If Obama loses, look what he will be able to say to the American voters as they contemplate his reelection:
1. I brought you a wonderful solution to a terrible problem. (What he won't say: It would have been a disaster, and fortunately, you will now not need to experience it and see that it was not wonderful, but terrible.)If Obama wins, the GOP candidate — presumably Mitt Romney — will be able to say:
2. My opponent has been arguing for months and months that you need to elect him to get Obamacare repealed. The Supreme Court already did that work, so that major issue is gone. Move on!
3. There are 5 activist conservatives on the Supreme Court, and if you elect a Republican, by the end of his term, there might be 7. The Court will skew far right, destabilizing the law as we know it. There is a great danger here that you must guard against by keeping me in the position to nominate the next Supreme Court Justices and thereby to rebalance the Court.
1. Obamacare is a terrible disaster looming and bearing down on us. You may have thought the Supreme Court would save us from this dire consequence, but it did not. Alarm! Alarm!ADDED: I think that a loss for Obama would be so politically advantageous for him that he might prefer it. Here's where I play with the idea that he's secretly trying to lose, and that's why the SG's argument yesterday was so bad.
2. The Supreme Court left this matter to the political processes, and it is therefore imperative that the political process work — by electing me — to make a repeal possible.
3. There are 5 activist liberals on the Supreme Court, including the 2 liberal Justices chosen by Obama to rubberstamp his liberal agenda. If you reelect Obama, by the end of his second term, there might be 7. The Court will skew far left, destabilizing the law as we know it. Do you want Kagan II and Sotomayor II joining the Court? You must elect me to restore balance.
Posts
131 comments:
If this abomination is upheld, the Constitution loses, America loses, we all lose.
This idea that whoever loses will easily and powerfully leverage that loss in the political arena exemplifies the worst of present-day law and politics.
Questions of fundamental liberty are not a game. They are not a campaign strategy.
Although, to be sure, there are plenty of people inside the Beltway, including Republicans in Congress, who are all too happy to use and exploit things like this purely for partisan electoral advantage.
That is why everyone else in America is thoroughly disgusted with the political class.
This post needs to be stamped Top Secret. Thanks to you, even the Progressive Journolisters can understand the game now.
So let's get Newt to threaten the Justices with a Star Chamber inqusition. He would do that for the fun of it.
Romney will say: Obama, instead of uniting us, divided the country by ramming an unconstitutional law that most people didn't want through Congress instead of focusing on jobs and economy.
You spell it out for this case, but isn't spinning virtually anything in this manner the nature of politics? Take an event, make the other guy look as bad as possible while making yourself look as good as possible?
Of all the Tea Party types that actively went to rallies and participated in the route of Democrats in 2010, not a one of them isn't still stewing. This wasn't a one election issue and everyone knew it. The fact that Obamacare being unconstitutional was at the forefront of everyone's mind and, along with that, the knowledge that the next president will probably get one or two (depending on his number of terms) nominations.
This is not far from most people's minds. With all of the talk of constitutionality, there's no way to get away from it. Win or lose in the SCOTUS, the Tea Party types will be out in force in November. There's really not much that can dissuade them at this point.
(What he won't say: It would have been a disaster, and fortunately, you will now not need to experience it and see that it was not wonderful, but terrible.)
Seniors are already saving money on prescription drugs from ObamaCare.
"Republicans are going to take that away, and make you pay MORE!"
Why do Republicans hate seniors?
By November Obamacare will be a dead issue. Energy costs, rolling blackouts, and racial tensions over the long hot summer will overwhelm all other considerations. I'm already dispirited.
I don't see a loss in the Supreme Court as a political win for Obama. It may enrage Obama's base, but that base is smaller now that it was in 2008 and it is not enough to carry him to victory in November. Also, a loss in the Supreme Court would help Romney, because he wouldn't have to campaign on repealing Obamacare with MassCare hanging around his neck.
Obamacare's support has been eroding since it was passed. The way it was passed, all-night sessions on traditional holidays, last-minute 1000-page bills, skirting the line of Congressional rules to get around Scott Brown's Massachusetts warning shot, "Cornhusker kickbacks" etc, was a wake-up call for a lot of people - they aren't going to forget all of that because of an Obama campaign against the Supreme Court.
Also, it will make the Democrats look like the biggest losers on the face of the Earth. After all of that effort, the sacrifice of all of those House members in 2010, the political capital and trust lost, they ended up with nothing.
Of course Romney can also point out Democrats are incompetent legislators, wasteful of the nation's time and effort and resources, and we should expect to see more of the same should we elect them. Meanwhile the world burns...
Hostess presents a very lawyer-centric view of the political world. Sure the candidates can say these things. Meanwhile, voters will also wonder and worry about the economy, or birth control, or gay marriage, or if the next president might be someone they want to have a beer with, or would like to blow, or if they will 'get' them and their unique problems, or whatever.
"Seniors are already saving money on prescription drugs from ObamaCare."
-- At what cost? Or did prices just go down?
What was the trade off to do that? Why was that not passed separately (since undoubtedly, it could have survived as a stand alone bill if it just magicked down prices)?
We're trying to be intellectually curious about the bill, but supporters never give us answers!
Why do Republicans hate seniors?
A serious question like this deserves a serious answer.
....
With the level of opposition to ObamaCare, do you really think he is going to get anywhere other than with his radical base on the issue?
Everytime Obama talks about Obamacare, he approval rating drops.
Your post assumes facts not in evidence.
And if the court upholds it, my opinion is that the members of the court have violated their oaths to defend my rights, which do NOT stem from whatever nonsense issues from their mouths, but are inviolate from my Creator.
They are up there working mightily hard for a turn of phrase to use as a justification to violate the Constitution. They will have traded my rights in return for being liked by other people and feeing good about themselves for stealing other peoples money. I will not comply with it.
Ask the Negro Slaves if the Court has the last word on what my civil rights are. Ask them if they SHOULD have it.
"When in the course of human events..."
Yes, its like that for me, people. I didn't take an Oath to enact and enforce European style socialism and neither did they.
In fact I took an oath to shoot people like that, if necessary.
Why do Seniors hate the Bill of Rights?
Waiting to see how Sully spins this into a "meep-meep" moment without mentioning the sheer cynical gall of Obama proposing a law he was hoping would get killed by the Supremes.
There should be four boxes in that SCOTUS outcome - candidate response matrix. Outside of firing-up Obama's liberal base, I don't see a loss or a win helping Obama.
