As I was driving to the airport today (another hellish travel week ahead), I wondered why the Obamacare health legislation was ignoring gay-related issues. After all, this healthcare legislation has devolved into a series of identity-politics buy-offs.
For example, unions are getting a multi-year break from the “Cadillac” healthcare tax. And we all know about the Nebraska bribe that Senator Nelson secured.
So what’s missing? You got it! The most liberal Congress and Administration in a generation is completely ignoring the impact of healthcare reform on the LGBT community — one of its most loyal identity -politics shills.
With the passage of Obamacare to be decided on less than a handful of House votes, where is Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank? Why the hell aren’t they standing up and demanding the same kind of treatment for gays and lesbians under Obamacare that union members are getting?
What do I mean? Well, one example is the individual mandate. My health insurance covers my partner, John. But he, like millions of others like him, will be forced to buy health insurance under Obamacare even though he doesn’t need it. This individual mandate is the “Gay Health Tax” as it punishes domestic partners more than any other group in America. Funny how the media hasn’t reported this and Reps. Baldwin & Frank aren’t standing up for us.
If that idea isn’t good enough for LGBT-friendly Democrats, how about exempting HIV drugs from whatever formularies are mandated by the “health exchanges”? Or providing subsidies for HIV drugs regardless of income.
I could go on and on.
The question that American gays and lesbians need to ask: Where were your Democrat friends when the goodies were being handed out in the Healthcare Reform Legislation?
We already know the answer: AWOL.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
This is why I think more gays should be pro-life. Pro-life means health care from conception until natural death. Liberals who don’t believe in God don’t have any basis to protect the weak, the unborn, the elderly, the crazy, or anyone who is not useful to society. A whole-life ethic based on God’s revelation of Himself as on the side of the poor and outcast is the gay community’s only hope for health care.
One thing gays need to keep in mind with this bill which is still designed to sabotage the private market, make it vastly more expensive and force Americans to clamor for nationalized health care, is what will happen to gays once we have nationalized health care.
1. When the government pays your bills, the government has a say in EVERYTHING you do. Including your sex life. If nationalized health care happens, and makes it past the courts, then kiss the right to privacy goodbye. You have no right to privacy, and thus no right to sodomy, when the government is paying your health bills. In short: national heath care puts anti-sodomy laws back on the table.
2. You libs dislike the war on drugs now? You want to smoke your pot and shoot your meth in peace? Just wait til the American people are paying for the effects of the gay lefts’ “community” lifestyle directly. Can you say mandatory drug testing?
3. Capitalism is responsible for virtually ALL medical innovation. Take capitalism out of medicine, and kiss the innovation goodbye. Got HIV? Does your life depend on new AIDS drugs as the virus mutates to make old drugs obsolete? Good bye. It was nice knowing you. Shame you have to die for Democrats.
4. Think the government is going to fund AIDS research when it also has to fund cancer research? breast cancer research? Cerebral palsy research? And research for every other disease that affects more Americans than HIV? You dont have the votes. Buh bye. Like I said, so sad that you had to die for Democrats ideology. If its any comfort, so will millions of others.
5. Want an HIV vaccine? HA! Kiss that goodbye too.
6. And on and on and on
What are the actual numbers of gay folks in terms of the general population?
I know y’all are a strong voice, capable of mobilizing a lot of votes for in general for your candidates, and working tirelessly for your cause, but a relatively small demographic, coupled with sadly large amounts of opposition on issues like mariage for y’all might make you a risk for even a Liberal President??
Did that even make sense?
I often wonder the same thing, so I’m interested in hearing what eevryone has to say.
I think y’all get used by the Dems, myself. I mean, you look at the guys at Hillbuzz, my God, talk about motivating people…and motivating Palin supporters at that….just throwing themselves heart and soul in to this Brown campaign…I know so many gay guys who did that for Obama, and what do they have to show for it?
Democrats don’t have to do anything to actally help gay people. They just appoint some pervert as Safe Schools Czar and the gay rights groups high five each other. Symbols matter over substance.
