Is this what it all comes down to in the end, something that we must struggle even to comprehend, let alone swallow? If it does, how will the members of Congress, when they go home to their constituents, even begin to explain what they have done? Citizens are already angry and resistant to the health care bill. Can you imagine the shouts of derision and outrage that will drown out any attempt to describe what the hell it means to deem and pass?
ADDED: Think of the legislative process as a long drive through the mountains and... Oh, no! Up ahead! It's Demon Pass!
AND: Let's start pronouncing the word "Democrats" with a long "e": Deemocrats. Alternatively: Demoncrats or DemonPassCrats.
१६ मार्च, २०१०
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७० टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 270 पैकी 201 – 270Nancy Pelosi stated over the weekend she is tired of being a pinata over this. We should have Pelosi pinata parties.
"If you see a way I can get out of buying auto liability insurance, please let me know."
All states allow you to self-insure in lieu of automobile insurance. What ... you think rich people buy insurance? Look kid, rich people SELL insurance ... they don't buy it.
Many religions forbid their adherents to purchase insurance of any kind, as insurance is nothing more than gambling, something with almost all religions forbid. So, all you have to do to avoid state insurance laws is become a Muslim.
But here again, this isn't about insurance. It's about you throwing up any and all excuses for the coup that Nancy Pelosi is currently planning to undertake. You want to limit the likely violence that will take place once this coup is completed by having a plausible excuse for the coup.
Not. Going. To. Work.
Don't buy a car.
Like me!
I'm a Full Metal Alchemist.. ever heard of it?
等価交換! But you still need an equal sacrifice and a circle.
That is a totally false argument. The reason for mandatory auto insurance- which I am against- is so someone can get paid.
So someone else can get paid. You need to specify that -- this was the President's elementary misunderstanding when he tried to use an anecdote about auto insurance to illustrate how tricksy the insurance companies were.
former law student said...
It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.
Oh, so the healthcare is a right issue is back on pack mule of idiocy I see. Life is not assured and death always is. When it will happen is anyone's guess, but to equate bankruptcy as a function of being sick is stupid. If you have the money to take care of yourself and then get sick and lose your money because you aren't insured, then why is that my fault or anyone elses? Why should the sick get a free pass while the able bodied bleed for them? There are already tax payer systems in place for those that are sick. There has already been a solution provided for this very thing and I've already stated it.
Since your little black jesus seems to like to fudge numbers a lot, all this moron had to do was propose a Dept. to take of the sick and uninsured and slot in the 12 - 30 million he can't be sure of that are uninsured and allow them and only them to sign up. Let him fund it with leftist Chavez/Soros type wealth and let's see how that goes, okay? Otherwise shut the fuck up. Your pity pleas are as vapid as you are, fuckhead.
"Nancy Pelosi stated over the weekend she is tired of being a pinata over this."
No, she isn't, or she would have scheduled a vote.
You see, Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes to pass this abortion bill or she'd have held the vote already.
That's why she's planning a coup attempt with this "deem and pass" bullshit. If she had the votes to win a vote straight up, she wouldn't need to be planning a coup d etat.
If Nancy Pelosi think's she's been a pinata over this ... just let her try to "deem" legislation has having passed that has not been passed. That fucking cunt will wish all she was was a pinata.
Garage, you slay me. First John Adams smuggling tea
Actually, if you check his comment again, he called John and Samual Adams terrorists.
deem! snl take note.
Yall are so stupid!!!!!!
and dumb.
Peter V. Bella said...
Nancy Pelosi stated over the weekend she is tired of being a pinata over this. We should have Pelosi pinata parties.
This woman is the representation of the sickening cancer that has infected the body politic. She is the epitome what the useful idiot. I'd love nothing better than to turn her into the pinata and let the American Public take a turn at her. I hope she drops dead this very minute.