Obama loses: Romney says, "states should reform healthcare in the way they see fit. Some people thought we went too far in Mass, and I would never force a particular reform on a state, but nobody can accuse me of being against reform".
Obama wins: Obama can't fire up the base and has to defend the details of the plan.
The Republican House is already having various gimmick votes intended to make people think that they are actually doing something, such as passing an ObamaCare repeal bill here and there, but then not making any real effort beyond that (such as refusing to fund X, Y, or Z) and instead accomodating Obama on all of the worst aspects of this presidency (e.g. increasing the debt by a couple TRILLION dollars (the Republican agreed to that, let's not lay all the blame at Obama's feet)).
By the way, whatever happened to the pledge to return to FY 2008 budget levels? Instead we get Paul Ryan's farce of a budget plan which will increase the debt by $40 trillion in ten years. (And folks expect Romney to be any better?)
I disagree with your analysis totally. If Obama loses, the GOP can eaisly portray OCare as a reflection of his entire term: at the end of the day what did he do other than make things worse? A total failure is Obamacare and likewise all of this ideas and initiatives.
I'm not predicting that the Supreme Court will, in fact, strike it down. The Court is part of government, and government likes nothing more than to increase its own reach. Think of all the disputes that will require judicial resolution!
If the law does go down, though, whoever is sitting with Nancy Pelosi when she hears the news should take a snaphot of her face. Unless she will have had a recent Botox treatment, her expression would be priceless.
I think Romney's argument, if it gets shot down, is that Obama wasted the first year and a half of his presidency chasing a load of crap, rather than focusing on the economy.
"He could have been helping you get a job and get back on your feet or more secure financially, but instead he wasted his and everyone else'ss time with this legislative abortion.
Ann there is no upside politicaly for Obama. If it is upheld it will probably result in a republican landslide and with that the bill will be repealed. Every president has to make good on one campaign promise and repeal is the hill the republicans have vowed to take.
If overturned Obama can spin all he wants but all he will shown is that he is a rank incompetenr for sub-contracting the bill to Pelosi and Reid and he would nothing to show for his administration, politically an epic fail.
Garage why do you and the left hate the taxpayers and productive class so much?
Also, are they saving more on those drugs than they would have if Obamacare had not raided Medicare's coffers?
Was that a good tradeoff?
So what is new in the world of political spin? These days we don't even need a real issue in order to produce a catastrophic reaction. The uncertain facts surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting has been twisted and turned into sheer unadulterated hatred by society's racists. Who could have stopped them? Answer: No one, because its reelection time, Baby!
Just remember that Obama cannot run on his own record, so all distractions are fair game.
Romney . . . he wouldn't have to campaign on repealing Obamacare with MassCare hanging around his neck
If the Court upholds the individual mandate (which Romney supports for the states to dictate, but not the federal government), it is going to be rather unconvincing for him to make some piss-poor wonkish federalism argument rather than rightly condemning the mandate as an assault on fundamental liberty.
Agree with Christy on the Carville argument, but I have to think you're wrong on the, "If Barry loses", one in that those arguments can all be turned to advantage by the Romster.
1. I brought you a wonderful solution to a terrible problem. (What he won't say: It would have been a disaster, and fortunately, you will now not need to experience it and see that it was not wonderful, but terrible.)
The American people realized it was a terrible solution and wanted it overturned, but Zero only cares about what he wants. Elect the Romster who is much more mainstream.
2. My opponent has been arguing for months and months that you need to elect him to get Obamacare repealed. The Supreme Court already did that work, so that major issue is gone. Move on!
Given Zero's willingness to ignore court decisions and do end runs around Congress, what's to stop him from trying the same thing with ZeroCare that he's trying to do with cap&trade when there are no restraints on him?
3. There are 5 activist conservatives on the Supreme Court, and if you elect a Republican, by the end of his term, there might be 7
Precisely. Let's get a Court where every major decision won't be a nail biter.
PS Professor, I heard something on Greta that they've cancelled the Thursday arguments and today's the last day.
Have you heard that?
Ann's thesis, from prior posts and more explicitly stated here, is echoed by Carville and other inside operatives.
Its flaw is two-fold. First, that a win for one's cause should be avoided because it enervates one's enemy (sort of the “we create more terrorists by kicking their butts” argument). Secondly, it is "inside baseball," attaching importance to SCOTUS appointments that most Americans hardly notice and rarely think about in terms of election issues. Sure the operatives, the political junkies and the law profession notice such things, but the general electorate? Much less so. The appointment of Justices might be an issue, but hardly as stirring as the ObamaCare issue itself.
Finally, separately from the proposition that a (slightly more) energized base of supporters might result from a loss, there is the countervailing proposition that a loser (such as those who caused this law to be passed in the first place, now having been found to be legally incorrect) might find it difficult to gain support from at least some of the electorate.
Hear, Hear, Bender!
Whoever wins, looses. A lot of this depends on the vote. If it is lopsided either way it will help or hurt Obama.
I can see how a 5-4 loss could help Obama, but how will it look if he looses 7-2? He has a law degree from Harvard! He'll look like an idiot for signing a law that even half of the liberals on the court find unconstitutional.
On the other side, if he wins by a similar margin, this will short-circuit legal arguments against the law and this will take away half the benefit Romney would gain from the law being upheld.
I think Romney could say, if it is not upheld, that Obama et al. had four years to craft something, and they failed.
Why do Democrats need so much time to write a good law that can pass Constitutional Muster. (Of course, the Democrats will answer Because of Republican Party Intransigence. Sigh).
I think arguing that the Democrats did an unconstitutional power grab that was widely hated is not something Obama will be able to spin to his advantage.
Seniors are already saving money on prescription drugs from ObamaCare.
Say ---- how much did Obamacare steal from Medicare? Something half a trillion, right?
I don't buy this 'win-win if Obamacare is struck down' meme recently floated by James Carville and echoed by Althouse.
Firstly, Obamacare never had majority support in the populace at large. If it did the Democrats wouldn't have had to ride roughshod over Republican opposition. If it had been handled in a truly bipartisan manner then there would have been a much more lengthy legislative process whereby the obvious constitutional flaws would have been winnowed out by a host of committee debates. If the process had been wisely conducted the law would just be coming to a vote now instead of two years ago, and the resultant legislation would have been at least constitutional if not cost effective and fundamentally just, characteristics which the law crafted by Obama's minions notably lacks. So Obama's 're-elect me so I can purge the Court of those pesky not-it-alls' plea won't win him anymore support than he has now -- namely the brain dead Left which hasn't had an original idea since 1849, and the members of the parasite class who often can't rouse themselves from their daylight slumbers to cast ballots anyway.
