If you’re like me, you held your breath for just a second when you read the following headline from the AP:
9 Dems who voted no on health bill may reconsider
If you’re like some of the sheep on the Left (many of whom often troll this site and offer their talking-points in lieu of actual engagement in conversation), you probably did a little math and figured the Speaker had finally found a way to pull together her needed 216 votes for passage of the Josef Stalin Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill.
Fortunately, I’m like me, and so are you if you also read further into the “news” story to find that it’s actually only three who are wavering as far as the AP has been able to figure:
In interviews with the AP, at least nine of the 39 Democrats — or their spokesmen — either declined to state their positions or said they were undecided about the revised legislation, making them likely targets for intense wooing by Pelosi and Obama.
(my emphasis)
Really? And how’s that looking?
Three of them — Brian Baird of Washington, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and John Tanner of Tennessee — are not seeking re-election this fall.
Okay, so it’s possible these three with nothing to lose (by the way, have you been following Andy’s discussion on this?) may fall on their swords for that lady with all the Botox. But this is a lead story for them? Um, okay.
By the way, you may notice when you read it, this clever little swipe:
Both parties have used the “reconciliation” strategy to pass big bills before, but Republicans call the health care push an unwarranted departure from standard practices.
Yea, those Republicans who are saying that. Like this guy?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot from HQ)
Don’t you just love how Democrats are STILL trying to pretend that Republican opposition is the reason they haven’t been able to ram this unpopular bill?
Seriously, does anyone still believe there is a logical, open, honest process in how a bill becomes a law?
Months ago, I gave up caring about “reconciliation” and who did what with it in the past. The Democrats have demonstrated the tyranny of faction and the tyranny of the majority to Federalist Paper #10 perfection.
The TEA Party people are savvy and onto the tactics and demagoguery of the Democrats and they are coming after them. The elitists, meanwhile, call the TEA Party people a rabble with pitchforks and torches. That just makes the TEA Party movement grow larger and more determined.
The AP and other MSM spew their biased views and the TEA Party movement grows even larger.
Here are two steps, one liberal and one conservative, which if done together, would solve the health care crisis:
1. Mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance.
2. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
Capitalism will do the rest.
Here are two steps, the second one reasonable and the first one totalitarian as well as unconstitutional, which if done together, would NOT solve the health care crisis because the second so completely destroys any benefit from the first:
1. Mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance.
2. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
Statism will do the rest.
Sorry, “the first so completely destroys any benefit from the second” 😉 Now for what I came to say.
Pelosi’s 3-10 are counteracted by Stupak’s 9-10. So she loses. Whew! But the AP is hoping against hope that they can create a sense of inevitability, a sense of false momentum… for their and the Democrats’ neo-fascist politics.
Errr….how does the second destroy the first? People have to buy–that creates revenue. People are free to buy across state lines–that creates competition. Isn’t that capitalism?
No Ash it’s not.
Forcing someone to buy a product isn’t Capitalism, it’s totalitarian, like ILC said.
It also doesn’t create revenue, anymore than my running by your house and breaking all your windows with a ball bat would.
Precisely. Captive “markets” (where government denies the consumer the option of withdrawing) destroys what would otherwise be the beneficial effects of market competition. In addition to being totalitarian, immoral and demoralizing. To get beneficial effects from free markets, you must have free markets (i.e. places where people are free to enter or not, as they choose).
And just to save time: No Ash, it is not like the auto insurance market. Consumers still have the option of withdrawing (using bikes, feet, taxis or public trans) and in cities, many of them do.
People have to buy–that creates revenue.
I think Livewire put it best; breaking all the windows in your house would create revenue for someone else, but by taking it out of your pocket. You only see one side of the equation, but don’t take into account the other.
Again, Ash, the problem here is that you don’t want to pay for things. You want others to pay for them for you. Jesus did not say to raise taxes on others; he said to sell everything YOU have and give it to the poor.
Since health care is going to require some kind of compromise, it seems to me that balancing the liberal “mandate” with the conservative “across-state-lines” would create a moderate solution. I understand it is not a perfect solution, but both sides could claim a victory.
And I’m going to predict that Obama’s new health plan will be what I just said, in broad outline.
I know this is a waste of time, but I feel I have to give Ash my 2 cents:
Ash,
I don’t have health insurance – under the current bills, my minimum tax penalty is $750 or so. In the last 2 years, I’ve paid out of pocket for ALL my medical expenses – a grand total of under $350. It makes no sense for me to pick up the additional mandated expense. I can make better decisions for my own wallet.
Jax – and that with a $750 penalty being way too low to make the system “work” as envisioned.
