Posted on 03/27/2010 4:58:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the days since the enactment of their health care plan, Democrats in Washington have been desperately seeking to lodge the new program in the pantheon of American public-policy achievements. House Democratic whip James Clyburn compared the bill to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Vice President Biden argued it vindicates a century of health reform efforts by Democrats and Republicans alike. House speaker Nancy Pelosi said “health insurance reform will stand alongside Social Security and Medicare in the annals of American history.”
Even putting aside the fact that Social Security and Medicare are going broke and taking the rest of the government with them, these frantic forced analogies are preposterous. The new law is a ghastly mess, which began as a badly misguided technocratic pipe dream and was then degraded into ruinous incoherence by the madcap process of its enactment.
The appeals to history are understandable, however, because the Democrats know that the law is also exceedingly vulnerable to a wholesale repeal effort: Its major provisions do not take effect for four years, yet in the interim it is likely to begin wreaking havoc with the health care sector—raising insurance premiums, health care costs, and public anxieties. If those major provisions do take effect, moreover, the true costs of the program will soon become clear, and its unsustainable structure will grow painfully obvious. So, to protect it from an angry public and from Republicans armed with alternatives, the new law must be made to seem thoroughly established and utterly irrevocable—a fact on the ground that must be lived with; tweaked, if necessary, at the edges, but at its core politically untouchable.
But it is no such thing.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
It’s my opinion that this bill will not only be repealed but with the huge majorities that Republicans will hold in 2012 they will smash a whole bunch of other structures of the welfare state. The important thing now is to for us to become election judges in nearby RAT districts, so that we can thwart the vote fraud they will absolutely try.
thanks for the link bump.
bump
A 2700 page law can not be a good thing for a free society.
There are so many items hidden in there that no one read before they voted that it is travesty. This administration and congress is a complete and utter embarrassment and disgrace to this country.
The sad thing is that someone could have said the above at any time since the day the Republic was formed, but only now, this week, is it completely without any hyperbole.
A good article, written in good faith by the author that frigging democrats want to provide affordable health care. The first thing to do is do away with that misguided notion.
“The preexisting condition exclusion prohibits only the refusal to cover treatment for a specific disease, not the exclusion of a family from coverage altogether, and applies only in the individual market, and so affects almost no one.”
So does this means that an insurance company could simply opt not to sell a policy to an individual so as to avoid covering an expensive pre-existing disease? However, they could sell policies to other members of the family?
This was rather confusing to me. Does anyone know the real answer. For example, could an insurance company simply refuse to sell an individual or group policy altogether to avoid the risk of a pre-existing disease? Or does this simply prohibit policies sold that cover medical conditions and exclude the pre-existing one(s), which is common now?
If an individual had a pre-existing disease and wanted an individual policy, could this person be shut out of the market completely? In any event, many insurance companies will refuse to even sell individual policies altogether and such individuals may not even be able to find insurance at any cost, thus they could not even comply with the mandate if they wanted to do so.
The more the details come out, the more it seems that this piece of crap is going to implode.
I hope someone familiar with the subject matter can produce a bullet-point article explaining the prime contents of the law; then someone can amplify upon that.
The point is that articles like this are fine but won’t be widely read, for one reason it’s too lengthy.
IMHO an election campaign launched with “Repeal” as a keyword will likely fail as it would be too easily distorted and demagogued by the media. The electorate must see the facts, understand the implications and raise the “R” word themselves.
Lets be realistic ... there are a few things in the healthcare bill that are good - damn few, but some.
I think SCOTUS will strike the mandate and maybe a few other provisions - but leave the rest of the law intact.
Assuming the GOP makes MAJOR gains in the 2010 elections, they should repeal/then replace ... keep the good stuff that everyone agrees on, and then add in the stuff that the DEMs didn’t want [like tort reform and interstate insurance competition].
It won’t matter if the GOP doesn’t take the majorities in 2010 - the writing will already be on the wall for 2012. The DEM Senators who have to run will be willing to comply and the DEM Reps who do manage to squeak by in their races will be willing to deal. I suspect that Obama MIGHT NOT veto changes - that is, if he wants ANY CHANCE IN HELL to be POTUS a second time around.
If he does veto - we boot his ass in 2012 and then make the changes ...
How many pages is the tax code?
I think there are over 10,000 pages in the US tax code
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.