Secondly, and most importantly, If Obamacare is struck down it is EpicFail of epic proportions. Obama already suspected of incompetence, even by his supporters. Voiding Obamacare will only transform a suspicion into a certainty. Americans don't like losers. If there's anybody we really despise in this country it's a loser. If Obamacare is upheld then Obama the Winner has a even shot in November. However, Obama the Loser can't be elected dogcatcher.
Obama wants to lose the individual mandate...... And leave the rest of the mechanisim in place to destroy the private insurance industry so that the Federal Governmen will have "no choice" but to step in and save the day.
Picture Obama like THIS.....here I come to save the day. He wants to be the Underdog.!!!
Life imitating cartoons and the American public will fall for it. In our jammies eating Coco Puffs in front of the tube.
We are so screwed!
If Obama wins, the GOP candidate — presumably Mitt Romney — will be able to say: "We need to repeal the federal individual mandate!"
Obama or Reporter: "But it is OK for the states to impose such a mandate?"
Romney: "Yes."
Voters: "What do we care if it is the federal government or the states to impose a mandate?"
Well, hopefully Romney will be saying we need to repeal the whole damn thing, like he said to the Congressional Leadership last week.. Then, there's no nit-picking that can hold up.
I just read this Politico piece about the defense of Verrilli's work yesterday, and I found these two quotes, both on page two of the article, quite interesting, and perhaps telling:
"Don is not just one of the smartest people I've ever met, he's also one of the most honorable in every sense of the word,” said Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman. “He is everything you want in a colleague. Outside of court, he has an extraordinary knack for taking complex issues that involve competing players and positions and coming up with a solution.
"Not everyone may like the solution of course, but when Don is in charge you always know you got a fair shake."
and
"He sounded a bit nervous at the very beginning, but who wouldn't be when you have the weight of the administration's biggest accomplishment on your shoulders? A few minutes in I thought he hit his stride and made his points well under incredibly hostile fire," Miller said. "I think the snarky takes that Kagan would have been better are incredibly unfair. Elena is brilliant and was a great [solicitor general], but so is Don. And everyone forgets that she argued Citizens United."
I'd be very interested in Althouse's take on, if not reaction to, these.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Obama wants to lose the individual mandate...... And leave the rest of the mechanisim in place to destroy the private insurance industry so that the Federal Governmen will have "no choice" but to step in and save the day.
This brings up the severability (if the mandate goes, ZeroCare as a whole goes) thing again.
Ann's political analysis is absolutely correct. Obama would love for the law to be struck down. It would help his election campaign immensely. And, he either doesn't care on the merits or has realized that the law will not work. Now, I don't see how Obama can intentionally take a dive before the Supreme Court. Maybe the weak positions on the tax issue and the changing of positions could be based on that motivation. But otherwise, the most overt act showing Obama sees the advantage of losing is his agreement to expedited consideration by the court.
Ann,
You and other conservatives have been totally intellectually dishonest. What solution do you propose to solve this problem?
Here are the options
1)Accept the inefficiencies of the current system were cost continue to outpace inflation, heath care costs continue to swallow up more of our economy and a large percentage of our population get poor health care that is often administered at the E.R.
2) The old liberal solution-have government run health care.
3) The up to recently moderate conservative solution-have a health insurance mandate with government support for those who can not fulfill their obligations. Also known as Romneycare.
4) The real conservative solution that they will not own up to-those who can not or will not get health insurance do not receive medical care even if it is life saving.
Ann, why don't you be intellectually honest and layout what solution you support?
I am not holding my breath that you will stop the game playing and be a serious voice in this debate in how to solve this serious problem.
P.S.- what conservatives might find out is that with option 3 being removed from the table they will see option 2 within a shorter time than they might think.
What advantage is there for Obama to say he'd try again to pass such a law in his second term if the extant version is so wildly unpopular? He may as well give a series of malaise speeches.
"Why do Republicans hate seniors?"
Republicans hate señors. Get your aggrieved interest groups right!
How dumb do you think people are to accept this? Thinking people, even non legal thinking people, would respond: Your "wonderful solution" was found illegal by the Court though. (if he loses). So much for that.
Yes, as it turns out I also have some wonderful, but illegal, solutions to ALL of the nation's problems. Vote for me.
What solution do you propose to solve this problem?
Define the problem, so that we can propose the solution.
We can't propose a solution to a vague and nebulous claim.
"4) The real conservative solution that they will not own up to-those who can not or will not get health insurance do not receive medical care even if it is life saving."
-- That would make sense, if real conservatives actually supported that, instead of market-based systems to lower the cost so that it was affordable.
My solution isnt on the table.
No more employer provided health insurance. Because with health insurance, we have the government, the doctors and the insurance companys all fighting over the patients money and it is the patients that are getting screwed over.
If the doctor can't go to a deep pocket called insurance and use the government to mandate the extraction of money to cover procedures, the demand for the procedures will dry up, the prices will drop, doctors will have to consider what the patient can pay and price his services accordingly.
The Medical Industry wants a guaranteed high dollar payment to maintain both gold plated infrastructure and gold plated lifestyles, rather than compete on price. They use the Government to get that with coverage mandates. Thats the dirty little secret about why health care costs are way above inflation. The market is subsidized too heavily by insurance. Time to get rid of it.
Jay Retread said...
P.S.- what conservatives might find out is that with option 3 being removed from the table they will see option 2 within a shorter time than they might think
Nobody alive today will see anything like this in their lifetimes. This whole mess is politically radioactive, Lefty wishful thinking (the more they get to know about it, the more they'll like) notwithstanding.
You would also need uber-majorities in both Houses (highly unlikely) or sweeping bi-partisan support.
Matthew, you could have "market based systems" with a mandate, no? But still there will always be a percentage of the population that can not afford health care even if the price is brought down. What do you do with those people?
The left was mad at Obama two years ago because he took government run health care off the table a pursued a more market based solution. Basically national Romneycare. Ann is unwilling to be intellectually honest and acknowledge this fact.