Under the current bills, you would be able to get coverage whenever you need it; that is the point of excluding pre-existing conditions (as a reason to deny coverage). Tens of millions of people will say, hey, I would rather pay the $750 penalty, then get coverage after I need it. Imagine if you could buy fire insurance *after* your house as started burning. That’s what we’re talking about.
So the result of the current bills will be that tens of millions of people withdraw from the insurance markets, probably in the first year. What comes after that? A massive upward shift in the insurance supply curve: that is, massive numbers of insurers going out of business, AND massive rate increases by the lucky few survivors. After that comes Democrats hiking the penalty from $750, to $3000, to $30000, to jail time – but it won’t repair the devastation. History teaches that no matter how much coercion a government applies to people, it won’t make the system work; in fact, the more the coercion, the worse the state of the system.
P.S. Even if the $750 penalty is low at first (as I’ve just described), it establishes the government’s hitherto-unprecedented “right” to force people to spend their money on a particular industry product. With that in place, the rest follows; there is no reason the government can’t hike the penalty to $100 or jail time. And it will. The Democrats know it; they just aren’t being honest about it.
(sorry, “hike the penalty to $100,000 or jail time”)
I agree with ILC. In addition a capitalist viewpoint isn’t the only way to perceive the mandate. Such a scenario would inevitably criminalize benign behavior in an unprecedented way, with the government calling the shots. Could any scenario be less constitutional?
All I need do is think it through a bit and realize yet again, the focus of the democrats’ motive isn’t health care, nor was it ever — it’s control.
Wasn’t it Boob who called Republicans “liars” about the possible use of “reconciliation”?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/obama-democrats-will-use-reconciliation-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.html
I cannot remember who it was, but some TV pundit brought up a good point: States have regulations about what insurance must cover. If one state has more laxed regulations and I live in a more heavily regulated state, I would have to buy a more expensive policy that meets my state’s regulations.
Personally, I think a better solution would be to make medical licensing optional, make all prescription drugs over the counter, and let people decide if they want to go to a doctor for their health problems or a nurse, or the Chinese medicine doctor on the corner, or figure it out for themselves. Eliminate mandatory licensing for facilities so one could, theoretically, go to the drug store and get an x-ray and a splint for a broken arm (they have blood pressure machines and what not there already, why not x-rays and mammograms?) If the emergency was bad enough, you could go to the emergency room or urgent care center, or not.
Think about how much cheaper things would be if they were more available. Then we wouldn’t need insurance except for the most devastating illnesses like cancer.
And if you get hit by a truck, Jax, I will be paying for your health care because my premiums will go up. Thanks.
“…the Stalinization of health care” Perfect description. Love it!
And if you get hit by a truck, Jax, I will be paying for your health care because my premiums will go up.
And if he doesn’t get hit by a truck, then your premiums won’t go up AND he won’t have spent the money in the first place, which will allow him to spend it on other things.
You don’t understand the concept of insurance. It’s not designed to cover everyday occurrences; it’s designed to cover catastrophic occurrences. The primary driver of cost increases for insurance currently is that it is required to cover everyday occurrences, instead of being limited to emergencies.
NDT, exactly. Does your car insurance leave you with only a $5 copay at the gas station? And what if it did? Gas would be $30/gallon, yet no one would carpool.
This whole thing isn’t about health care or insurance. It’s about TRANSFORMING AMERICA. They want to change the system. They want to get rid of the constitution, they want CONTROL over every aspect of our lives and the best way to do that is to take over our bodies. They think America and it’s people are bad and when they FIX it they will be perfecting us. It’s all a progression of sorts.
Before we try Obamacare, let’s see if Obamamotors can build cars that fulfill the government dream of super high mileage, low price, tremendous safety while supporting lavish retirement and health plans for the workers.
The health insurance companies have government mandates jammed on them regularly. As a result, some companies pull out, some raise their premiums to cover increased risk exposure and some stop issuing policies in certain segments of the market. That is all natural adjustment to market realities. You could call it change.
Obamacare comes along and says pre-existing conditions no longer apply and you can buy health care when you need it. Those are not mandates you can cover without enormous increases in premiums. But if your premiums are mandated as well, you have an impossible situation. It is a recipe to drive private health insurance out of the market in order to have single-payer nationalized health care ala the United States Postal Service. Single-payer will be subsidized by tax dollars taken from the small number of people who actually pay taxes of any consequence.
If we have Cadillac nationalized health care, it will be because we have robbed the economy and within a year or two, we will have nationalized health care that is called Cadillac but is actually four bicycle wheels on a board.