I depart a little from the conventional wisdom here, but only to say that the "deem and pass" scheme is so transparently stupid, its effect will be worse than if House members from reddish districts actually voted for the Senate bill openly in their underwear on the Capitol Mall.
I agree with John Stoddard. I think that the probability of the Senate passing the reconciliation bill is low. Why? Because their version of health care "reform" will already be on the President's desk for signing by the time that they get the reconciliation bill to consider. What is in it for them? They won. The House lost. Their version will be law.
Sure, there is a possibility that they might look at the reconciliation bill favorably to clean up some of the most egregious parts of the Senate bill, such as the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. But if they do that, then they will be faced with either having to accept all of the House's "fixes", including, probably, anti-abortion language, and changes to the "gold plated" insurance tax, or send it back to the House amended. That is, of course, if important parts of it survive the Republicans' motions to strip much of it away as not qualifying under the reconciliation rules (and if the Republicans succeed even once, back to the House it goes anyway).
And it isn't going to work all that well as cover, since the reconciliation bill will most likely be dead by the time elections come around. So, those opposing abortion but voting for the rule and the reconciliation bill will have their pro-life ratings destroyed, etc. They really aren't going to be able to explain to their constituents that they should be excused from voting the Senate bill into law by also voting for the reconciliation bill, esp. if the later fails, as is likely.
I'm reading that the switchboards were jammed.
I don't think these are people that will forget this royal snub by November, specially if the economy still deemed a disaster by then.
Isn't 'deem and pass' similar to card check?
To all you leftists/liberals/democrats on this blog, my civil discourse with you is over. You won't get it from me anymore. You don't like it, fuck you. You follow an ideology that is traitorous and treasonous. Your support for this type of political shenanigans makes you just as culpable as the people who propose it. Your ability to demonize, demoralize, and attempt to reshape this country into a marxist/leninist state will be over soon. If your party and political cadre use this cock stunt to pull this off, then I recommend that you not admit your party, political, or ideological affiliation. It will be bad for your health.
Is it true that the commenter who now uses the nom de blogue "former law student" is gonna change that to "deemed to be a lawyer"?
All I hear from Althouse and conservatives is endless whine, bitch, whine, whine, bitch, whine. Want some cheese with that WHINE?
This just in:
If the actual Census returns don't show the number of residents in the inner cities that Liberals had hoped for, the Bureau will "deem" the appropriate numbers in the final report.
I haven't read all the comments on this thread but Inwood here is a contender.
Intrade closed at 70.3 for passage..
they gotten things wrong b4.
Deem and Pass is nothing more than Amon Goeth saying: I pardon you.
Next month the unemployment rate will be deemed to be <5%
How about . . . .
Ream and Pass.
Lem
I deem that you deserve thanks.
You cons are so predictable with your hysteria!!!
Alex said...
You cons are so predictable with your hysteria!!!
This particular con would love to show you how predictable he is.
Note to New Ham:
Rich people do buy insurance.
They like staying rich.
I deem you welcome Inwood.
Imagine if Pelosi had tried this tactic with other major bills that many on either side did not want to go on the record on....
Iraq War funding. Banker Bailouts...
The odor of this will be hard to avoid. Reps will spin the worst on the incumbent Democrat, the Dem will deny it...and will be tainted with a "yes, but not recorded vote" impossible for them to deny.
It's about denying health insurance to sick people. That leaves many sick people the choice between bankruptcy or premature death.
Let us hope they choose wisely.
@Alex, yeah, I think you're one of the more cheesy commentators on this blog.
I still see a problem with mandating that hospitals treat people, but then ask only the responsible people who have insurance to pay the bill. This seems unfair to me. We need a way to get these free-loaders to pay into the system and to get people to start buying insurance before they need it. Otherwise we cannot control costs for the responsible ones. Still I prefer this unfair system to a federal run one which would be worse since costs would rise due to lameness and lack of market efficiency and services would undoubtedly decline.