This is an absolutely fair criticism of Democrats. So long as you don’t try and hold the GOP up as better than the Dems on this (unless you can provide proof), this is an example of a good post, IMHO.
The Dems, for some inexplicable reason, chose to remove a repeal of the Gay Health Insurance Tax in the Senate. They should be criticized for it.
The post is a fair criticism. some of the comments…not so much.
In my observation of the gay population they are our fashion world. They have allot of power over Hollywood. They are the ones that help create the creative, if that makes sense. I pray daily that their eyes will be opened to the manipulation of their community. I follow Perez Hilton(I know) he’s into everything, that’s his job, especially in HW. Does gostrongin2010 mean anything to anyone? He’s been to China at Christmas, he’s meeting with big wigs in the business, there’s something going on. I hope it’s just music of movie biz. Everything I’ve read about Obama, I get that he does not like gays or women. I hope I’m wrong, believe me. Pray for Scott Brown, bury this so called health bill.
Tammy,
You are exactly right. Which is why even after being in office a full year, Obama has been unable to pick up his pen and sign the order getting rid of DADT. And why Democrats, after controlling both houses for THREE years have done absolutley nothing to repeal DADT, DOMA, or pass gay marriage, etc…
They are utterly USING gay-lefties like the whores they offer themselves up to be. Well, I shouldnt say whores. Whores dont pay YOU to do them.
Democrats have no intention of repealing DADT, or DOMA, or passing gay marriage. This is what leftists DO! Its the only reason they exist. They make you dependent on them or convince you that you are dependent on them, even if you arent , then they use you.
Hell, liberal Republicans do it to some extent too. That’s why the only people anyone should trust with power are the conservatives who want to REDUCE the amount of power government has over people.
American Elephant:
If Democrats are measured on a scale of 1 to 10 with 5 being a moderate Democrat, where on the Democrat scale would you put a liberal Republican?
Democrats know that the only way to keep costs down will be rationing. There will have to be high risk/high cost categories that certain people will fall into and those are the ones will be given painkillers only. Just like the mother of the woman who questioned him about that on that infommercial last summer.
Gays (and probably the rest of the LBT) will be lumped into one of those high risk/high cost categories because of HIV/AIDS risk.
There is the Hope and Change.
So if everyone agrees that Obamacare will be bad for gays… where is the Gay Lobby working their homo-magic with the overwhelmingly liberal, allegedly pro-gay Congress??
I want my exemption, too, dammit!!
While heading to WalMart last night, there was some talk show on WDBO. Somebody with the NEA was pointing out how there were going to be higher taxes on women, especially in jobs where most of the employees are women like teachers.
So is there anybody ObamaCareless doesn’t discriminate against?
Socialists want everyone to be equally miserable.
The post talks about the Senate Democrats stripping a repeal of the Gay health benefits tax.
It really is a separate issue than removing non-doctor HMO execs making millions of dollars per year while reducing service levels and coverage year after year while making increasing profits and stifling competition.
ObamaCare is better for this Gay man, who has a preexisting condition (high cholesterol) and who would like to start his own business. There is no effective competition for health insurance in Texas.
Demand for health care is inelastic. Free market principles can be abused by monopolies in industries with inelastic demand.
Lets let big govt compete with big insurance monopoly.
*blinks*
*looks at the pre-existing condition rules as they are now*
*blinks again*
*Tries to figure out how multiple profit/not-for-profit companies equals a monopoly*
*Remembers who posted that, that it was Tom, and decides ‘nevermind’*
Except for the social cons who are just as “Big Government” as the liberals are, the only difference is that their pets issues aren’t the same. I’ll take the fiscal/defense cons and libertarians instead, thank you.
Helio,
A scale measuring what? Democratness? If it’s a scale measuring Democrats, and the most moderate are a 5, then why do 1-4 even exist? Sorry, just dont understand what you are after.
Let’s not. There is no such thing as “competition” when the government is and it has proven itself incapable anything even approaching fiscal prudence or efficiency with any of the programs it creates.
