A Bad Day for Obamacare

Green2012 · April 4, 2012

Leeches and amputations for the poor?

I'm hoping that's sarcasm and you can see how much healthcare technology has improved over the decades.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · April 4, 2012

The government coverage is just a "safety net" now, but I see unfair competition in the future with the government offering full coverage.

Medicare/medicaid, the government runs this program so well just like Social Security, the post office, Amtrak, etc... Are any of these government run businesses not in bankruptcy?

I guess this is where you and I agree to disagree...while I agree with you that a program like Amtrak (and MAYBE the USPS)should be scrapped (didn't the USPS fully separate from the government years ago?), I'd rather give a good effort to fix Medicare/Medicaid and SS than just throw everything out the window. Besides, weren't a large amount of SS funds pulled and used for something else by Congress which is a huge contributing factor to it financial instability now? (I don't have a link, I just remember hearing about it a few years ago)

island eagle · April 4, 2012

I guess this is where you and I agree to disagree...while I agree with you that a program like Amtrak (and MAYBE the USPS)should be scrapped (didn't the USPS fully separate from the government years ago?), I'd rather give a good effort to fix Medicare/Medicaid and SS than just throw everything out the window. Besides, weren't a large amount of SS funds pulled and used for something else by Congress which is a huge contributing factor to it financial instability now? (I don't have a link, I just remember hearing about it a few years ago)

All I know is that it is a bad day for taxpayers.

Lack of an insurance mandate (first suggested by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 and then by the GOP as an alternative to Clinton's plan) means that taxpayers and those with insurance will spend their taxes and have higher insurance premiums to cover those DEADBEATS who refuse to purchase insurance or take responsibility for their own health care coverage. I worked for 30 years in a medical setting and saw how much costs goes to cover the irresponsible.

It amazes that so many so-called conservatives would rather pay taxes and high insurance rates to pay for the irresponsible, because that is what we have right now and will continue to have without some sort of forced insurance. People have to have insurance to drive, why shouldn't they be required to have insurance for something that affects the ordinary taxpayer/citizen even more?

Harry · April 4, 2012

All I know is that it is a bad day for taxpayers.

Lack of an insurance mandate (first suggested by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 and then by the GOP as an alternative to Clinton's plan) means that taxpayers and those with insurance will spend their taxes and have higher insurance premiums to cover those DEADBEATS who refuse to purchase insurance or take responsibility for their own health care coverage. I worked for 30 years in a medical setting and saw how much costs goes to cover the irresponsible.

It amazes that so many so-called conservatives would rather pay taxes and high insurance rates to pay for the irresponsible, because that is what we have right now and will continue to have without some sort of forced insurance. People have to have insurance to drive, why shouldn't they be required to have insurance for something that affects the ordinary taxpayer/citizen even more?

Amen Island... I agree and unfortunately this issue has become very political without focusing on the facts. We have a huge uninsured issue that left alone will cripple this country. Do I agree with every facet of the health reform legislation -- no I don't but as someone who has been in the healthcare industry for awhile it was nice that it finally got some attention at the national level. I hope that Romney will come up with a plan, versus just run on repealing the law. That's been my problem all along, I get that the republicans don't like the mandate and big government but they have yet to come up with an alternative strategy that addresses the core issue of rising health medical insurance costs and coverage.

Green2012 · April 4, 2012

All I know is that it is a bad day for taxpayers.

Lack of an insurance mandate (first suggested by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 and then by the GOP as an alternative to Clinton's plan) means that taxpayers and those with insurance will spend their taxes and have higher insurance premiums to cover those DEADBEATS who refuse to purchase insurance or take responsibility for their own health care coverage. I worked for 30 years in a medical setting and saw how much costs goes to cover the irresponsible.

It amazes that so many so-called conservatives would rather pay taxes and high insurance rates to pay for the irresponsible, because that is what we have right now and will continue to have without some sort of forced insurance. People have to have insurance to drive, why shouldn't they be required to have insurance for something that affects the ordinary taxpayer/citizen even more?