I've had insurance for 25 years and I really can't imagine how it could be more fair priced or hassle free. If I had to go get it outside my group, then it would probably double or triple which does not seem right either. I am the same identical risk in or out of any particular group.
Nancy & Co are of the opinion that in Art I, Sect 7, Clause 2, the phrase "determined by yeas and nays" is deemed to mean "as the leadership shall have deemed such yeas and nays to exist".
Their precedent: Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass, which has been quoted too often to be repeated here.
Here's that deem I dreamed last night,
When I awoke, I said "it's so airtight".
REVOLUTION for REAL! It's the fire THIS time, baby!
Only revolutionary action can save our Republic now. Are we going to allow the triumvirs to dismantle the heritage written in blood spilled on uncounted battlefields, from Boston Common to Bastogne, from Gettysburg to Khost? Is America doomed to follow Rome into dictatorship and monarchy? What this country needs is 50,000 patriots willing to die on the Capitol steps.
Count on the Capitol security police, backed up by the DC city SWAT teams would resist with deadly force, but a force of 50,000 or more would prevail, though thousand undoubtedly would fall to gunfire or arrest.
The Founders knew that this day would finally come. The People own the government in this Republic. It is our chattel to dispose of as We see fit. Into the Potomac with the whole graft-ridden crew, I say!
Lucky for me, I have cornered the market on pitchforks.
AJ Lynch wrote:
Lucky for me, I have cornered the market on pitchforks.
It's time for some ballistic pitchforks, got any of those?
..Still, it's remarkably tone deaf for Democrats to do this [deem and pass]. Like it or not, process has become a big issue as healthcare has dragged along into its second year, and the public really does seem to have grown weary of endless procedural wankery. What's more, there's no benefit. Any Democrat who thinks that Republican attacks this fall are going to be blunted even a smidge because, technically, they voted for the package of fixes, not the main bill, is living in fantasy land.
Mother Jones
Today I got a bill from my doctor for a very low amount. In the center of the bill in bold is the line "no secondary insurance on file + the billed amount" This is odd because their office photocopied my card for that. I must call them. Here's the weird part: amongst the lines of incomprehensible top secret medi-code designed to confound is the line "payment, secondary insurance + some amount."
See? The bill is self-contradictory.
Once we're properly socialized and civilized I sure hope this madness ends. I'll just be able to ignore all medical bills, right?
Maybe I should copy my card again and send the whole thing back with red arrows pointing to the two contradicting lines and say, "Hahaha. You guys are playing with me, arentcha?"
Re: bagoh20:
We need a way to get these free-loaders to pay into the system and to get people to start buying insurance before they need it.
I don't think the problem of uncompensated care is all that big. But if it is a problem, the solution is obviously that we should provide for wage garnishment for recoupment of medical expenses, and make it so that medical expenses cannot actually be discharged in bankruptcy, just subject them to a cramdown to reduce the repayment rate to something manageable.
If the garnishment orders pulled money up into a federal fund of some sort, this would create a kind of quasi-public-health-insurance scheme for those not eligible for Medicare, paying out immediate health expenses, and then leaching it back over the remaining working life of the individual. I wouldn't object to this sort of publicly run system, actually, if only because it would preserve a direct link between an individual's expenditures and the amounts owed to the system (preserving the principle of personal responsibility) and because garnishment orders are so burdensome (heightening the incentives for personal responsibility). Sure, not all people would be able to pay the full costs of their health insurance, and the system would be chronically underfunded (unless, I suppose, it managed interest rates on outstanding debt, to cover care for the destitute), but just thinking it through casually here, I wouldn't have a strong objection to funding this kind of a system out of general revenues. It seems less game-able and less intrusive (for most people, at least) than the monostrosity that's the Senate Bill.
On the other hand, this is kind of like student loans, all over again, so it might just lead to massive cost inflation in the health care industry, by providing a federal backstop on what are essentially just non-dischargable loans for health services. I think it's different, but that's at least one concern to think about.
