means making the high-risk insurance pool a permanent provision, then that IS free market reform.
You don't think Health Care needs tort reform? We don't need to reform the system from frivolous lawsuits?
Some “renew,” but none “extend!”
“If the federal government can get away with ordering individuals to buy health insurance based on interstate commerce laws, it could order us to submit to any other practice it deems for our good based on similar misinterpretations of the Constitution.”
If I chose not to spend my money and leave it in the bank, does that mean the gov’t can determine that my not spending money is causing a detrimental effect on the economy therefore giving them the power to seize it. All I want for Xmas is 2012!
THIS is shouting! This is not!!! This is being emphatic with certitude!!!
You're never gonna have a Merry Christmas if you continue to buck all the traditional/conventional wisdom of thousands of years of actuarial trial and error effort on behalf of mankind. When you come to St. Peters gate, you're gonna have another tantrum because stubborn lack of logic is your other pre-existing condition, right???
Have a pleasant, cheerful and especially healthy Christmas and try to stay a little closer to consistent conservatism in your new year, Ok???
“So stop with this nonsense of “weeding out” the sick so your premiums can be lower. “
Sorry about your recent health issues. Your issue, and the plight of insurance in small businesses is the biggest problem this country has, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, the whole industry has gotten to the point where I feel that we’d be better off if insurance was completely outlawed, and we reverted to a fee-for-service model for everyone - with NHS-style public hospitals for everyone who won’t or can’t pay.
That is the only way that politicians can pretend to take care of those who can’t pay for themselves without destroying the folks who can pay for themselves, if they didn’t have to pay for everyone else, too.
If the GOP is serious about reform they can start by repealing those clauses in ERISA legislation that keep you from taking your insurance company to court if they unfairly deny your claim, or their denial of treatment causes you harm.
I do not get a "renewal" notice every year for my term life contract, if you were correct (and you're not..) I'd get a yearly renewal notice. Just admit you were wrong on this point and let's move on ...
The fact that you don't see the absolute absurdity in your posts has me thinking it's time to stop responding to you. But rather than that, allow me to demonstrate your absurdity by using absurdity:
So what you're trying to convince FReepers of is that we should kick out anyone who's paid their health insurance premiums regularly from all health insurance risk pools and force them into government sponsored health insurance simply because they got sick and expected to be covered by the policy, so you can keep your own cost down.
If you don't see the absolute absurdity in both statements then you're lost. Forcing anyone into a Government sponsored or run health insurance pool is ultimately going to cost YOU more money via your tax dollars. How do you not see this? The same government that has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and has run up nearly 14 Trillion dollars in debt you want to take care of the "sick" thinking you'll lower your own personal costs? It's positively absurd to think that'll save you money.
My argument is not, and never has been that we should cover those who do not act responsibly and wait until they get sick to try and get insurance, thereby driving up everyone elses costs. That is the net effect of paying for fire insurance on one's home only after the fire has started. I'll not buy into that argument.
For those of us who've played by the rules and done the right thing in no way shape or form should an insurance company or you ever be able to deny us insurance simply because we were unfortunate enough to get sick while we had insurance to cover it.
Again, the world you want to live in would allow you to simply 'kick out' anyone from your health insurance pool who gets sick, in order to keep your own personal cost down. Gee, who's trying to change the system to live in their own idyllic world here, you or I?
Wishing you also a very healthy and prosperous New Year, and please do try to get back to Conservative principles which you've certainly strayed from in this discourse.
Which is why I personally would trust the Insurance Companies to do the right thing - driven by a profit motive to provide the most efficient and cost effective care possible - once they are unshackled from an overly-restrictive oversight system implemented by the Federal Government.
If we truly want to see costs drop, here's what needs to happen:
1. Medical Malpractice Reform.
2. Medical Lawsuit Reform, limit damages collected and stop this nonsense of multi-million dollar lawsuits for trivial injuries and issues.
3. Implement LOSER PAYS as part of Tort Reform across the board.
4. Allow INTERSTATE COMPETITION by leveling the playing field for all Health Insurance Companies to compete across state borders.
Increased competition always lowers costs - it's worked every time it's been tried. Here I trust our Capitalist economy to do the right thing, if only the Health Insurance Industry and Doctors were unshackled by the Federal Government. Then we'd have the #1 medical system in the world again.
Our state legislators forbid the insurance companies from offering policies that would allow for a $20,000 or $30,000 ( or more) deductible.
For instance, my husband and I are now financially at the point where we could personally pay for most of our health care directly..But...A long stay in an ICU would either bankrupt us or wipe us out.
Essentially, we are being forced, by our state legislature, to buy more insurance than we need just so we can insure against an ICU catastrophe!
Also...As employers ( we are retired now) we could have afforded to offer a high deductible insurance plan to our employees but this type of plan is outlawed in our state. Therefore...most of our employees were completely uninsured.
As, for example, the welfare system.
To explain, Ispotted a notice posted in a welfare office. It bragged about, due to an X% cut in "administrative expenses" for a particular program, they were able to increase the payout to the beneficiary by Y%.
Applying a little Algebra, I discovered that "administrative expenses" were 85% of the program's cost. The beneficiaries were receiving only 15% of the deal.
I've no doubt that a mature Obamacare would also see 85% of all healthcare costs sunk in "administrative expenses".
Government is the most expensive middleman imaginable...
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.