See how eagerly you swallow the Kool-aid?
Government does not compete, government PROHIBITS competition.
There are something on the order of 2,000-3,000 health insurance companies in America.
Guess who prohibits all but a handful of them from competing in Texas?
I’ll give you a hint, it starts with G and ends with overnment.
John, I agree with your statement #16. Social Cons aren’t really conservatives at all. They need Big Government in order to achieve their aims. The Advocate online today ran a video interview of Olson & Boies, with Maddow affirming that Equal Rights has historically been a conservative issue. Olson and Boies did a fine job advocating for constitutional equality for all americans.
I do love that: “Lets let big govt compete with big insurance monopoly.” You, Tom, are full of baloney.
Evidence?
Then you will remain in the minority, having your wealth and liberty stripped away from you forever.
You see, there are all too few people in America who will not agree to let government steal from you and give to them, and if you want that ever decreasing number to approach anything close to a majority, it must include social conservatives.
Hardly. Just to use one example, the average liberal wants to use government schools to indoctrinate children in a secular, collectivist agenda. The average social con wants schools returned to local control, and wants school choice to be expanded to permit parents to opt out. Huge difference.
The average liberal wants unlimited abortions paid for by the state. The average social cons wants each state to write its own abortion laws. Big difference.
Liberals eagerly embrace an activist, judicial oligarchy to impose their vision of utopia on the masses. Social cons want judges who are limited to upholding the law. Big difference.
Liberals don’t believe in property rights. Social cons believe they are fundamental to human liberty. Huge difference.
Maybe social cons are a little too nosy about what people do in their bedrooms. But liberals want to micromanage everything you do once you step outside your bedroom. And that is the major, important difference.
1) Medical Malpractice payouts have declined every year since 1998.
2) Insurance Premiums have increased every year since 2000. In Texas, BCBS, the effective monopoly, increased premiums by 20 -30 % per year.
3) Coverage has been reduced every year in Texas
4)Health Care Execs, many of them non-doctors, have had their compensation increased year end and year out because they have been making excessive profits using monopolistic powers. They have also been cutting payments to healthcare providers.
5) Insurance Companies donated millions of dollars to Congress, who rewarded them with an exemption from antitrust rules.
6) Pharmacetical companies charge Americans outragous premiums for the same drugs they sell in other developed (G20) nations at literally pennies on the dollar.
7) Companies charge people without health insurance up to 700% higher rates for the same services, helping bankrupt millions of lower middle class families. Source: My 14000 covered medical bill had a non-insurance rate of 88000. Disgusting.
The private health care industry is profoundly broken. It doesn’t fail the very rich or the very poor as much as it fails the middle class, who end up losing everything to the monopoly when they get sick.
Private employers bear the brunt of this cost. And it stifles job creation thru keeping people from forming new businesses.
The Republicans and the health care industries had a party while millions went bankrupt. Even if they had health insurance.
There are now cases of American companies shifting jobs to Canada (!) because the cost of health insurance in the USA is so high that it makes America uncompetitive.
Furthermore, people without healthcare die quicker as they don’t get access to preventative care. So much for being pro-life.
The Democratic health care reform isn’t perfect. But unlike the Republican plans, it increases competition.
The reason there is no competition in Texas is because the insurance industry paid off Congress to exempt them from anti-trust provisions.
And Texas, while awful, isn’t as bad as Alabama, where BCBS has a 97% market share. And no, it isn’t because they have lower premiums, pay doctors more, or provide more coverage.
Noisy maybe, but not regulatory. Thats another huge difference.
V the K. You said that liberals don’t believe in property rights. Do you support the ability of property owners to keep firearms off their property? If you do, you can’t be a NRA supporter. If you don’t, you can’t support property owners rights.
Something has got to give.
I keep preaching this to my gay friends, but it’s like talking to a wall. It’s so simple, I’m not sure how they aren’t getting it, or maybe that’s the problem. It’s too simple.
ObamaCare is better for this Gay man, who has a preexisting condition (high cholesterol) and who would like to start his own business.