One other thing, to which I alluded earlier:
Zero's open mic disaster may have done more to cost him the election than anything else, since it can be applied to any policy initiative he's made so far.
"3. There are 5 activist liberals on the Supreme Court, ..."
I don't think anyone's going to buy the characterization of Anthony Kennedy as an "activist liberal". Better make it '4 activist liberals and one weathervane'.
"Matthew, you could have "market based systems" with a mandate, no? But still there will always be a percentage of the population that can not afford health care even if the price is brought down. What do you do with those people?"
-- That's a good question that the law doesn't answer, so I don't see why my solution should have to. Taking care of the extremely poor and unfortunate is much different than what this law does. So, don't move the goal posts. This law wants to take of everybody; that's what conservatives are saying is one of the main reasons it is a bad plan. Let's not shift to focusing on just the sympathetic people.
It's not market-based if the market is controlled and mandated. Well, it is, but only in the sense that the Ministry of Truth allows for freedom of speech -- that is, with a given definition of freedom and speech.
edutcher, let the current system continue to spiral out of control and you might regret that the individual mandate has been taken off the table.
SGT Ted,good luck with pushing the "lets make buying health care just like buying oranges and that will solve our problems" fantasy.
"... 2) The old liberal solution-have government run health.."
Yes because God knows that doesn't run up costs.
I like a conspiracy as much as the next wing nut but I got to disagree with the Prof here. One simple reason is that the Zero ain't that smart. Another is that neither is the democratic party.
The R's like to pretend that the D's are like chess masters when it comes to political manipulation, but the simple unvarnished truth is that the R's a just dumber than the D's.
How else to understand why they keep falling for the D promise "not to pull away the foot ball this time Charlie Brown", and the R's wind up on their backs saying "Good grief"
I would give specific examples, but one merely has to watch one session of congress to observe this, and I'm feeling lazy today.
As far as win-lose on Obamacare...We, the people, lost. It would never had passed but for the political avarice of 2-bit politicians hoping for their own self-aggrandizement.
@Garage...
Why do you still beat your wife?(see how that works, sport?)
Matthew, you are wrong. Obamacare (and Romneycare) does start answering the question of how to get everyone in the system. It uses multiple stategies and tries to use market forces were it can in doing so. That is more complicated that single payer of course.
"Matthew, you are wrong. Obamacare (and Romneycare) does start answering the question of how to get everyone in the system. It uses multiple stategies and tries to use market forces were it can in doing so. That is more complicated that single payer of course."
-- Obamacare specifically allows people to opt out, and does not solve your problem of people too poor to opt in. In fact, it allows the poor an exception from having to get insurance!
Learn the law better before trying to defend it.
Disturbingly plausible. I admit to secretly *wanting* people to experience ObamaCare for at least a year or two. Otherwise how will they know how bad it is?
But then how difficult would it be to get rid of it? Better to dabble with totalitarianism to know how bad it is? or never to have it at all?
There are several nations that would probably say "never".
t-man said:
"The way it was passed, all-night sessions on traditional holidays, last-minute 1000-page bills, skirting the line of Congressional rules to get around Scott Brown's Massachusetts warning shot, "Cornhusker kickbacks" etc, was a wake-up call for a lot of people - they aren't going to forget all of that because of an Obama campaign against the Supreme Court."
A really clever political ad pounded over and over would be effective. Especially if it ended with a clip of Pelosi saying 'we'll have to pass it to see what's in it.'
"... The left was mad at Obama two years ago because he took government run health care off the table a pursued a more market based solution."
It's obvious you don't know what a market based solution is.
One solution for the poor who could not afford insurance would have been to provide a state funded cat-care plan but Obama wouldn't consider it. Then again what does one expect from a president who doesn't even understand liability insurance.
O-care isn't market based. Its a wealth transfer scheme from taxpayers to the healthcare industry and lawyers.
IF you're going to be mad at O, be mad at what he actually did, not the anti-capitalism talking points of the left.
Doesn't appear to be hurting our President's future:
Quinnipiac swing state poll of registered voters:
Florida
Obama 49 – Romney 42
Obama 50 – Santorum 37
Ohio
Obama 47 – Romney 41
Obama 47 – Santorum 40
Pennsylvanian
Obama 45 – Romney 42
Obama 48 – Santorum 41
Conducted March 20 — 26, 2012. Margin of error 2.8 points
The socialist utopians that highjacked the Democrat Party understand that Obamacare is only the first step. Complete control of healthcare, not health insurance, is the ultimate goal. And they will get there as soon as Obamacare destroys the private insurance market (which Obamacare is already designed to do by mandating how much insurance premiums can be rather than rely on actuarial science). Once the private insurance market is destroyed, everybody will be dependent on the government for healthcare. At that point they can control every aspect of how you live. There will be no need for any other political party since everyone will be dependent on the government. They'll have their totalitarian utopia.
Obama is a far left ideologue who thinks the idea of liberty died with John Stuart Mill. Like all utopians, he has an idealist fantasy about a how society should be structured which can only be achieved when the state controls everything.
He and his fellow radical utopian ideologues have succeeded in neutering the banking, healthcare, and energy industries through top down, bureucratic regulation on the road to achieving their utopian vision.
Obamacare is already designed to fail. I don't think he wants it struck down.
Rick67 - How do YOU know how "bad" it is...if it hasn't even been implemented?
We all already know how "bad" our insurance coverage costs are right now.
A family of four's coverage costs right at $13,500 a year...over twice what it was ten years ago...and that's if you can get it.
Are you enjoying it?
We're the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care.
Everybody else is wrong...and we're right?
Yeah, sure...
"... SGT Ted,good luck with pushing the "lets make buying health care just like buying oranges and that will solve our problems" fantasy..."
If you took the time to read what he said, you'd understand he identified a huge part of what drives up health care costs. I mean that is something that you are concerned about right? The cost drivers? Or are just not an issue as long as its paid for by the government.
It's like when people demand FREE TUITION! No one asks why it costs $200K to get a degree in Sociology from Northwestern, just that someone else pay for it.
"Everybody else is wrong...and we're right?"
-- It has happened before. I hope that peer pressure isn't a good reason to do something though; I've been taught wrong my whole life if it is.
Everybody else is wrong...and we're right?
You forgot to say "duh", Jeremy. Aside from that, there are many on the left that would squawk if they were forced to live under a lot of the controls on free speech in those "everybody else" countries.
They're not always right and we're not always wrong.