I predict the government run heath care will deem and pass people instead of healing them.
Is America doomed to follow Rome into dictatorship and monarchy?
How long, O Pelosi, will you thus abuse our patience! How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? Do not the nightly guards placed on the Capitol Hill—do not the watches posted throughout the city—does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men—does not the precaution taken of assembling the senate in this most defensible place—do not the looks and countenances of this venerable body here present, have any effect upon you? Do you not feel that your plans are detected? Do you not see that your conspiracy is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge which every one here possesses of it? What is there that you did last night, what the night before— where is it that you were—who was there that you summoned to meet you—what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
O tempora, o mores!
Why not offer insurance through the government to people with preexisting conditions? Then people who really are trying to be responsible but cannot obtain insurance can be covered without ruining the private system.
Oh wait, that's right, we ALREADY DO THAT. So maybe we can skip this fake talk about how people will die because they really wanted to buy insurance and couldn't so the best solution is to destroy private insurance rather than just providing another option for those people.
DEMONcRats are tying to insure 30 million more people for less money than we're already paying now! Among dozens of other things to help policyholders! WTF?????
HEAD TO THE BUNKERS!
SPREAD THE WORD!
DON'T LET THEM BARNEY FAG YOU!!
Balfagor wrote:
How long, O Pelosi, will you thus abuse our patience!
Balfagor, a learned man who loves his country.
Thanks for reminding me, Balfegor.
There is no one in history Obama resembles more than L. Sergius Catilina. And the times call for no one less than another Cicero, if not another Brutus.
If they want to deem and pass, let them. Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" may have been a bit post-modern, but it was transparently a good ol' boy trying to talk his way out of trouble.
This, by contrast, is elitist liberals who think that they and their post-modern friends are so much smarter than the rest of us that they can pass a bill with nuance and we'll be too stupid to understand what they've done.
If you vote to deem and pass, your Republican opponent can say, irrefutably, that you voted to "make Obamacare the law of the land." If I were a Democrat in a tight race, I don't think I'd want to have to be explaining that I didn't vote for Obamacare, I just voted to let it become law. It makes even Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" seem awfully manly.
What is lost here is the unions are getting a free ride. They do not have to share the cost of health care with management. This is one loophole that should be closed. They should have put up 50% of the cost of health care insurance in every union contact. It should be the law of the land.
Freeman @ 10:19
And in ARKANSAS (one of them backwards Southern states) of all places!
garage mahal said...
DEMONcRats are tying to insure 30 million more people for less money than we're already paying now! Among dozens of other things to help policyholders! WTF?????
HEAD TO THE BUNKERS!
SPREAD THE WORD!
DON'T LET THEM BARNEY FAG YOU!!
Do your fucking lies know no bounds? Oh how I wish you could be first on my list to drive my fist through your empty fucking skull. In the words of your mother, Sean Penn, I hope you die screaming of rectal cancer, you rancid motherfucker.
Peter V. Bella said...
What is lost here is the unions are getting a free ride. They do not have to share the cost of health care with management. This is one loophole that should be closed. They should have put up 50% of the cost of health care insurance in every union contact. It should be the law of the land.
Oh, it's not lost. I'd love nothing better than to see every single union broken and evaporated into the history of time. Then these sanctimonious pricks can see what it's really like to not get a free ride.
Oh, it's not lost. I'd love nothing better than to see every single union broken and evaporated into the history of time. Then these sanctimonious pricks can see what it's really like to not get a free ride.
Is that really fair? I think private sector unions actually make some sense. They're subject to market pressure, after all, so management has an incentive to push back against ridiculous demands, and the union has an incentive to come to reasonable terms. They sink or swim together. But at the same time, the union can provide meaningful collective voice for workers, vis-a-vis management, if there's ever a need for it.