Well, well, well.
Remember what the silly “Gay” was claiming a mere week or so ago?
Furthermore, NDT, I pay lots of taxes. Over 7 figures in the last three years in taxes (yes – that much – and I didn’t come from money). I recognize that I’ve been blessed and lucky and that there are some things that government must do (like paying my way through school so I could produce the kind of income I do now).
And remember what else he was claiming?
I gave over 15k last year to politics.
So this “Gay” is claiming he produces an income that requires him to pay “seven figures” in taxes — and who brags about how many thousands of dollars he’s given to Obama Party politicians — but is now demanding that taxes be raised on everyone else to pay for him to have free health care because he “can’t afford” to pay it himself.
#24: “…they have been making excessive profits using monopolistic powers.”
“The Democratic health care reform isn’t perfect. But unlike the Republican plans, it increases competition.”
The two quotes above tell you everything you need to know about Tom in Lazybrook. He argues in favor of Obamacare purportedly because it will increase competition, but a person who is genuinely interested in a debate about free market competition would NEVER use the expression “excessive profits.” Those two words simply do not belong next to one another in any context, so when you see it, it’s a dead give-away that you’re dealing with a freeloading, intellectually dishonest statist.
Health Care Execs, many of them non-doctors, have had their compensation increased year end and year out because they have been making excessive profits using monopolistic powers. They have also been cutting payments to healthcare providers.
And the welfare “Gay” Tom in Lazybrook just keeps spewing more and more lies in his desperate attempt to get everyone else to pay for his health insurance.
In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”
But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.
Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
But wait, there’s more:
Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.
But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?
Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry’s overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.
Also, Welfare Tom, tell us where you work. I’m sure you’re willing to state that, if your company makes more than a 2% profit margin, that it is “excessive”. Will you state that? Will you also state that your business, when you create it, will never make more than 2% profit, otherwise you will have yourself publicly excoriated like you’re doing now?
And Texas, while awful, isn’t as bad as Alabama, where BCBS has a 97% market share. And no, it isn’t because they have lower premiums, pay doctors more, or provide more coverage.
And as for Alabama, turns out there’s something interesting there that Welfare “Gay” Tom in Lazybrook forgot to mention; it has the lowest regulatory costs of any state.
Also, does the Welfare “Gay” Tom in Lazybrook know this?
BBJ: How does being a state-created entity benefit BlueCross BlueShield and are there any inherit advantages to having that distinction?
Is Welfare “Gay” Tom in Lazybrook also aware that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, aside from being created BY THE GOVERNMENT, is also NOT-FOR-PROFIT?
In short, Welfare “Gay” Tom’s “solution” — a new government-created not-for-profit health plan — has been shown IN HIS OWN EXAMPLE AND BY HIS OWN STATEMENTS to be monopolistic, anti-competitive, and bad.
Tom,
I can go through your points and show how you are completely wrong, point by point, and back everything up with evidence, but will you change your mind if I do? Or will it be a complete waste of my time, as trying to reason with liberals almost always is?
Experience tells me the latter.
Experience tells me Tom only has lying points from Chairman Obama.
Soooooo…….increased taxes and health care costs will help you…….how?
I guess you’re waiting for the next Republican president so you don’t get the royal ass screwing inherent with Obama’s policies. Nobody else is looking to create jobs anytime soon.
It should be noted by Tom’s comments that he supports discrimination by the state “for the common good”. Ya know, the sort of thinking which has resulted in the deaths of millions of innocents worldwide throughout history.
“I’ll take the fiscal/defense cons and libertarians instead, thank you.”
…Except that every “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” candidate will eventually sell out his fiscal conservatism to enact greater ‘social liberality’, and generally sign off on a whole bunch of nanny stateism to boot. Go ask Governor Arnold.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08benefits.html
This is from november 9th, discussing language making domestic partner benefits tax free in the house healthcare bill. If this language isn’t in the final bill, then that’s extremely dissappointing. Im not from America so i dont know if theres been any shift on this point.