I just tracked down the Heritage Foundation 1989 article. Talk about some hypocrisy from then and now lol.

Monkeypox · April 4, 2012

People have to have insurance to drive, why shouldn't they be required to have insurance for something that affects the ordinary taxpayer/citizen even more?

Well, see:

1) You don't HAVE to have auto insurance just to live in America

2) Auto insurance coverage is regulated at the STATE level, and not at the federal level

3) Auto insurance is not tied to your employment.

4) You don't have to get a different auto insurance plan from a different company if you move to a new state.

5) Auto insurance is meant to protect OTHER people. The state government could care less how you replace/fix your own car.

6) Auto insurance IS ONLY catastrophic insurance. It doesn't cover routine or preventative maintenance.

7) If Auto insurance were like health care... let's say I had an exhaust leak. I would be forced to take my car to my primary mechanic. He (or she) would then charge me to tell me I had to go to an exhaust specialist. I take it to an exhaust specialist. He would prescribe me something to fix it, which would be patented proprietary parts ... OR I'd have to go to an exhaust mechanic to actually take the car apart and/or weld whatever needed to be welded. After I got that fixed, I'd have to schedule a followup with the exhaust specialist and/or my primary care mechanic for any further orders or developments.

I think that health care SHOULD be like auto insurance, actually. Which is to say catastrophic only, unrelated to employment, bought on an individual basis only, and not have to be completely re-purchased if I moved to New Mexico. Much larger pools, larger companies, less expensive.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · April 4, 2012

Well, see:

1) You don't HAVE to have auto insurance just to live in America
2) Auto insurance coverage is regulated at the STATE level, and not at the federal level
3) Auto insurance is not tied to your employment.
4) You don't have to get a different auto insurance plan from a different company if you move to a new state.5) Auto insurance is meant to protect OTHER people. The state government could care less how you replace/fix your own car.
6) Auto insurance IS ONLY catastrophic insurance. It doesn't cover routine or preventative maintenance.
7) If Auto insurance were like health care... let's say I had an exhaust leak. I would be forced to take my car to my primary mechanic. He (or she) would then charge me to tell me I had to go to an exhaust specialist. I take it to an exhaust specialist. He would prescribe me something to fix it, which would be patented proprietary parts ... OR I'd have to go to an exhaust mechanic to actually take the car apart and/or weld whatever needed to be welded. After I got that fixed, I'd have to schedule a followup with the exhaust specialist and/or my primary care mechanic for any further orders or developments.

I think that health care SHOULD be like auto insurance, actually. Which is to say catastrophic only, unrelated to employment, bought on an individual basis only, and not have to be completely re-purchased if I moved to New Mexico. Much larger pools, larger companies, less expensive.

Not to nitpick, but I had to get different insurance when I moved to Colorado because my Texas insurance company said they couldn't insure Colorado residents. Can't remember if this was a law, regulation, or just the company choosing not to cover Colorado residents, though. Insurance guru's...help me out!

Harry · April 4, 2012

Not to nitpick, but I had to get different insurance when I moved to Colorado because my Texas insurance company said they couldn't insure Colorado residents. Can't remember if this was a law, regulation, or just the company choosing not to cover Colorado residents, though. Insurance guru's...help me out!

It's probably due to the fact your insurance company wasn't licensed in the state of Colorado. That's most likely a business decision they made. If they can't get good provider contracts in a particular state or the state has difficult mandates to comply with it doesn't make sense for them to be there.

Monkeypox · April 4, 2012

When I moved to California, I kept my car insurance. Had to change my address of course and that about tripled my rates, but it was something that took hours.

Also when I moved to California, I lost my health insurance, and have been unable to get it back. So now I pay cash for medical care and have a savings account in case of catastrophic.

Coffee and TV · April 4, 2012

Why would anyone want to buy an additional health care plan on top of Obamacare though? Is it not a good plan?

What? Obamacare is not at all what I described.

I'd say technology has caused a certain increase in the cost of healthcare, but so has the liability insurance that doctors have to pay to cover themselves from those "bloodsucking leeches" known as lawyers and unlimited amounts in lawsuits.