It's public sector unions, and unions associated with public monopolies, public works (e.g. transit authorities), and publicly subsidised companies (e.g. GM) that are a blight on the body politic, precisely because they're not subject to any market pressures at all. Instead, civil service unions are basically negotiating the deals with themselves -- so of course they give themselves generous benefits. And if the money dries up, or they gamble with the assets in their defined-benefit pension fund, well, they can just siphon a bit more out of the public treasury and hit the taxpayers up for some more money. If you've ever seen Yes Prime Minister, the whole scam reminds me of that one episode where Sir Humphrey and the Permanent Secretary from the Treasury are conniving to ensure a Civil Service pay raise when tax revenues are down and services are being cut. It's hilarious in a TV show, but appalling in real life.
Poor Alpha Liberal, he has been hoodwinked once again--this time by Ornstein and the law professor from Washington and Lee.
What they didn't tell him was that every past use of the self-executing rule (the demon-passed rule) was for amendments to a base bill. What were "deemed passed" were the amendments that were said to have been "deemed" to have been passed out of committee (even though they were never actually passed out of committee). This procedure was never used to "deem" the base bill to have been passed by the House without an acutal vote.
What Pelosi is trying to do here in using the self-executing rule is 1) "deem" (i.e. pretend) the Senate bill to have been passed by the House (without any actual vote), and 2) then pass a brand new bill (a bill that conflicts with the Senate bill) to be used in the reconciliation process. She has to do this because the rules of Congress require that the Senate bill must first be passed by the House before it can be revised in reconciliation.
Private sector unions make some sense, in theory, and especially in a monopolistic capital environment. However, in some states unions function as legal and statutorily protected "meet our demands or go broke" labor monopolies. Monopolies of any kind ought to be unlawful.
Particularly egregious are hand-in-glove government contract requirements that specify union hiring, nothing more than money for votes, IMHO
Is that really fair?
Nope. And I don't want it to be. You sink or swim at the whim of who you work for. If you have merit, odds are you stay around. If not, then you move on to something else. Fairness doesn't enter into it. It's fairness that has been the hallmark for collectivist thought.
I think private sector unions actually make some sense.
They make zero sense. If you actually had to point out to viable strategic economic unions that have any merit for being one it would be longshoremen and the machinist unions. They are actually have value as one of the major underpinnings of commerce and manufacturing. If I had to keep intact any unions it would be these two, but my reasons are different than yours.
They're subject to market pressure, after all, so management has an incentive to push back against ridiculous demands, and the union has an incentive to come to reasonable terms. They sink or swim together. But at the same time, the union can provide meaningful collective voice for workers, vis-a-vis management, if there's ever a need for it.
A voice for what? The laws on the books today protect any worker, in theory of course, without the strong arm tactics employed by either side. Yes, unions brought many of these laws to bear, but their time is over. They are a useless appendage to a bygone era. Public employee patronage unions even more so. They shouldn't even exist. I am the maker of my own destiny. I negotiate my own rate, I have no one to speak for me but me. I decide were I want to work, and my employer and I enter into an agreement together and willingly. I'm free to leave and they are free to let me go. There are no assurances and there shouldn't have to be. I make my way by the merits of my knowledge, skill, attitude, and work ethic. Unionists get by on a guaranteed contract of prevailing wages, collective bargaining, gold plated benefits, and the upper management feed off the busy little bees underneath greasing the palms of presidents, house speakers, and senate majority leaders alike. Fuck them and I'll piss on their graves when they finally get buried.
Balfegor and Queastor: I'm about as anti-union as they go, but I agree, the public-sector ones are much, much worse. The whole "negotiating with themselves" thing is precisely why they shouldn't exist in the first place.
wv: crande. We must not allow this monstrosity of a bill to get crande down our throats!
I deem the Red Sox 2010 world champions.. and the Yankees the new decade cellar dwellers.
Hey Lem--if your Sox must win, can you at least deem my poor Rangers into the AL Championship? We've been waiting a loooooong time down here...
fls, if you drive without auto insurance, and you get pulled over, you get ticketed, not thrown in jail and fined thousands of dollars.