#35: I support state discrimination against Tom for the common good. That’s okay, by his standards.
Tom,
You must be very gratified how all this was played out in open hearings on C-SPAN where everybody had a seat at the table, but they couldn’t buy extra seats to stack the deck. We little Americans were able to watch and hear and comment and the transparency was absolutely transformative.
I was opposed to Obama’s whole “Hope” and “Change” campaign until he put it to work in the heath care reform. I have never witnessed such even-handed, open, non-partisan all inclusive dialog and true problem solving in my life.
Who was in charge of the Bush administration, and all of its nanny stateism? Was it “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” people? Or wasn’t it social cons?
I realize that many social cons are, in fact, oriented toward liberty and small government. While many others aren’t (Bush, Huckabee). Before you social cons pat yourselves on the back too much, let’s recognize that yes, some people in the world are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. And some are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
As for Ahnuld, yes he is a disappointment but recently, in CA’s budget crisis, he has gone back to his original anti-tax ways. Kudos to him.
P.S. To be clear: Though something of a social liberal, I’m happy to support the social conservative *IF* she is, in fact, also a fiscal conservative and foreign policy conservative. Like Palin. Not Huckabee (who violates fiscal conservatism). Not Ron Paul (who violates foreign policy conservatism).
Huckabee’s fiscal record: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html
A social con who believed in nanny stateism and Big Government in the name of Jesus: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_35_39/ai_106475691/
(The governor was right to propose cutting taxes on the poor. Right. But wrong to propose a net tax increase, raising them on everyone else.)
V the K. You said that liberals don’t believe in property rights. Do you support the ability of property owners to keep firearms off their property?
What the Hell are you talking about, you hack? Of course, private citizens have the right to set rules about what people bring on their property. It’s not a violation of property rights to permit concealed carry in public spaces. In fact it ought to be encouraged.
You have free speech rights in the public square. But those rights are restrained in your workplace. I think it’s bad policy for business owners to not permit firearms possession in the workplace, but I don’t believe in telling them they can’t make that rule. If that puts me at odds with one NRA position, so be it. Unlike your side, I am capable of independent thought.
ILC, that’s hilarious:Romney, Bloomberg, Shwartzenneger, McCain, all got elected on the “Social liberal/fiscal conservative” slogan. Every one of them- and John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama- spent as much or more time justifying their actions via religon, or courting the religous vote, as the ‘social cons’ you seem to fear so deeply.
Question: With all of your contempt for social cons, how do you expect to convince 30% of America to vote your way? Or would you rather be “right” under Obama, and safe from those horrible Christianists forever?
Before I forget: ILC, please describe the “non-socialcon”, libertarian, lasseiz-faire strategies that President Al Gore or President John Kerry would have pursued.
After all, if you opposed George Bush out of religous motives… those were your alternative.
Romney, Bloomberg, Shwartzenneger, McCain, all got elected on the “Social liberal/fiscal conservative” slogan.
Not to mention, when push came to shove, they didn’t turn out to be fiscally conservative either. McCain may talk a good game, but he voted for TARP.
I disagree. Romney and McCain would be two more who are better identified as social conservatives. For example, they oppose abortion and gay marriage.
So Romney would be yet another social conservative who is, in fact and unfortunately, a fiscal liberal. (Think RomneyCare.) Add him to the list of “social conservative, fiscal liberal”: now Bush, Huckabee, Govs. Riley and Romney. If you would prefer not to own any of those names as social conservatives, perhaps you are working with some different definition of the term “social conservative” – one that would really and always mean “fiscal conservative”.
What contempt for social cons? What did I say, DaveP., that would make you think that? I know I said this:
To be absolutely clear: that would be an expression of my well-known and longstanding respect for certain social conservatives and my ability to support them.
None whatsoever, as those guys are extreme fiscal liberals – what I call “fascist”, in fact. Which is why I voted against them and gave money to their opponents.
DaveP, you clearly don’t know me or the views I express on this blog very well.