".. A family of four's coverage costs right at $13,500 a year...over twice what it was ten years ago...and that's if you can get it..."
And these costs miraculously plumment once it becomes paid for by the State?
You know, Jeremy has a point. France has national health care, relies on nuclear power for energy, banned burkas and once sank a Greenpeace boat.
win!
I'm growing ever more convinced that Obama is not very smart. The alarming gaps in his general knowledge is one tell. His mishandling of the national economy (assuming of course that he wants the country strong and prosperous) is another. If asked to wager on his IQ I'd bet on 118 with a 5-point spread. Heck, it's no wonder his academic records are such a closely guarded secret. If his grades and standardized test scores ever came out I think we'd have confirmation that Harvard saw Barack Hussein Obama as the ultimate diversity poster boy and did whatever was necessary to recruit him and shepherd him through their law school on the strength of his affability and not outstanding ability.
Yet the whole way this health care business was handled only tops it off. A smart politician would have been able to finesse the process to his political advantage toward re-election, instead Obama flogged it through the Congress in hot-blooded haste as if the presidential term is only two years instead of four. If the debate had been spun out over three years then the Republicans would not have had such a firm platform as they did in 2010. Consequently the route of the House Democrats in 2010 might not have occurred. On top of that if the push for Obamacare had been spin out to bring it to the floor in early 2012 then the opposition would not have had enough time to organize their attacks. Going into to his re-election campaign health care reform would be firmly in the asset category rather than a liability. Voted into law in the spring of 2012 Obamacare would yet be a shiny new penny come November rather than the corroded old slug it is in fact.
Love,
We're not supposed to BE like the other kids, if what the other kids do is destructive and wrong. European government do things that we do not tolerate here. If you want socialism, go live where they have it. W're about individual libery, not jobs programs for the Medical Industry.
I have rights, Love. They don't disappear when socialists like you want something for free. They certainly don't disappear when 9 dudes in DC violate their oaths.
Ask the Negro slaves if the United States Supreme Court should have the last word on what is a "right".
Free doctors isn't a right, because we outlawed slavery back in 1865.
Althouse's theory would make more sense if the American people actually showed they want this bill. But, in poll after poll, well over 50% of this country does not want ObamaCare.
If Obama loses in front of the Supremes and then turns around and runs a platform that basically says the Supreme Court is a bunch of radical conservatives, he's gonna lose even more ground. Because that would sound even more petty and more sore-loserish. A president with respect for the Constitution and the Supreme Court will stand up and say, "We wrote a bad law". Not blame the Supreme Court for their upholding what they believe is just.
. I brought you a wonderful solution to a terrible problem.
---------------
If this is true, then why does it poll so badly?
We're the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care.
Everybody else is wrong...and we're right?
Yeah, sure...
Yeah, that nationalized health care is working REAL well in Europe and Canada.
We're the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care.
-----------
and the rich come here for the most part for their surgeries.
I wonder why that is?
We're the only industrialized nation in the world without national health care.
Everybody else is wrong...and we're right?
Most of Europe thought Hitler was OK until he invaded Poland. Astonishingly, the majority of people can be wrong.
Heck, Progressives LOVED Mussolini for a while.
Lots of people seem to think Che was anything but a useless thug.
So, for YOU, popular opinion is the end-all, be-all, eh?
A family of four's coverage costs right at $13,500 a year...over twice what it was ten years ago...and that's if you can get it.
Are you enjoying it?
Perhaps you should look at reasons WHY health care is over twice what it was 10 years ago, and simply not settle for expecting someone else to help pay for it.
Matthew - Yeah...national health care..."peer pressure."
We'll show 'em!!
*We spend more than anybody and rank #37 in the world.
Jason - Coverage costs more because insurance companies charge more.
Can you explain why it costs about $700-1,000 a DAY for a hospital room...BEFORE actual medical work is included?
I read an article Sunday relating to a guy taking his daughter to the emergency room (referred there by his own doctor) for a stomach ache...had blood tests, an ultrasound, etc....and weeks later he got the bill: $5,000...his coverage deductable.
*It cost him $1,300 just to walk in the door.
This is good?
Jason - I don't understand you comment that "someone else" will be paying for one's coverage.
When someone has no coverage and is treated...who do you think pays now?
"Matthew - Yeah...national health care..."peer pressure."
We'll show 'em!!
*We spend more than anybody and rank #37 in the world."
-- Ah, so you have reasons other than "the other countries were doing it."
So, what are we spending it on? Do we spend more money on elective surgeries? Is that driving up our number? Do we just take better care of our citizens -- from cradle to grave -- offering more services?
Saying a rich man spends more on nice things than a poorer man is a silly comparison. Why are we spending more? How are we determining we're rating 37? Remember, we count live birth statistics differently than other countries, which alone causes us all sorts of issues in statistics.
So, you've laid out statistics. Now, tell me how you got them and why they matter.
This is much better than saying another country does it better.
damikesc - I have no idea how your Hitler drivel relates to this, but personally, I hav never spoken to anybody from Europe or Canada that says anything negative about their national health care programs.
Never.
Jason - Coverage costs more because insurance companies charge more.
Partly correct. But it still doesnt answer the big question: how does the federal government be in charge of health care drop the prices? Its a point that no coherent liberal can rebut.
If you let insurance policies be sold across state lines, watch the prices tumble.
I read an article Sunday relating to a guy taking his daughter to the emergency room (referred there by his own doctor) for a stomach ache...had blood tests, an ultrasound, etc....and weeks later he got the bill: $5,000...his coverage deductable.
*It cost him $1,300 just to walk in the door.
This is good?
Well, Im sorry, but thats tough shit.
If my car dies on the highway on the way to work and it costs me $2000 to get it fixed, I dont expect someone else to pay for it.
Shit happens in life. This idea that once the federal government gets put in charge of health care that people still wont need ER care or that costs will suddenly, magically go down is retarded.
"It cost him $1,300 just to walk in the door.
This is good?"
-- Nope. Obamacare doesn't solve that problem though, so, it is a wash.
Seeing Red "and the rich come here for the most part for their surgeries."
That's ridiculous.
Provide any evidence of that being even remotely true.
"damikesc - I have no idea how your Hitler drivel relates to this, but personally, I hav never spoken to anybody from Europe or Canada that says anything negative about their national health care programs.
Never."
-- Don't have to talk to them. Just read some news reports. I like Best of the Web's, because they always quote Krugman after an article about infections spreading like wild fire through an English hospital or lack of access to care because of their healthcare system.
I think the Obama scenario is much weaker than the Romney one, and will appeal to only the 20% hard core liberals.
Why would the centrists of this nation trust the instincts of a man who spent all his time on a massive and incomprehensible bill instead of fixing the economy? A bill so bad, by the way, the Supreme Court rejected all 2700 pages of it (I'm dreaming a little here) plus its reported 10,000 pages of present regs.
The Repubs have to come out soon with a free market alternative. Health insurance should be sold like auto insurance. Different levels of protection for different levels of care.
Since we are a charitable nation, we will ALWAYS be paying for the uninsured, and no omnibus bill will eliminate that. But let hospitals and medical groups manage that, like they do today.
Jason - I don't understand you comment that "someone else" will be paying for one's coverage.
When someone has no coverage and is treated...who do you think pays now?
If the health insurance industry is destroyed when this law passes, which is the point of the law, who do you think is going to pay for EVERYONE's health care? Thats my point.
If you think health care costs are bad now, you will really complain if ObamaCare is put into law, as employers all over this country drop health insurance benefits because they cant afford them.
@Bill,
I don't think anyone's going to buy the characterization of Anthony Kennedy as an "activist liberal". Better make it '4 activist liberals and one weathervane'.
Remember when Kennedy was one of the evil, reliably ultra-right wing nutjob Supreme Court Justices, and Justice O'Connor was the RINO squish swing vote who cared too much what liberals thought of her?
Good times, good times.
If/when Obama loses, Breyer and Ginsburg aren't going to be able to resign in time to appoint new reliably-liberal Justices. The GOP could easily filibuster until the new President is sworn in.
Be prepared for the whiplash that will ensue when the NYT calls the filibuster anti-American and treasonous when used by the GOP minority to block lame-duck legislation and appointments, but then suddenly becomes the Savior of Freedom, Democracy, and the American Way when used 1 month later by the new Democratic Senate Minority to block Romney's appointments.
I hav never spoken to anybody from Europe or Canada that says anything negative about their national health care programs.
The obvious Nixon reference comes to mind.
Jason - Why would the health insurance industry be destroyed by this? They'll be a big part of the entire program.
I have no idea what that means.
Not really true. The court case is binding whoever wins in November, and it won't necessarily decide the election.
Not really true. The court case is binding whoever wins in November, and it won't necessarily decide the election.
Scottm - What the hell does Nixon have to do with this?
I spents years throughout Europe and Canada and never heard a peep relating to complaints about their health care or their national programs.
All they ever said was that they couldn't understand why the wealthiest country on the planet provide no such program to their own citizens.
We spend more than any other country on medical expenses and insurance coverage and still rank far below many other countries in ac tual quality care.
The caveat that everybody who really needs some kind of "super" medical care comes here is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
You need to read more and post the usual crazo shit less.
Love hate to bust your delusion but the UK besides the NHS also alows private insurance. So do France and Germany.
Canada doesn't and a suit to overturn that is in the Canadian courts. Its amazing on how consistenly wrong you are on any issue.
Jay you fail to respond to why the democrats when they had an opportunity to solve the "problem" which isn't a problem by expanding Medicaid they opted for this disaster.
Liberals may try to play it this way but in the end all you have are the Dems passing something that is unconstitutional. It makes the Dems look incompetent more than anything else. Moreover, Obamacare is opposed by a majortity of the population.
It is not hard for the average person to understand that Obamacare was trying to force people to buy insurance, and that exceeds the power of the federal government.
Republicans can reduce the tension by asking the democrats to work with them this time to come up with a solution that the whole country can get behind, rather than pass a partisan solution that is unconstitutional.
Matthew "Nope. Obamacare doesn't solve that problem though, so, it is a wash."
How do you know it doesn't solve that problem?
Are you saying that with national health care costs, spread across the entire country's citizenry...won't be better than carrying a policy with a $5,000 deductable?
If so, you know know much about insurance...and nothing about the Affordable Health Care program.
Regarding the original premise of Obama winning if he loses, and that the govt may have been intentionally fumbling the mandate away:
I don't think you can simply think of a strong argument based on an expected new circumstance, and then assert that expected new circumstance must have been the goal all along.
You need to compare: Is Obama's position stronger if Obamacare is upheld or struck down?
Then you need to consider: what will Obama's opponents use to undermine both possible positions? Is one set of counter-arguments stronger than the other?
Then you need to consider what Obama's counter-counter-arguments are, and their relative strength.
Meaning, just repeating:
"If you strike my legislative accomplishment down, I will only become more powerful than you can imagine" doesn't make it so.
Obama's position is weaker if Obamacare is struck down than if it stands.
Fighting to regain lost territory is always harder than to hold territory in the first place.
cubanbob - I never said other countries don't allow private coverage.
So does the Affordable Health Care program.
MY point was that the whining about how horrible other countries programs are is pure bullshit and not based on "facts."
What is you point?
Meaning, just repeating:
"If you strike my legislative accomplishment down, I will only become more powerful than you can imagine" doesn't make it so.
Geek.
"How do you know it doesn't solve that problem?
Are you saying that with national health care costs, spread across the entire country's citizenry...won't be better than carrying a policy with a $5,000 deductable?
If so, you know know much about insurance...and nothing about the Affordable Health Care program."
-- Because CBO, Politico, the White House and Democrats have admitted it won't control costs/costs will go up. That's before I get to people who aren't supportive finally admitting it. Politico's inconvenient truths article is really useful for people not up to speed on the current, admitted flaws of the law to read.
Love you ER example is typical of the progressive mindset.
The guy took his daughter to an ER, what was the real emergency? He could have taken his daughter to a walk in clinic to have her treated and just pay the co-payment. No, instead he goes to the most expensive place for treatment that has to amortize expensive equipment and staff to cover the cost of the free-riders and Medicaid crowd. He deserves to get stuck with the $1,300 bill just for being a fool. You try to make a point using the worst example for it.
This is how smart we are:
The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.
In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714.
The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.
In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States.
Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending.
Re"ADDED": No need to ascribe to Machiavellian machinations what is easily explained by incompetence.
This is how smart we are:
The Availability of Affordable Healthcare
One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied).
This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied.
Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).
Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied.
The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).
cubanbob "The guy took his daughter to an ER, what was the real emergency?"
He didn't think so, but his daughter's pediatric doctor suggested it to be "safe."
The point is not whether he should or should not have taken her (although it's difficult to imagine someone NOT dpint it)...it's that the cost was ridiculous.
The charges: $1,300 for the ultrasound, $1,250 for a blood test (that costs about $40), $500 for a saline drip (that he said he didn't want or felt necessary...that they charged for anyway), $1,300 to walk in the door, and a few more administrative charges that were tacked on.
She ended up getting something to calm her stomach.
Very sad. Makes me wonder why you support a law that will make care more expensive instead of increasing the amount of care available.
My question to many here is this: What the hell do you pay for your own coverage and do you actually think it's a good deal?
My wife and I have coverage via a major corporation and still pay about $300 a month...plus a separate yearly charge for long term catastrophic care...and it's mediocre at best.
You really think $13,500 a year for a healthy family of four is good??
And what about those with pre-existing conditions...do people here think insurance companies should be able to refuse coverage?
Or how about that Medicare/Medicaid "donut hole" that was closed by the Affordable Health Care program...and saved billions for the elderly? You think it's good to eliminate that coverage and savings??
*Because of that specific "hole" in coverage, in my mother's last five years of life, we spent over $17,000 on drugs that would have been otherwise covered by the program.
We don't think that's a "good" thing.
Love all your comments be selectivly picking facts without contect are bullshit. Try getting a same day MRI in Canada unless you are actually in a life critical situation. Here you can walk in, pay cash and have one done same day. I know, having had several this way. Now if you need to have elective surgery in Canada prpare to wait a long time, rationing by another name. Same for the UK NHS. I know I have friends and family in both countries. Except that in Canada unless you are connected you have to wait or go out of the country. I have afriend in Canada who is a doctor, he had a tumor, was told he had to wait three months for an MRI. Flew to Boston for a same day MRI. The Canadian system is so wonderful that there suits filed in their courts to again allow fee for service. But facts that get in the way of your narative have to be disregarded. Anyway, the bill will be overturned in part or in whole and come November Obama and the democrat majority will be gone.
"You really think $13,500 a year for a healthy family of four is good??"
-- No. So why are we supporting a law that has been acknowledged by all sides to raise costs?
"Or how about that Medicare/Medicaid "donut hole" that was closed by the Affordable Health Care program...and saved billions for the elderly? You think it's good to eliminate that coverage and savings??"
-- That could pass and stand alone and has no relation to the law. Omni-bus laws should be broken up whenever possible.
My mechanic said I needed a new car, so he referred me to an expensive auto dealer. I am incapable of shopping for a cheaper dealer, so I went to the expensive one and boy, did it cost me!
You guys need to pay up for my choice!
cubanbob "Try getting a same day MRI in Canada unless you are actually in a life critical situation."
I recently had that exact type of conversation with two visting Canadians and they said that if necessary (emergency, etc.), you get immediate attention, but if not...you wait for availablity.
It's the same here.
Call you doctor and tell them you want an MRI...not an emergency...TODAY...and see what they say.
*Because of that specific "hole" in coverage, in my mother's last five years of life, we spent over $17,000 on drugs that would have been otherwise covered by the program.
We don't think that's a "good" thing." Love
Thats around $3400 a year.
I used to spend that on my deductibles every year. Add another 1500 for medicine. My wife is severely disabled.
I have better insurance now. But I still pay alot each year.
And your moms bills became my responsibility to fund how? In what way? How does that work exactly?
See, I don't accept the premise, which boils down to this: "I got a big bill that I am going to struggle to pay. You guys all need to kick in and pay it."
Why is that different than asking people to buy you a car so you can save money out of pocket?
How come the statement doesn't say. My mom only paid 17,000 on a bill that was hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in charges overall. Because that happened too I bet.
Yea, sobs stories don't work on me. I have callouses on that part.
I can tell you some stories of folks that wish they had shoes. Or the tongue that was cut out of their heads. OR the mass graves we guarded for the UN forensic teams.
Those are much better sob stories.
And getting my bills paid isn't a good trade off for my rights.
It's the same here.
Call you doctor and tell them you want an MRI...not an emergency...TODAY...and see what they say.
Shark effectively jumped.
Just recently, as in the past couple of weeks, I went to see an ear/nose/throat guy for a ringing in my left ear. He looked at the hearing test results and mentioned the word "tumor", though he tried to downplay it and admitted that everyone gets understandably upset when they hear that in reference to their own head.
He wanted me to get an MRI but the soonest the MRI company he uses could get me in was five days from then. I spent exactly fifteen minutes on a smartphone and found an MRI company nearby that had an opening later that afternoon. Another ten minutes of phone tree fun saw me with a confirmation number that said my insurance covered it.
We pay roughly what you do, Jeremy. Why is it that my insurance is so much more effective than yours? Do you know how to operate a phone?
Jay Retread said...
edutcher, let the current system continue to spiral out of control and you might regret that the individual mandate has been taken off the table.
Because the Feds do things so well.
Try to order anything lately by mail?
Love said...
Doesn't appear to be hurting our President's future:
Quinnipiac swing state poll of registered voters:
Lefties must be worried - here come the trolls.
Love needs to remember skewing the sample (26% Republican voters, 31% Democrat voters and 37% independent voters) kills the FUD.
Obama's base,
1. saw Obamacare as a poor compromise that empowered the insurance industry rather than what they wanted, public hangings.
2. are disgusted and dismayed by the perception that Obama's SG was unprepared and did a lousy job.
So I don't think the base is going to go all "Redeem Obamacare!" They weren't prepared for the possibility of the mandate being unconstitutional. They bought Obama's sophistry about it being the same thing as a state requiring car insurance. I think it will depress his base, and its turnout in much the same way Geo. HW Bush's tax increase depressed his base.
I do think Americans want health care reform. But they don't necessarily want left-wing Democratic health care reform. They might be more comfortable with the notion of RINO health care reform.
So, what I think a defeat will do is put the onus on both Obama and the GOP candidate to talk more specifically about what they would do to reform health care now that the guard rails have finally been erected. And that argument -- who knows? Maybe Romney gets the upper hand by saying it's a state matter. If you want liberal health care reform, go live in a liberal state. Obama -- does he have the energy to build another Rube Goldberg machine, this time with the constitution in mind? Maybe. But I doubt it, not in time for the election. I think he's such a narcissist, he like many on the left, didn't think he had anything to worry about.
It's a lose/ lose for Obama. If the bill is not struck down, those opposed are fired up to vote him out of office- a la the 2010 election.
If it is struck down, he is seen as a loser. And after this stinker, the Dems. will not be trusted to construct a health care bill for a long time.
2) The old liberal solution-have government run health care.
"The old liberal solution" only appeals to the stupid. No intelligent person wants to hand over their health insurance to people who can't make a budget, can't do things on time, and couldn't give a damn if people die while filling out the reams of paperwork that is a component of all govt. bureaucracies.
Was closing a deal in Vancouver a few years ago and the CFO of the seller had a child with a health problem. Serious health problem. Every day the CFO and his wife and his child went to the hospital and waited. Every day for two weeks. The child's condition was serious enough that they needed to get her into surgery but not so serious that she was going to die at any second. Or probably not going to die. Thus every day they trudged to the hospital and waited. On the tenth or eleventh day the child was admitted and the surgery was successful We closed our deal. I spent two extra weeks in lovely Vancouver and I learned a lot about the Canadian medical system. The father of the child, by the way, came to the US for surgery that he needed a year of so later.
So my anecdotal "evidence" is contrary to that of Love's. I never heard a Canadian say a nice thing about their system.
Here is one way to offer insurance to all... (if that is desirable0.
Create a refundable tax credit that would be enough to cover a minimum high deductible insurance policy.
The credit can only be used to offset the purchase of insurance. If someone wants a better policy they can use the credit to offset the cost of the better policy on their tax return.
If someone doesn't purchase the insurance then their credit amount would go into a pool that would be paid to insurance companies who cover the "uninsured".
Pay for the refundable credit with some sort of excise tax that is applied to activities in the marketplace. Make the excise tax higher for goods and services that result in higher health costs (such as hang glider equipment or junk food.)
Nationalized health care is like an HMO. Remember them? They were going to cut down on costs, unnecessary procedures and waits, etc. Then some people got sick and needed care, and the system more or less failed. So, as long as you don't really need it, nat'l health care is great! In theory, like socialism, it's a great success.
For a lefty view of what happens when you need care in Canada, watch this movie: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338135/>The Barbarian Invasions</a>
"... You really think $13,500 a year for a healthy family of four is good??"
Still haven't shown evidence how Obamacare is going to reduce these costs.
The charges: $1,300 for the ultrasound, $1,250 for a blood test (that costs about $40), $500 for a saline drip (that he said he didn't want or felt necessary...that they charged for anyway), $1,300 to walk in the door, and a few more administrative charges that were tacked on.
A bad law passed in 1986 forced ERs to treat anybody, regardless o ability to pay.
That led to the problem you're complaining about.
If a law caused the problem, it is silly to assume ANOTHER law will be the magic pill to fix it.
Especially given that every assumption of the supporters has been shown to be wrong while the detractors have a really solid average of being accurate on all of the problems.
What the hell do you pay for your own coverage and do you actually think it's a good deal?
25% more than I did 2 years ago.
It's a bad deal --- but, hopefully, this decision will fix that.
You really think $13,500 a year for a healthy family of four is good??
Obamacare DOES NOT FIX THAT. You aren't grasping basic things here.
What the hell do you pay for your own coverage and do you actually think it's a good deal?
I pay too much. Increased 25% in the last 2 years.
No idea why, though.
It's baffling.
*Because of that specific "hole" in coverage, in my mother's last five years of life, we spent over $17,000 on drugs that would have been otherwise covered by the program.
So, you're asking ME to pay for your mom's drugs?
Can you explain why it's my concern?
You really think $13,500 a year for a healthy family of four is good??
Obamacare reduces that...how?
Call you doctor and tell them you want an MRI...not an emergency...TODAY...and see what they say.
Still waiting for Jeremy to illustrate why he would be able to secure a same day, non-emergency MRI with a few phone calls around town. Also still waiting to see if Jeremy can operate a phone.
The very fact that he thinks that it is not only constitutionally permissible, but a good idea, for Governor Romney to impose an individual mandate (even if a President Romney would not have that power) is exactly the reason why he is completely disqualified from any serious consideration for being president.
Romney just does not get it. Tyrants and despots are not OK so long as they are in the state house, rather than the White House.
And if ObamaCare is struck down, and Romney does get elected, be sure to look for him to seek to work with Democrats to rework and come up with another comprehensive health care finance reform plan. Look for him to try to implement RomneyCare 2.0, Federal Version.
Make no mistake, if you listen to him carefully, all too often Romney is merely saying that Obama is not competent. That is, that Obama might have the right intentions, but his failure is in the execution, however Romney would be a better manager and implementer.
Look for a President Romney to say, "Yes, let's have healthcare reform, and I'm going to show you how to do it the right way." And we'll go right down this very same road again.
Funny though Bender, because Romney has already said that he doesn't think its the job of teh Federal Government to takeover healthcare. I think he said he supports Ryans plan, which is Medicare ands SS reform. I am also thinking that if a Tea Party rally showed up to oppose Romney care, that he would listen.
So, no not worth the drama queenery and denuciations.
Been away all day, so I'm late in commenting but if "LOVE" doesn't get the Nixon reference, that's all the clues you need to judge her acumen about important sociological issues.
Obamacare specifically allows people to opt out, and does not solve your problem of people too poor to opt in. In fact, it allows the poor an exception from having to get insurance!
Not sure if I understand what you mean by "opt out". Are you talking about the religious exemption? Or that you can opt out by paying the IM penalty? a
Still haven't shown evidence how Obamacare is going to reduce these costs.
The only way to reduce costs with ObamaCare is through rationing. Without that, it is guaranteed to drive costs up. First, all of those mandatory coverages drive up costs. Secondly, by requiring lower co-pays and deductibles, the out-of-pocket costs for utilizing health care will drop, increasing demand and usage (absent rationing). Basic supply and demand. Third, by mandating insurance, more people will presumably be insured, and, thus, more people will be desiring to utilize the health care insurance that they pay so much money for.
Create a refundable tax credit that would be enough to cover a minimum high deductible insurance policy.
The credit can only be used to offset the purchase of insurance. If someone wants a better policy they can use the credit to offset the cost of the better policy on their tax return.
The problem is that the bottom half of citizens don't pay income taxes, so a tax credit is meaningless and useless for funding insurance.
The insurance model is broken, anyways.
Post a Comment