Ah the old lawyer hate. Yeah, statistics don't really back up this talking point the right loves to repeat. Very very little of the total costs of health care has to do with medical malpractice suits. The only thing tort reform was designed to do was put Democratic donors out of work, and it was somewhat successful in Texas.

The government coverage is just a "safety net" now, but I see unfair competition in the future with the government offering full coverage.

Medicare/medicaid, the government runs this program so well just like Social Security, the post office, Amtrak, etc... Are any of these government run businesses not in bankruptcy?

What? Social security and medicare are ran very very well. The post office could be if they made a few reforms.

Monkeypox · April 4, 2012

Actually, Medicare and Medicaid were the first move to comprehensive medical care. COMPREHENSIVE medical care insurance is the reason the cost has gotten out of hand. If health insurance worked the way it was intended... for large, unexpected, catastrophic expenditures, it would me much, much cheaper.

THAT'S one the big problems. Demand isn't being driven by need, no matter what the pundits on both sides try to tell you. Otherwise, medical device and drug companies wouldn't be spending what they do on advertising. I pay out of pocket, so I actually KNOW what things cost (In such cases that they'll actually discuss prices with you). As such, I make informed decisions about what tests are run and why, because, I can tell you, about 80% of what's ordered isn't necessary. They're covering themselves and the consumer doesn't care because, hey, they've got insurance, and "someone else" is paying for it. The physician, meanwhile, has financial gain for ordering all of these services. Even with Medicare and Medicaid, some of these services are the difference between making a 2% profit and 20% profit.

Do you know how much insurance companies are paying out for people who need to be told over and over again not to eat garbage, or who go into the doctor because they've had an upset stomach since this morning, or they're running a low-grade fever now for 3 hours?

Medicare has been cutting reimbursement for years now, and in many cases, it's actually increasing their overall cost, because those in charge of it are only capable of looking at immediate savings on cost reports. IOW, they look at PRICES, but aren't capable of analyzing COSTS. Our reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid have dropped a good 12% since I've been doing this, but the condition of patients are now such that they require more services. Results... their costs are going up while reimbursement rates drop. Medicare will have to continue to increase its tax. As it is, it's an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.

If you REALLY want to fix it, here's the only realistic way. You can't, constitutionally, force people to buy in. But you need to kill Medicare, kill Medicaid, and kill private insurance. Get rid of them. They don't work, and there's no way to fix them. A single risk pool, nationally, with premiums based solely on age, covering only catastrophic care. Outside of that, the taxes that currently are used to provide for Medicare and Medicaid need to be put into individual HSAs and a gap coverage between those HSAs and what catastrophes actually befall poor people such as myself.

I say this as a person whose mother was a nurse for 40 years, whose sister-in-law is a physician's assistant, and currently sits at a desk billing Medicare and Medicaid. I've worked in medical schools and for medical companies. I pay out of pocket for all my health care, and have done so for the last 6 years.

island eagle · April 4, 2012

Well, see:

1) You don't HAVE to have auto insurance just to live in America
2) Auto insurance coverage is regulated at the STATE level, and not at the federal level
3) Auto insurance is not tied to your employment.
4) You don't have to get a different auto insurance plan from a different company if you move to a new state.
5) Auto insurance is meant to protect OTHER people. The state government could care less how you replace/fix your own car.
6) Auto insurance IS ONLY catastrophic insurance. It doesn't cover routine or preventative maintenance.
7) If Auto insurance were like health care... let's say I had an exhaust leak. I would be forced to take my car to my primary mechanic. He (or she) would then charge me to tell me I had to go to an exhaust specialist. I take it to an exhaust specialist. He would prescribe me something to fix it, which would be patented proprietary parts ... OR I'd have to go to an exhaust mechanic to actually take the car apart and/or weld whatever needed to be welded. After I got that fixed, I'd have to schedule a followup with the exhaust specialist and/or my primary care mechanic for any further orders or developments.

I think that health care SHOULD be like auto insurance, actually. Which is to say catastrophic only, unrelated to employment, bought on an individual basis only, and not have to be completely re-purchased if I moved to New Mexico. Much larger pools, larger companies, less expensive.

SO. BOTTOM LINE. YOU ARE OK WITH TAXPAYERS AND ORDINARY CITIZENS SUBSIDIZING THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO PURCHASE HEALTH CARE. THAT IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO NO MATTER HOW YOU FRAME THE ISSUE. THIS IS WHY CONSERVATIVES AND THE GOP ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED WHAT IS NOW CALLED "OBAMACARE". OF COURSE, NOW BECAUSE OF POLITICS A NUMBER OF CANDIDATES PREFER NO SOLUTION...WHICH IS ONE THAT PINS EVERYTHING BACK ON THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE, VERSUS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.

Monkeypox · April 4, 2012

SO. BOTTOM LINE. YOU ARE OK WITH TAXPAYERS AND ORDINARY CITIZENS SUBSIDIZING THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO PURCHASE HEALTH CARE. THAT IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO NO MATTER HOW YOU FRAME THE ISSUE. THIS IS WHY CONSERVATIVES AND THE GOP ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED WHAT IS NOW CALLED "OBAMACARE". OF COURSE, NOW BECAUSE OF POLITICS A NUMBER OF CANDIDATES PREFER NO SOLUTION...WHICH IS ONE THAT PINS EVERYTHING BACK ON THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE, VERSUS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY.

Your post makes zero sense. It fails to address the appointed flaws in your analogy and it's also a logical flaw to say it's a mandate or nothing.

I'm not okay with the federal government overstepping the bounds set on them by the Constitution, especially if it improves absolutely nothing and doesn't address the fundamental problems I've stated. And either way, you're going to end up subsidizing the irresponsible. People who have insurance are actually far more irresponsible re: their own personal health than those who pay out of pocket, in reality.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Monkeypox

island eagle · April 4, 2012

Your post makes zero sense. It fails to address the appointed flaws in your analogy and it's also a logical flaw to say it's a mandate or nothing.

I'm not okay with the federal government overstepping the bounds set on them by the Constitution, especially if it improves absolutely nothing and doesn't address the fundamental problems I've stated. And either way, you're going to end up subsidizing the irresponsible. People who have insurance are actually far more irresponsible re: their own personal health than those who pay out of pocket, in reality.

FIRST. WHY DID CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE IDEA IF IT IS SO OVERSTEPPING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

SECOND, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HEALTH CARE. BELIEVE ME...UNLESS YOU ARE A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE, NOBODY PAYS OUT OF POCKET FOR MOST EXPENSES, WHEN ONE ACCIDENT CAN COSTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ONE ILLNESS EVEN MORE. YOUR ASSERTION THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE IS A JOKE. TRY SPENDING A WEEK IN AN ICU AND YOU WILL SEE THAT.

THIRD, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE...TRY READING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORT...IS THAT FOR ANY REAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE ALL THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM IT PAY FOR IT...AND THE REALITY IS EVERYBODY NEEDS HEALTH CARE SERVICES AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER AND IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR IT THEN YOU AND I AND JOE DOWN THE STREET PAYS FOR IT.

FOURTH, YOU STILL ARE IN DENIAL ABOUT HOW MUCH THE DEADBEATS WHO REFUSE TO CARRY THEIR SHARE COST ALL OF US. JUST ONE EXAMPLE....INDEPENDENT LOGGERS IN EAST TEXAS USED TO END UP AT OUR PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOSPITAL WITH MAJOR INJURIES. THEY WORKED "OFF THE BOOKS"...NO SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, VERY LITTLE TAXES PAID, ETC. SO, YOU AND I ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR CARE AND THEN TAX-PAYERS ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR SSI, SINCE THEY HADN'T PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. MULTIPLY THIS EFFECT, THOUSANDS OF TIMES OVER A WEEK OVER THE US AND YOU CAN SEE WHY OUR SYSTEM IS FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS. BUT, THAT'S OK, LIVE IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD IF YOU CHOOSE.

mattmartin817 · April 4, 2012

FIRST. WHY DID CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE IDEA IF IT IS SO OVERSTEPPING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
SECOND, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HEALTH CARE. BELIEVE ME...UNLESS YOU ARE A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE, NOBODY PAYS OUT OF POCKET FOR MOST EXPENSES, WHEN ONE ACCIDENT CAN COSTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ONE ILLNESS EVEN MORE. YOUR ASSERTION THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE IS A JOKE. TRY SPENDING A WEEK IN AN ICU AND YOU WILL SEE THAT.
THIRD, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE...TRY READING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORT...IS THAT FOR ANY REAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE ALL THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM IT PAY FOR IT...AND THE REALITY IS EVERYBODY NEEDS HEALTH CARE SERVICES AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER AND IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR IT THEN YOU AND I AND JOE DOWN THE STREET PAYS FOR IT.
FOURTH, YOU STILL ARE IN DENIAL ABOUT HOW MUCH THE DEADBEATS WHO REFUSE TO CARRY THEIR SHARE COST ALL OF US. JUST ONE EXAMPLE....INDEPENDENT LOGGERS IN EAST TEXAS USED TO END UP AT OUR PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOSPITAL WITH MAJOR INJURIES. THEY WORKED "OFF THE BOOKS"...NO SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, VERY LITTLE TAXES PAID, ETC. SO, YOU AND I ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR CARE AND THEN TAX-PAYERS ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR SSI, SINCE THEY HADN'T PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. MULTIPLY THIS EFFECT, THOUSANDS OF TIMES OVER A WEEK OVER THE US AND YOU CAN SEE WHY OUR SYSTEM IS FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS. BUT, THAT'S OK, LIVE IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD IF YOU CHOOSE.

Stop with the all caps. LOUD NOISES!!!!

Monkeypox · April 4, 2012

FIRST. WHY DID CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE IDEA IF IT IS SO OVERSTEPPING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
SECOND, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HEALTH CARE. BELIEVE ME...UNLESS YOU ARE A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE, NOBODY PAYS OUT OF POCKET FOR MOST EXPENSES, WHEN ONE ACCIDENT CAN COSTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ONE ILLNESS EVEN MORE. YOUR ASSERTION THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE IS A JOKE. TRY SPENDING A WEEK IN AN ICU AND YOU WILL SEE THAT.
THIRD, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE...TRY READING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORT...IS THAT FOR ANY REAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE ALL THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM IT PAY FOR IT...AND THE REALITY IS EVERYBODY NEEDS HEALTH CARE SERVICES AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER AND IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR IT THEN YOU AND I AND JOE DOWN THE STREET PAYS FOR IT.
FOURTH, YOU STILL ARE IN DENIAL ABOUT HOW MUCH THE DEADBEATS WHO REFUSE TO CARRY THEIR SHARE COST ALL OF US. JUST ONE EXAMPLE....INDEPENDENT LOGGERS IN EAST TEXAS USED TO END UP AT OUR PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOSPITAL WITH MAJOR INJURIES. THEY WORKED "OFF THE BOOKS"...NO SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, VERY LITTLE TAXES PAID, ETC. SO, YOU AND I ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR CARE AND THEN TAX-PAYERS ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR SSI, SINCE THEY HADN'T PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. MULTIPLY THIS EFFECT, THOUSANDS OF TIMES OVER A WEEK OVER THE US AND YOU CAN SEE WHY OUR SYSTEM IS FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS. BUT, THAT'S OK, LIVE IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD IF YOU CHOOSE.

I doubt anyone can actually read your posts. And what I can decipher appears to be nonsense.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · April 5, 2012

Why are you yelling?...you're a foot from me.

forevereagle · April 5, 2012

FIRST. WHY DID CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE IDEA IF IT IS SO OVERSTEPPING AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
SECOND, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HEALTH CARE. BELIEVE ME...UNLESS YOU ARE A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE, NOBODY PAYS OUT OF POCKET FOR MOST EXPENSES, WHEN ONE ACCIDENT CAN COSTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ONE ILLNESS EVEN MORE. YOUR ASSERTION THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE IS A JOKE. TRY SPENDING A WEEK IN AN ICU AND YOU WILL SEE THAT.
THIRD, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE...TRY READING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORT...IS THAT FOR ANY REAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO WORK, YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE ALL THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM IT PAY FOR IT...AND THE REALITY IS EVERYBODY NEEDS HEALTH CARE SERVICES AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER AND IF YOU CAN'T PAY FOR IT THEN YOU AND I AND JOE DOWN THE STREET PAYS FOR IT.
FOURTH, YOU STILL ARE IN DENIAL ABOUT HOW MUCH THE DEADBEATS WHO REFUSE TO CARRY THEIR SHARE COST ALL OF US. JUST ONE EXAMPLE....INDEPENDENT LOGGERS IN EAST TEXAS USED TO END UP AT OUR PUBLICLY SUPPORTED HOSPITAL WITH MAJOR INJURIES. THEY WORKED "OFF THE BOOKS"...NO SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, VERY LITTLE TAXES PAID, ETC. SO, YOU AND I ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR CARE AND THEN TAX-PAYERS ENDED UP PAYING FOR THEIR SSI, SINCE THEY HADN'T PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY. MULTIPLY THIS EFFECT, THOUSANDS OF TIMES OVER A WEEK OVER THE US AND YOU CAN SEE WHY OUR SYSTEM IS FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS. BUT, THAT'S OK, LIVE IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD IF YOU CHOOSE.

island eagle · April 6, 2012

My link

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Rudy · April 6, 2012

Holy Lord you figured out the Caps lock button.

Also, isn't it ironic that the caps lock button is all lowercase?

Monkeypox · April 6, 2012

A lot of terrible assumptions in the article that make it pure bunk. Yes, if you could buy health insurance across states, your premium would still be based on your location. BUT, you wouldn't be subject to the whims of monopolies, risk pools would be larger, etc. He states that a policy from someone in another state, offering you the same coverage as Blue Cross Blue Shield of California, would cost the same to the company. This is patently false, however, due to overhead, and, once again, risk pools. BCBS of California, ONLY insuring people in California (and thus subject in ALL of their dealings to the full restrictions placed on them by the State of California) have to make ALL OF THEIR MONEY off of people in the state of California. A company based in Texas, on the other hand, could leverage profits from one state or multiple states, in order to allow them to cover costs for a smaller profit margin in California. Again, this is what I do for a living, and I know there are others more involved in private insurance here who probably have a good idea, too.

I don't understand how one can complain about the cost of health coverage and in the same breath discourage competition. All Obamacare does is funnel more money to health insurance companies. Already they've gained millions of dollars by forcing people to cover their 26-yr-old children with comprehensive insurance they don't need. And, yes, any Republican plan will do the same thing. You know which party insurance companies, drug companies, and oil companies support most? Both of them.

Once again, nothing in ANY plan they're putting forth deals with the ACTUAL costs of health CARE. They deal with how best to pay these artificially high costs through health INSURANCE.

yyz28 · April 6, 2012

Damn that argument pisses me off. "Well, you should like it if a bunch of Republican Politicians supported it." ...it's the same argument about the debt. A conservative complains about the debt and then has the Bush Administration's run-up of the debt to defend this president's continued run-up of the debt as if conservatives just agree lockstep with every idea to come out of the RNC or from Republican politicians.

Let's be clear here... Unconstitutional acts by any branch of government, be it an overstep of bounds by the judiciary, a policy by fiat or executive order from the executive, or a law passed by the legislative are bad and not what a conservative, a TRUE conservative would support by definition.

Any more than it is fair for me to paint you with a broad brush and assume that because some politician you've supported in the past did something you didn't agree with that means you now must form your arguments and thoughts within the box of that politician's proposals or policies.