V: Conceded for the names I’ve interpolated – although again, Ahnuld has done better lately. Kudos to him for holding the line against new taxes in CA’s recent, endless series of budget crises.
Good point. He fought spending increases for a long time, but voting for TARP was absolutely the wrong thing to do. Add McCain to the “social conservative, fiscal liberal” list.
I thought about this more during my drive. To save time – Perhaps definitions are the issue here, and we need to agree on them. I propose the following.
Surely “social conservative” in present-day America means a person who holds all, or nearly all, of the following views:
– Anti-abortion / Pro-life.
– Against drug legalization.
– Against gay marriage.
– Against judicial activism / in favor of “originalist” or “strict construction” judges.
– Sympathetic to Christian concerns and public displays, even if the individual herself isn’t a Christian.
And surely “fiscal conservative” means these views:
– Against bailouts / TARP.
– Against both taxes and deficits; therefore against spending.
– Wants to actively cut government programs / spending.
– Against regulation / in favor of property rights and free markets.
Now, the question I’m addressing is: is it possible to be a social conservative under the above definition, but not a fiscal conservative? Nothing more.
And the answer is: Yes, clearly it is possible. Bush, McCain, Romney, Riley, Huckabee. So social conservatism, while in many ways admirable, is no guarantee of fiscal conservatism, or at best a fairly weak predictor of fiscal conservatism. And, let me add editorially, that is sad. Our country would be in much better shape if the 5 figures I mentioned were real fiscal conservatives.
Nice work, ILC. I guess that the politician in some conservatives lets them talk tough on the social issues and compromise away on the fiscal issues. In Huckleberry’s case, I think he buys into the government role in “social justice” even though nobody really knows what that is.
Back to health care:
Perhaps it’s me and my Missippi publik ejmikation, but isn’t the number of people ObamaCareless will FAIL to cover about the same as the number of people who really don’t have health insurance?
I look forward to the day LGBT and other minority voters figure out the reason their Democrat representatives don’t actually represent them is … they don’t need to! They don’t have to work for your vote. So they don’t.
NDT.
What you don’t understand is that I can’t get health insurance at ANY price that covers me. And by coverage, that means coverage that has limits on out of pocket expenses. Why? Because there is NO competition.
And while BCBS may be ‘not profit’, but they still pay non-doctor execs multi-million dollar salaries while killing competition.
Alabama’s health care system has been destroyed by the BCBS monopoly as doctors now face 40% across the board reductions in payments for services while premiums skyrocket.
And it can’t be fixed with more billion dollar payouts to a few execs at the top of the monopolies.
V the K. Congratulations to being against the NRA’s agenda of forcing employers and private property owners to allow others to bring guns on to their property. Remember that when you attack the Dems for supposedly being against private property rights, please note that the Republicans and the NRA are also actively passing laws to take away liquor licenses for bars that bar patrons that go into bars to drink while carrying firearms (Georgia).
Tom, you’re full of it. Private insurers will provide coverage presently, excluding any pre-existing conditions for about a year.
So this goes back to you wanting someone else to pay for your insurance. Boo-frakking-hoo
So, naturally, it’s up to everybody else to cover your bills.
[Citation Needed]
[Citation Needed]
Let’s pretend that you’re not full of shit. This means that the feds need to take the US Constitution, wipe with it and usurp the state of Alabama?
As anyone with even an elementary understanding of economics knows, the cost of a commodity increases when demand outstrips supply. This is why the Obamacare scheme is doomed to fail. It does nothing to grow the supply of health care. It actually does the opposite, it discourages it. To make health care costs come down, you need to be creating more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals, more medicines, and more insurance options. Not fewer.
And on the demand side, you need to stop the subsidies, stop the Cadillac it-pays-for-every-sniffle model, and make more people aware of what their health care costs and how and why they might make wiser choices.
P.S. Putting taxes on Cadillac plans is not what I mean! Just have the government stop subsidizing them.
Thanks for posting this, Bruce. I had missed this bit of the health bill — and I’d be one of those who suddenly had to start buying a policy.