Another option is to not own a car. If you don't drive, you don't need insurance.
Let me know when you figure out how not to own a body.
If you won a million dollars in the lottery, you'd feel really lucky and grateful, right?
My breast cancer alone is tiptoeing towards making me a million dollar baby.
I've had three cancers, covered by three different insurers, and I have never been rescissioned or denied for pre-existing conditions or charged higher rates.
I have gratitude towards my insurance companies. Thank you Loras SIG, CHA, and Humana! Blowing kisses your way.
I've won the million dollars and my life. Big prize.
@former law student
"Although Art. I Section 7 doesn't use the exact word, it covers procedure in case a bill is vetoed. Determining a two-thirds majority requires exact tabulation."
The full paragraph from Section 7 is:
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."
Have there been any SCOTUS rulings on this point? It's not obvious to me that it pertains solely to veto cases. If it does I'd say a constitutional amendment is in order.
Wow--interesting thread. There is a thread on the Slaughter solution that actually does probe the constitutional issues. After wading thru that one, there appears to be clear consensus among the commentariat there on the constitutionality of the slaughter rule.
This thread does suggest we may have been premature in repealing the alien and sedition acts (I keed, I keed)
Oops--there is a thread on the Volokh Conspiracy that discusses the constitutionality of the slaughter thing.
Have there been any SCOTUS rulings on this point? It's not obvious to me that it pertains solely to veto cases. If it does I'd say a constitutional amendment is in order.
The question would be whether voice votes on legislation are Constitutional. Just based on the text, I think there's an argument that they're not, but on the other hand, I think they are a long established tradition in Congress, and I don't see the Supreme Court overturning a long established tradition.
Do your fucking lies know no bounds? Oh how I wish you could be first on my list to drive my fist through your empty fucking skull. In the words of your mother, Sean Penn, I hope you die screaming of rectal cancer, you rancid motherfucker.
Jesus. It's always something rectal or having sex with animals with you people. Is that what occupies your mind during the day? Weird.
that's right, we ALREADY DO THAT
Unless your insurer rescinded your policy -- let us say you failed to tell them about your adolescent acne -- or you had a gap in coverage 64 days or more -- let's say that your unemployment benefits were exhausted and you decided rent was more important than insurance, and no Freeman Hunt was at your elbow to dissuade you. Or you, broke, had just moved back to Arkansas to live in Mom's basement, and had to go without insurance for 90 days. Or the State of Arkansas has already paid $1,000,000 of your medical bills.
The last section raises another question: Would Baby Jesus have been eligible for Arkacare, had Bethlehem been in Arkansas in the year 1?
Eligibility
I. Federally Eligible Individuals
To enroll in CHIP as a "Federally Eligible Individual," you must:
be a resident of Arkansas;
have, as of the date on which you complete your CHIP application, an aggregate of 18 months of Creditable Coverage without a break in coverage of 63 days or more;
have been covered most recently by Creditable Coverage offered through a Group Health Plan, a Governmental Plan, or a Church Plan (or Health Insurance Coverage offered in connection with any such plans);
not be currently covered by, or eligible for, coverage under:
a Group Health Plan;
Part A or Part B of Medicare; or
the Arkansas Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid or ARKids);
not have had your most recent creditable coverage terminated based upon a factor related to nonpayment of premiums or fraud;
have elected and exhausted any continuation of coverage option under COBRA or a similar state law continuation provision;
not currently have other health insurance coverage;
II. Resident Eligible Persons
To enroll in CHIP as a "Resident Eligible Person," you must:
have been a resident of Arkansas for at least 90 days and present evidence to the Administrator of:
a notice of rejection or refusal by an insurer to issue substantially similar individual health insurance coverage by reason of the existence or history of a medical condition; or
a refusal by an insurer to issue individual health insurance coverage except at a rate substantially in excess of (at least 50% greater than) the applicable premium rate under a comparable CHIP Policy;
or
have been a resident of Arkansas for at least 30 days and present evidence to the Administrator that you were covered under a Qualified High Risk Pool of another state, if such coverage ended no more than 63 days before you complete your CHIP application and was not terminated for reasons of fraud;
and
...
Not be enrolled in any other Health Insurance Coverage,...
not have previously terminated CHIP coverage in the twelve (12) months prior to the date the individual applies for CHIP coverage;
not have previously received CHIP benefits equaling $1,000,000 or more; ...
...
V. Special Rules for Newborn Children of HCTC Eligibles.
The following rules apply to newborn natural children of Insured Persons:
[omitted]
The last section raises another question: Would Baby Jesus have been eligible for Arkacare, had Bethlehem been in Arkansas in the year 1?
I'm pretty sure he and his parents would have been covered by Arkansas's Medicaid program -- don't most of those cover neonatal care for the poor? Of course, rolling with the analogy, Herod would have had no problem finding him if he'd been covered under a state-run insurance program.
How about how it will immediately put private insurers out of business by requiring them to insure people with pre-existing conditions,
Why don't we simply let the sick die, and "decrease the surplus population," as Dickens so beautifully put it?
Do you understand how insurance works? I know it's a wretched situation, but what you and the Dems propose is akin to saying that a car insurer must take on and "insure" someone who has already wrecked his car. It's not "insurance" at that point.
There have to be ways to fix this situation, but your proposal doesn't fix anything because it makes health insurance an inherently untenable business. These companies are in the business of looking at risk and making fiscally sound decisions. You don't underwrite a policy that is guaranteed to cost you millions in expense in return for a rather nominal premium. The only way this will work is if premiums for everyone goes up to cover the costs of those with pre-existing conditions. And yet the Dems say they're going to do this AND ensure that premiums stay low. How is this possible? Are they going to authorize health insurers to print their own money?
The myopia going on here is just astounding to me. The need to find a villain in all this has blinded people to the complexity of the problem. You think health insurers just deny sick people or raise premiums out of caprice? Health *costs* are skyrocketing, and yet we want insurers to pay those costs *and* take on more sick people, *and* keep premiums low. It's already not a very profitable industry. You could eliminate all their profit and they'd still have to take these measures to stay solvent.
AND: Let's start pronouncing the word "Democrats" with a long "e": Deemocrats. Alternatively: Demoncrats or DemonPassCrats.
Mencken wept.
I am the maker of my own destiny. I negotiate my own rate, I have no one to speak for me but me. I decide were I want to work, and my employer and I enter into an agreement together and willingly. I'm free to leave and they are free to let me go. There are no assurances and there shouldn't have to be. I make my way by the merits of my knowledge, skill, attitude, and work ethic.
Gone Galt.
I prefer the term "DemonRATs" myself.
FLS, the programs for the poor are separate. For them, we have Medicaid and ARKids.
The thing I linked is a high risk insurance pool, subsidized by the state, for people who want insurance but cannot buy it due to preexisting conditions.
So yes, poor people are covered too.
Now we've covered the poor, we've covered the people with preexisting conditions, and yet, we don't seem to need to pass this healthcare legislation. Hmmm. Almost makes you think that the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of posturing liars!
wv: gazoote: A Dr. Seuss gadzooks!
The fact that the Dems feel they have to use a possibly unconstitutional procedure to pass a bill they wrote because they can't get enough votes from within their own party, even though they have the majority, reveals -what should be- embarrassing ineptitude.
They've been working on this for over a year; why couldn't they come up with something that their own members would be proud to sign?
And if the Dems really believe "deem and pass" will redeem them from any negative effects of the passing of this bill, then they are truly delusional. This bill is their baby. They will be held accountable if it becomes law, no matter how it happens.
I'm thinking maybe I'll deem a politician removed from office without actually holding an election.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा