« | »

House Backs Repeal In Bi-Partisan Vote

From a smirking Reuters:

House backs repeal of Obama healthcare law

By Donna Smith Wed Jan 19, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Republican-led House of Representatives passed legislation that would repeal President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare reform law on Wednesday in a mostly symbolic move likely to be scuttled in the Senate.

Whew. We’re glad that Reuters quickly told us how meaningless this vote was. Or we would have been worried. It’s funny though how in the past they weren’t always so eager to tell us that votes on the ‘Dream Act’ or ‘Cap And Trade’ were doomed.

The House voted 245-189 to approve the Republican bill that would scrap the law, which was passed by Congress last year after a bitter debate and signed by Obama when his fellow Democrats still controlled both the House and Senate.

Actually, there had been very little debate in Congress. The bill was ramrodded through. Which is one of the reasons nobody knew then – or even knows for sure today – exactly what the bill entails.

The unified House Republicans were joined by three Democrats in backing the bill, which also needs Senate passage but is unlikely to get it. The Senate remains under Democratic control and is not expected to take up the repeal legislation.

So the new tone of civility on Capitol Hill means ignoring a bill that has bi-partisan support, as well as the overwhelming support of the American people. We should thank the unions and La Raza once again, for returning Harry Reid to Washington.

Even if the Senate were to pass the measure, Obama has vowed to veto any effort to repeal the healthcare law, one of his biggest legislative victories…

Reuters really wants to pound it into our heads that Obama-care is written in stone and can never be repealed.

But we need to make the Senate and Mr. Obama go on record as often as possible. The need to repeal Obama-care will be the best argument for voting for Republican control of the Senate and the White House.

Polls show that Americans are split on the law. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this week found that more Americans now believe it will hurt rather than help the struggling U.S. economy. But the poll also showed that just 18 percent favor full repeal of the law

What boldfaced liars our news media are. They rig their push polls by oversampling Democrats and manipulating the questions, and then claim the American people just happen to agree with them. It really is scandalous. And it shows how badly this country needs a free press.

Republicans say the law saddles businesses with high costs and complicated regulations. Democrats say the law is an historic move to deliver health insurance to more than 30 million people who currently cannot afford it while also lowering medical costs and providing more consumer protections.

Notice that what the Republican say is undeniably true and what the Democrats claim is absurd. All the bill really does for people without insurance is tax them – and tax them quite severely. Which won’t help them or the economy.

The law will also bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

Which will destroy the health insurance industry, which is the real goal of Obama-care in the first place.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said repealing the law would damage the economy. "Given where we are, we must do things that help bolster the recovery, and repealing the Affordable Care Act would be a step in the wrong direction," he said.

It is downright scary how easily the people in this administration will lie – and about such important matters. But what can you expect from a tax cheat?

A heated debate preceded congressional passage of the law last year. But the tone of the repeal debate in Congress this year was subdued in the aftermath of the January 8 shooting in Tucson of Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who survived but was gravely wounded.

Six other people were killed in the attack that prompted calls for politicians to tone down their rhetoric

Or rather, in an attack that the media and the rest of the Democrat Party used to try to silence their opponents. But why should we be toning down the rhetoric when a bi-partisan bill that is overwhelmingly backed by the American people is not even being brought to the Senate floor?

Democrats say the law already is helping millions of people who had been shut or priced out of health insurance.

"Let’s be clear, this law is working," said Representative Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "Repealing it would have real-life consequences for millions of Americans."

Why should we be ‘civil’ when our politicians are lying to us to blatantly?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 20th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

51 Responses to “House Backs Repeal In Bi-Partisan Vote”

  1. wardmama4 says:

    How interesting – in the first story on this on Yahoo News – it said the vote was along party lines – as there are 243 Repubs in the House and the final vote was 245 – not quite – I have to wonder who the turncoats were – probably people really worried about being re-elected in 2012.

    • confucius says:

      Three Democrats voted for repealing Obamacare: Dan Boren (OK), Mike McIntyre (NC) and Mike Ross (AR).

      No Republicans voted against the repeal.

  2. TerryAnne says:

    “Let’s be clear, this law is working,” said Representative Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. “Repealing it would have real-life consequences for millions of Americans.” …

    Wasn’t it just a few months ago they were saying that very few people would be getting benefits from this so quickly? That it wouldn’t be until 2014 that they “millions of Americans” could see the system work?

  3. ezra says:

    Some provisions that went into effect last fall would be sorely missed by those who have benefited from them, e.g.: insurance cannot be denied to children based on pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime limits on coverage, no more dropping coverage of policyholders when they become ill, etc.

    Bi-partisan? Not sure I would go that far. To those celebrating the inclusion of democratic votes, they should be dismayed that they actually got so few. More dems who voted against the original health care act voted against the repeal than for it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Ezra here is so distraught that the Republicans actually are doing what their constituents elected them to do that he’s resorted to posting the template-approved Democrat therapy lines in an effort to make his opponents feel as miserable as him.

      Mr. Klein, we could care less if one Democrat voted with us. They have their own music to face in 2012, which will sound a lot like 2010 – good ol’ Country Music. Here’s 100 grollacks of Obama space cash; put down the kool-aid and buy yourself a clue.

    • proreason says:

      Ezra is a move-on guy. He gets paid to do this.

      You can tell from the approach.

      I read a very smart comment the other day. The Moron says angry words a lot, but he is meticulously not angry when he says them. And he is visibly angry a lot, but never says angry words when he is.

      It’s a specifically strategy that was designed for him.

      Welcome Ezra. You are an idiot. :-)

    • tranquil.night says:

      Like that one they had here in the weeks leading up to the election. He actually hung around and took the uncivil beating for a while. Then the actual shellacking came. What a trooper.

    • mr_bill says:

      I don’t think ezra will be coming back to defend it’s positions. It thought it would come to a conservative lions’ den, make a statement, and run like heck. Its a exactly what the drive-by-media does.

  4. proreason says:

    pravda lives

  5. Astravogel says:

    I’d like the names and addresses of those
    millions, to cross-check their residences
    with cemetery lists in Chicago and New York.

  6. GetBackJack says:

    45 new Hospitals dead in the water

  7. JohnMG says:

    Geithner: ….. “Given where we are, we must do things that help bolster the recovery,………”

    I’d like to take his ‘recovery’ and kick that little crap-weasel’s ass with it. But I shouldn’t be surprised he would make such comments. The MFWIC of tax laws is beyond stupid. He’s so clueless he doesn’t understand how to pay his own taxes.

    He does understand how to get away with that, though.

  8. tranquil.night says:

    What’s that Steve Cohen said again? Oh yeah:

    “I think civility is not lying, and if you can’t come up and say that somebody is lying when they’re lying, then the lie becomes the truth. That’s not uncivil to say somebody lied.”

    Justification for associating your political opponents with Nazi’s, I do believe.

    Ah, moral lessons from Liberals.

    • proreason says:

      Conservatives are making a big mistake being civil.

      We should take the rules of the liberals and triple them.

      No conservative should ever discuss liberals without flatly stating that they are congentital liars, thieves, con men, radicals, marxists, anti-Americans, killers, and people whose mission in life is to destroy the lives of others in order to live like royalty. They are the heirs of Lenin, all of them. Follow that path, and hundreds of milliions of Americans will die.

      That was what the marxists did with Tucson. They called conservative mass murderers, no question about it. And they didn’t do it subtly. They did it at 160 decibles, for seven straight days.

      And it worked perfectly. The Moron’s poll numbers are way up. Palin’s favorabililty ratings are down. Republicans are like scared kitty’s. It was little lenin’s greatest tactic since they turned a stupid, queer, racist America-hater into a president.

      You can’t win a gun fight with a knife. Like it or not, their tactics work. If it was an argument over what to wear to the prom, it wouldn’t matter. But this is an argument over the future of our children.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “If they bring a gun, we bring a Carrier Battle Group.”

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yes, now would be a great time for the new Republicans to show their bold colors by turning the Left’s glaring conceit and hypocrisy back on them. They’re displaying absolutely no regard for truth or common decency, nor even regard for their own prior statements and actions. They’re out to stop our agenda by any means necessary other than honest ones. Criminally so.

      There is absolutely no reason to regard any of these people with any greater respect than a common thug or mobster. That is what is so repugnant to us about the “conservative” beltway’s continual fawning over their every rhetorical flourish and their neverending search for compromise, or worse – their occasional agreement (such as with Palin). It is so completely back-asswards, to the point that it makes good, healthy people suspicious of the fawner’s ulterior motives.

    • hushpuppy says:

      “Even if the Senate were to pass the measure, Obama has vowed to veto any effort to repeal the healthcare law…”

      He’s doing precisely what Limbaugh said needed to be done: “Make him defend it.” The rationale being by forcing the Kenyan Ballerina to constantly defend health care, and by forcing others who whored themselves for more pork to bring back home (e.g. the cornhusker kickback, et al.) people are going to remember this come 2012.

      However, seeing how utterly corrupt the entire system is, and having watched as rules were broken by the Dems in order to nominate The Won – and was nauseated when he actually won – from out of nowhere – I don’t have a lot of hope someone on the Conservative side will become President. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if his Machiavellian handlers saw to it that he won his second term.

      I hope I am wrong, we’ll see in two years but you heard it here first.

      Here’s a Machiavelli quote that sums it all up: “No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution.”

  9. Reality Bytes says:

    “Welcome Ezra. You are an idiot :-)” Pro is my hero.

    Oh how a child’s welfare drips from the hypocracy of the millions they kill at will through late term abortion.

    Welcome Ezra to SNL. I’m RB & you’re not!

    (you should feel honored Ez by Pro’s handle for you. You’re in good company – depending on how you look at it – with Obama aka the moron – with no offense to morons of course, or idiots).

    Hey, wait a minute, didn’t MoveOn call Bush an idiot. Hey, Ez! You really are in good company!

  10. Mae says:

    I’m already paying for “pre-existing conditions” through my taxes going toward Medicaid. Period. We do not need more “insurance” to cover pre-existing conditions. Covering these conditions is called “welfare.” “Pre-existing” is not defined by some poor little child being born with spina bifida. It is defined as a car accident in which you are injured; thus you may purchase “insurance” after the fact. I’m not into bankrupting the country so someone can have their pre-existing condition taken care of. No, the trade-off is not worth it to the country. Harsh? Life is harsh. I paid out of pocket for my mother’s pre-existing condition when her “government insurance” didn’t work for her. That’s life, folks.

    • proreason says:

      The pre-existing condition scam is the bane of the Republicans. They have fallen for it too.

      I like your description, Mae. It isn’t insurance, it is welfare. Insurance can’t exist if pre-existing conditions have to be covered.

      I actually think it is a trojan horse. If they can sneak it into any plan, and they seem to have convinced the slobbering Republicans of it, then insurance has to fail as a viable business. And it will probably fail quickly.

    • ezra says:

      Tortured logic. The begrudging, inexorably growing acceptance for this form of “welfare” is the result of people unraveling this logic over time. Would be happy to discuss, but am not sure that dialog is welcome here.

      Not interested in a mere argument. Remember: arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics … even if you win you are still mentally handicapped.

    • proreason says:

      “Tortured logic. The begrudging, inexorably growing acceptance for this form of “welfare” is the result of people unraveling this logic over time”

      ezra, allow me to decipher your “thought” for the benefit of our regular readers who expect words to be connected in ways that make sense.

      Here goes:

      ezra: “Tortured logic. The begrudging, inexorably growing acceptance for this form of “welfare” is the result of people unraveling this logic over time I am an idiot”

    • Petronius says:


    • ezra says:

      Proreason or Mae: Would you shed some of your enlightenment upon a poor idiot? (I wouldn’t impose, but it does seem to be highly entertaining to you and your friends.)

      Is it all good if we restore the pre-Obamacare status quo? Or is there an alternative proposal you could point me to?

    • proreason says:

      Sorry ezra, I’m not an idiot, so I don’t buy into the marxist talking point that the US health care is broken.

      To the contrary, it is the best health care in the world, by far.

      Now, after we solve the liberal induced problems with disastrous government spending, and a few other libwit induced problems like not enforcing our immigration laws, and prostrating ourselves to countries that should be prostrating themselves to the US, then we might consider undoing a few of the problems that liberal idiots like yourself have implanted in health care. For example, blocking slip and fall lawyers from doubling the cost of medical procedures by suing doctors for doing their jobs; blocking inter-state competition by health insurance plans; and giving individuals the same tax breaks for health insurance that corporations enjoy; solving the redistribution graft the liberals have built into Medicare; and ridiculous insurance mandates that double (on top of the lawyer induced doubling) costs.

      With those changes, the cost of the best health care in the world will drop by AT LEAST 50%.

      However, note that I didn’t say a word about pre-conditions. And since idiots don’t understand why, the reason is that insurance cannot exist without the ability to block pre-conditions. It is the equivalent of allowing a man whose house has just burned down to buy fire insurance AFTER the fire. It really is so stupid, that even having to waste a sentence on it is a condemnation of the American education system (which of course, is only woefully awful because of liberal idiots like you).

      Any rational adult can easily understand what I just said.

      Print this out, and show it to one.

    • ezra says:

      Thanks, proreason.

      One would be hard pressed to prove that U.S. health care is best in the world at all, let alone by far. Can you cite any sources for that? But our care does compete reasonably well, and if we did cut costs in half, then we would be paying about the same as other countries, so that would be a reasonably good start, for sure.

      All of your proposals have popular support, so assuming they could achieve the 50% savings, why do they not form the core of a counter proposal that we could rally around?

      Every counter proposal I have seen focuses instead on …. wait for it … pre-existing conditions. E.g., see section 1B of http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf .

      Word around the idiot nation is that there is not an updated Republican counter-proposal in circulation because (a) it would include all the popular proposals of Obamacare (e.g., elimination of pre-existing conditions) and (b) they cannot make the numbers work without the unpopular proposals of Obamacare.

      BTW your points on pre-existing conditions vis a vis the insurance market are very true and accepted by all, which is why Obamacare includes the personal coverage mandate, which we all agree sucks.

      So I’m fine if we all just go the Mae route and decide that everybody who lacks insurance because of a pre-existing condition is a scammer who deserves to sink into the (marginal) safety net … and even if one or two good people get the shaft, we just can’t afford it (even though every other advanced nation on the planet can … by spending half of what we spend). But it seems like most of the repeal crowd is uncomfortable going that route (perhaps because they have real relationships with their friends & neighbors), so I’m trying to understand how it gets reconciled … why not your proposal straight up? It sounds good to me!

    • proreason says:

      I’m not going to waste time finding links for you. The bogus longevity stats that libwits quote are based on radically different ways of counting infant deaths, which obviously have a huge difference on longeveity. Secondly, minorities in this country have significantly shorter lifespans because they kill themselves fast and furiously, primarily due to the “benefits” of the Great Society. Without those two factors, pure longeveity in the US is better than most other countries with the exception of Japan, which has better longevity because of diet and a cultural aversion to obesity…neither of which has anyhing whatsoever to do with medicine.

      ALL data that compares survivability rates for diseases like cancer and hearth diseases have the US near or at the top of the list. Since those studies are the only ones that don’t include infant deaths and life-style factors, they are the only reliable statistics.

      But if that isn’t enough, any rational person would have to ask himself why people flock to this country for medical care, whereas nobody from this country goes anywhere else. Not too hard to understand, unless you are an idiot.

      As for a “counterproposal” the only rational response is “counter to what?”. It certainly wouldn’t be a counter to a plan to improve the health of American citizens, because not only won’t the Obamyscare scam do that, it will bankrupt the country. But that should be no surprise…that is the true purpose of the scam.

      But don’t worry, if you become a commissar, you won’t have to abide by Obamyscare, as you know. Again, any rational person would have to ask himself why.

      You need to wake up young man and stop smelling the propaganda. All you have to do is look around you to know that health care in this country is a triumph. The only issue is cost, and all of the cost problems result from marxist liberal policies. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes. It only takes a person who isn’t brainwashed..

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “…who deserves to sink into the (marginal) safety net … and even if one or two good people get the shaft, we just can’t afford it (even though every other advanced nation on the planet can … by spending half of what we spend).”

      You must be wearing your welders helmet when you look at the United Kingdoms Health Care System, huh?
      How about Canada, ay?

    • ezra says:

      I agreed with you insofar as our healthcare system competes well with others. If I (or my spouse or parent) was employed by a company or other organization that paid for my health insurance (that is about half of Americans at this point … and falling fast), I would feel genuinely lucky to live here. But your belief that our system is best “by far” just doesn’t pass the straight face test. Any serious-minded person has to be worried by the facts, regardless of how “unreliable” they are, e.g., http://illuminate.newsvine.com/_news/2010/08/12/4872424-us-healthcare-rankings-not-good . Those arguing your point are forced to cherry pick the stats, eliminating the least healthy demographics and conditions other than cancer and heart disease. So let’s have every other country get to eliminate their least healthy demographics and any health conditions for which their system has poorer outcomes … WE’RE (NOT) NUMBER 1!

      “Counter to what?” = a counter proposal to Obamacare. You provided that: the status quo (pre-Obamacare) improved to eliminate all the marxism and funds paid on care of illegals, etc., which will cut costs in half.

      This sounds like a good start to me … all extremely popular proposals, etc. So I’m wondering how this brilliant idea is languishing in lowly forum threads. Surely somebody is advancing this into the very halls of government, but who? where?

      That brings us back to the (original) sticking point of the repeal effort and your proposal: There will be people with pre-existing conditions who will be unable to purchase insurance on the market, and this makes many people uncomfortable. Why don’t the repealers in Congress have the balls (like Mae) to call out these folks as the scamming welfare cheats we all know them to be?

      “Liberals Demise” – Canada & UK have forms of universal health care, so pre-existing conditions are irrelevant. So are you referring to the costs of their systems? Many statistics are available online, e.g. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html .

    • proreason says:

      No company “buys” health insurance for its employees. It’s part of the compensation package. Therefore, the employee pays for it. Businesses aren’t charities. If yours doesn’t pay for it, you have the option to change employer. Otherwise, view your salary as what you currently make less what health insurance costs. Then you will be just like somebody who has it. And oh, btw, coverage for young people is much less than middle-aged or older people. You probably are better off for your company not to supply it, because when the employer puts it in the compensation package, a young person heavily subsidizes older people. You don’t even know when you have a good deal, ezra. You really need to stop listening to propaganda and start thinkinf for yourself.

      Yes, it is obvious the US has the best health care system, propaganda not withstanding. Again, people come HERE for health care. Nobody goes elsewhere. That proves it beyond any doubt. You don’t know one single person, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, who has left the country to get health care. Yet you know that many people come her for medical attention.

      Pre-existing conditions are not a problem today, except for the fact that there are a lot of people who are easily persuaded that they deserve something for nothing. But I would make one small legal change, just to formalize the way it already works. a) nobody who has been steadily insured from a certain age (say, 22 or 23) can not be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, provided there are no substantial gaps in coverage. It already works that way, but that would formalize it. and b) people with a substantial gap in coverage, can be denied. If it doesn’t work that way, then people will game the system, which causes problems. High deductable, lower cost policies, when not blocked by marxists, provide coverage for people between jobs. These policies are already inexpensive and would be even less expensive if they weren’t demonized by leftists. For the very small percentage of people who are genuinely needy and unable to provide for themselves, medicaid (or one of the other numerous statist insurance programs already available) can continue to fill the need. Yes, it is not the best coverage, but it isn’t feasible to provide delux coverage to everybody, and even if it were feasible, it would discourage individual responsiblity.

      Again, there are no serious problems with the current system, except for the ones deliberately created by leftists in order to destroy the current system.

      Get rid of leftism and the system would be even better. There would be more options, costs would drop like a rock and quality would soar, just like they have for medical procedures that aren’t regulated. (ie, laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery, and other less notable examples like massage therapy and alternative therapists. Go to a phd level chiropractor who also does acupunture and physical therapy and you will pay about $75-100 per visit, possibly as low as $50. Go to a “covered” physical therapist with much less expertise, and the gross price can be $400 per visit, The average delta is probably about 2 or 3 to 1).

    • ezra says:

      “You don’t know one single person, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, who has left the country to get health care. Yet you know that many people come her for medical attention.”

      Huh? Mayo Clinic, etc., do a great business in medical tourism, but in the broad middle of the market, U.S. health care is not competitive. Many more Americans travel abroad for health care than foreigners traveling here: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Americans+traveling+abroad+for+health+care . A good read for you: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/59-4_HANSEN.pdf .

      And where do you live that the market for employer-provided group insurance is equivalent to the market for individuals? Where I live, it is an entirely different consumer experience. For a family, there is a huge difference in the products & costs offered (which is to say, the product effectively is not offered for individuals, except in high-deductible flavors). You are lucky to live in a place where an individual (say two forty-year-olds with a few kids) can purchase the same insurance as they can get through an employer group!

    • proreason says:

      Of course the middle market is competitive. You are comparing apples to oranges. You can’t compare a government run system to a private system. It’s impossoble to say what the prices are.

      But one thing you can test, for sure, is the service, and the service in the US, at every strata is superior.

      If you want poor service, for a price that feels “free” since you pay for it with taxes (mainly hidden) instead of out of your pocket, than move to Canada. btw, young people there are very satisfied with government health-care. Until they get sick. Then the satisfaction level falls to about zero.

      As for your ability to buy or not buy health insurance that is equivalent to employer provided health insurance, perhaps you should give a thought to why that would be. The answer is g o v e r n m e n t. And how do you propose to solve that problem. G O V E R N M E N T. You really need to think about stuff ezra. Otherwise, you will be a brainless libwit all of your life.

      Yes, states impose all kinds of crap on health insurance companies. And in your state, assuming you have done adequate research, government has screwed you….again. The real solution. Move to another state with less government.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Ezra…. Hold onto yourself pal.
      From the moment you draw your first breath you are promised death.
      It is a fact that we all live with. So should you and everyone
      thinking elsewise.

      This is America!!
      We are #1
      “Land of the free……Because of the Brave”
      You are welcome!

    • ezra says:

      “service in the US, at every strata is superior.”

      “… Canada. btw, young people there are very satisfied with government health-care. Until they get sick. Then the satisfaction level falls to about zero.”

      “Move to another state with less government.”

      “This is America!! We are #1”


      If the brainwashed masses are ever going to come around to the truth, the idiocracy of the CIA, McKinsey Co., etc. (not to mention most of the 236 sources cited @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States) must be discredited.

      I am not one of those who will ignore the facts (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/facts-matter-world-news-conversation/story?id=11196924). But I’m not willing to sit here and accept at face value the opinions of somebody who will provide no sources, presumably because he doesn’t have the time to take his lips off the gluteus maximi of his fellow forum warriors.

      Come on! Man up and google this sh*t. It’s out there somewhere and I’m hungry for it!

      “The only issue is cost, and all of the cost problems result from marxist liberal policies. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes. It only takes a person who isn’t brainwashed.”

      Can you name one person in a position to do something about it who is not brainwashed? I am seriously interested in finding their proposal. We have an opportunity to do something that no other society has done (implement a free market health care system), and we’re all sitting around typing comments in forum threads.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Ok Parkay……I’m done!
      What part of “WE DON’T WANT IT” don’t you understand?
      I don’t want to be like the rest of the world.
      What color is the sky in your little Utopia?
      If ‘you’ like this so much…….feel “FREE” to move there but don’t foist
      this BS on me and mine. (over and out)

    • ezra says:

      “What part of “WE DON’T WANT IT” don’t you understand?”

      Duh: The part where the repealers claim they don’t want “it”, but then they DO want “it” when “it” is one of the popular provisions of Obamacare, e.g., elimination of coverage restrictions based on pre-existing conditions.

      I’m just disappointed that the repealers can’t get with Mae’s program and unmask the scamming welfare cheats who are trying to get coverage with their pre-existing conditions.

    • Diane says:

      Actually, Pro, I do know people who have left the US for healthcare, generally for elective procedures that are extremely expensive in the US. As you’ve indicated, those expenses are largely due to the cost of malpractice insurance and litigation, so that fact ends up bolstering your original argument.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      ezra, every time you post something new, you withdraw from the sum of human knowledge. I don’t usually lead off with an insult but you are categorically ignorant of the medical insurance business as well as inept as to the necessity of personal responsibility. You seem to approach this whole argument from the the aspect that healthcare is a basic human right. It is not. The government is not put there to give you life and to provide for you or anyone else. That includes food, shelter, transportation and yes, health. The government’s job is to insure that you have an unfettered, clear path to freedom to do and provide for yourself as you please, so long as it doesn’t interfere with another’s right to same. By mandating health coverage, the government is taking from those who would otherwise take care of themselves. If you don’t take care of yourself, then it’s your problem.

      But, I refuse to argue with an idiot, for you will inevitably drag me down to your level then beat me with experience.

    • Diane says:

      Ezra – Perhaps it would help to point out that there are essentially two categories of pre-existing conditions, which I suppose we could call chronic and acute. Chronic conditions are the result of some long-term illness, something that you’ve known about for quite a little time. A friend of mine, for instance, has Crohn’s Disease. She’s known about it since she was a teenager. That qualifies as a pre-existing condition, and it makes it hard for her to get health insurance – but not impossible. She can get it by being part of a group, such as through work or by joining a voluntary group. She can also pay for it herself, although that turned out to be so expensive it was actually more economical to pay for the treatments herself. What health insurance would give her in that case is protection from catastrophic illnesses. So, coverage for those types of pre-existing conditions is available, it’s just more expensive, as it should be in any rational marketplace.

      Acute conditions are those that arise suddenly, with little or no warning. Car accidents, cancer diagnoses (in non-smokers), things like that. Pre-existing conditions like those should not be covered. As Pro has pointed out, and as you have agreed, insurance exists to spread the risks around. If people with what I’m calling acute pre-existing conditions are allowed to buy insurance to cover them, then the insurance industry goes down the tubes.

      Many people do want pre-existing conditions covered. I think, though, if we differentiated among the two types I’ve mentioned, support for the first would be significantly greater than for the second, yet Mr. Obama’s plan covers them both. At least, as far as anyone can tell – they do still seem to be finding things in that “bill”. Even support for covering the chronic conditions is not universal. The woman I mentioned above is, in fact, strongly opposed to the idea of covering any pre-existing conditions, except the way it’s currently done. I think if those distinctions were made, support for Mr. Obama’s plan to force coverage for “pre-existing conditions” would evaporate like snowflakes on a hot stove.

      One other point: you seemed at one point to be trying to make the talking point that the choices are either Mr. Obama’s bill or leaving things alone. No one, no one at all, is saying that there aren’t things that need to be changed. You keep asking why people aren’t proposing those changes. They are. Allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines has been proposed and roundly ignored by the Democrats multiple times in the past several years. Tort reform was treated to the cross-and-holy-water approach when it was brought up in the abbreviated debate on Mr. Obama’s bill, and even you seem to agree that it would be a good thing. I am not 100% convinced about Pro’s 50% reduction statement, but then I don’t think he meant that as more than a ballpark figure: I am convinced that the cost of medical care would come down significantly if we just implemented those two items, both of which have been on the table many times.

    • ezra says:

      Thanks, Rusty.

      Your beef shouldn’t be with me. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Proreason is absolutely right, too, about the functioning of the insurance market.

      I am simply hoping to leverage the vast knowledge of those here to point me in the direction of a repealer in a position of power who is supportive of your position.

      Instead, they all seem focused on ensuring that affordable insurance is available to those with pre-existing conditions.

      See recent comments by Rep. Pete Olson (http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/01/promise_kept_all_texas_republi.html):

      “Congress can repeal and replace this law with legislation that ensures that individuals with pre-existing conditions receive access to affordable care, allows people to shop across state lines for more competitive insurance rates, and allows small businesses to join together so they can provide more affordable, quality coverage for their employees in the same way that large corporations and unions can.”

      But as we all know, ensuring cheap access for people with pre-existing conditions completely undercuts the market and makes a mockery of the tenets of personal responsibility.

    • proreason says:

      If it wasn’t for government interference and now the disastrous, country-killing Obamyscare, there would be a plethora of medical services that would make the US not just the dominant #1 country in the world for health care, but would skyrocket our healthcare so far beyond the rest of the world that other countries would be forced to abandon their dinasour centrally-controlled monstrosities.

      We all think of pharmaceuticals and medical devices as the biggest innovation of the last 30 years. Wrong. The biggest innovation has been doc-in-the-boxes. It’s the only innovation that has held costs down at all in the insurance-polluted medical system. Without them, medical costs would be hugely higher. The only problem is that they don’t go far enough.

      And Walmart was in the process of solving that problem. Three years ago, they were beginning to open clinics in Walmarts that would be staffed primarilly by nurse practitioners that would have been a huge huge improvement in cost and service. (Why some people insist on seeing people with 140 IQs and 12 years of advanced training to treat sniffles that are going away on there own in a week can only be attibuted to one factor…people are deceived into thinking their employers pay for health insurance.) But where are those $50 treatment centers today? Not only would Walmart have them, but there would be a medical arms race in process for Target, and major hospital systems to have them. They would be in the process of being as common as fast-food restaurants. Where are they? In the Obamyscare rat-hole, that’s where.

      And that is just one example. Doctors from the late 90’s up to 2008 were busy developing specialty treatment hospitals that would treat major medical problems at a fraction of the cost of “full-service” centers. Two examples are cancer-treatment centers and non-invasive back surgeries. I’m not saying they were cheap yet, but the mechanisms were in place to dramatically drive costs down. The decade of the 2010’s would have seen them proliferate.

      Did you know that over 200 physician-sponsered hospitals have been cancelled since ObamyScare? They have. As far as I know there are NO such hospitals in development. Instead, physicians are moving into huge, bureaucratic hospital networks that will quickly evolve into the GM / Ford / Chrysler of medicine…in other words, massive, people killing beaurocratic nightmares that will prepare people for the armageddon nightmare to come, universal health care, or in other words, the death panels that will kill your parents so that illegal aliens get their sniffles treated just like everybody but the commissars, because only univeral useless expensive medical care for everyone but commissars is “fair”; or rather, only because that provides sufficient control for your commissars to rule over you like 12th century Dukes ruled over their serfs.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      All attempts at bipartisan discussion which raised the pre-existing conditions issue as well as inter-state commerce by healthcare insurance providers and the tort issue was all ignored by the last congress. They instead wanted socialist power over the people of the US, seeing it as an opportunity to suck vast sums of money from them, while returning very little. Anyone who cannot see the obvious parallels in the Canadian and UK systems is blind. Our system is excellent but not perfect and/or without its challenges. But when illegal immigrants get free care at the emergency rooms while not paying any taxes or for any healthcare plan, they are a drain on the system that is supposed to “distribute the risk” which is what insurance is all about.

      Then, the ridiculous lawsuits for someone who had a miscarriage and is hoping to clean up in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars range should be held accountable in case they lose the lawsuit. Very seldom do medical professionals act out of negligence. Some are better than others. But why do so many people come here for an education in medicine, only to stay and set up a practice? Because our system makes it profitable and doctors can do well, if they are good. And most of them are.

      By preventing insurance companies the ability to operate across state lines without setting up sole and separate entities, the democrats have caused prices to go up. By permitting “no risk” malpractice lawsuits, they have caused malpractice insurance to to skyrocket. How can anyone do their job on a day-to-day basis if the threat of being sued every time you did it was looming? I blame that problem squarely on our lack of control over the legal system for, the rules are written by—lawyers. As Wm. Shakespeare said, “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.”.

      However, the things that are wrong with the healthcare “system” can all be fixed with level-headed and thoughtful correcting. Not by dumping it in favor of a state-run system. When has the government ever done anything more cheaply and effectively than the private sector? I am absolutely horrified that I have to live my upcoming retirement years under the threat of government-managed death. When professionals are replaced by state-eunuchs, they care only for themselves and their time off. There is no passion or desire to do a good job. My experience in the military is testimony to that. For what a “good job” means to them is how it looks to the bean-counters and the person in charge, regardless of actual being able to do the job. Appearances and fluff.

      The newly installed 2,000+ page bill is specifically tailored to destroy the private health insurance industry and the reasons for that are many. 1) The socialists hate the insurance industry and are jealous of the amount of money they take in, in spite of the minuscule amount of profit they make. 2) It is a tremendous opportunity to control the people through countless acts of law-generation. They can take away your pudding, your cakes, your salt, your trans fats, etc etc. And therefore, control you. and 3) tying in with 1, It’s a huge source of revenue. Tax revenue that buys votes, keeps them in power and allows them to spend it on things that make them look good.

    • proreason says:

      Mae, a 50% drop in the cost of health care is a low-ball estimate but it will take a few decades to achieve it. I’m using inflation-adjusted dollars, of course. The factors that would make that happen in a free country would be:

      – competition
      – phase-out of employer-provided health insurance (which would instantly turn a country of “I’ll take two if it’s free” to a country of rational health care consumers)
      – conversion of “health insurance” from oil-change insurance to actual health insurance (i.e., high deductable plans)
      – new forms of medical provision platforms (see my post about Walmart and cancer treatment centers above)
      – restructuring of doctor-patient relationships. i.e., doctors see sick people. Nurses and other practitioners see people with lifestyle issues or minor ailments for which no cures are available
      – health insurance for lifestyle “diseases” with costs adjusted to the choices (i.e., if you can’t demonstrate a genetic basis for obesity, you are going to pay through the nose for medical attention for obesity)
      – tort reform
      – AGGRESSIVE prosecution of medicare and medicaid criminals
      – tiered health insurance plans (i.e., low cost plans with formularies restricted to generic or low-cost drugs, hmo-type plans, high deductables, networks of nurse practitioners vs the top-end with individual physician attention). Such plans would evolve on their own without government interference. The illegal immigrant would be able to buy a $200 plan and the CEO would be able to buy a $20,000 plan. The CEO would get instant attention from a renowned genius; the illegal immigrant would wait in line to see a well-trained technician. Just like every other aspect of life. If the illegal immigrant wants more, he can become a citizen, get an education, work his ass off, make sacrifices and become a CEO.
      – government-provided / “free” medical care limited to the genuinely needy % of the population (10% of less, probably 5% or so)
      – and most importantly, getting government out of the health care business entirely

    • ezra says:

      Thanks, Diane.

      That does help to explain Mae’s viewpoint. It would be easier if the “acute” vs. “chronic” distinction could be used always when people are talking about pre-existing conditions.

      Remember that Obamacare, while not making the distinction, essentially sidesteps the whole pre-existing conditions issue by mandating coverage. No more free rides for healthy folks. We must admit that this is one way to do it (and essentially the way every other advanced nation on the planet does it), but I applaud those, like Proreason, who believe there has to be a better way.

      Rusty & Proreason: I appreciate your insights and proposals. But I must continue to come back to this question: Is it not somewhat problematic that the number one stated goal of the repealers in their proposals to fix the health care system is to ensure the availability of affordable health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions?

    • tranquil.night says:

      Trolls don’t discuss facts. Rather they try and drag you into an argument over what defines a fact. Their belief in their own superiority is their fact, whereas our facts are nothing more than our archaic beliefs.

      The only reason the Left has any interest in selling compromise now is because they just got the crap beat out of them – by mostly women, nonetheless. We all know how it looks on the playground when the kid who thinks he’s hot turd gets his ass beat by a girl. That’s adding insult to injury to that hyper-inflated cranium.

    • proreason says:

      The number one goal for Health Care, which was about the 10th most important thing the country needed to address until marxists decided to make it the focus of subversion, is to preserve the best Health Care system in the world.

      The number one goal for the country, compared to which the importance of Health Care shrinks to zero, is to preserve the US as a free country.

      Every word of Obamyscare is diametrically opposed to both of those goals. It is the blueprint for tyranny, as designed by the people who want to rule us and loot the country, just as Lenin ruled and looted Russia.

      There will be no quarter given to fools and idiots when those of us who are going to preserve the country rise up against the tyrants.

    • ezra says:

      A good one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bejdhs3jGyw

      But repealers today love Medicare.

    • proreason says:

      Actually, I hate medicare and Social Security.

      But I’m damn well going to get back as much as I can of the hundreds of thousands of dollars (before inflation and lost opportunity costs) that my spouse and i have shoveled into the scam at the point of a gun. For me, I calculate I would have about a million in the bank if FICA and medicare taxes hadn’t been confiscated from me for decades. That doesn’t count in any way income taxes that have mostly been used to make politicians billionaires and to buy the votes of deadbeats to keep the billionaires in office.

      Somehow, I suspect that thought process influences others as well as myself.

      But fools don’t see it that way, do you? First, you would have to be able to count to figure it out. And second, you would have to be capable of supporting youself to have the privilege of having 50%+ of your earnings confiscated.

      You see, medicare isn’t an “entitlement” like your food stamps and tax rebates. We paid for it, just like we paid for Social Security many times over.

      And oh yes, it hasn’t escaped the attention of many of us that the million of so many have invested at the point of a gun goes poof if we should die, or let’s say, be counseled about the problems we are going to cause our children if we don’t go quietly into the night. You are aware, aren’t you ezra, that no matter how much a person had confiscated over decades, once a person dies, the heirs get a $214 “death benefit”, period. I call it, the only deficit reduction mechanism libwits have ever liked. Also known as Death Panels…the second reason for Obamyscare, right behind the destruction of a free country. You wouldn’t have that in mind, would you ezra?

  11. Reality Bytes says:

    Mayhem doesn’t take pre existing conditions either. And they think we’re the morons.



  12. canary says:

    EZRA, did you know Obama wrote in his 2006 Hope book, that America could not afford national/universal health care. He also admitted he didn’t have the answers.

    Why would Obama and the Democrats take such a gigantic leap in passing an enormous bill.
    Do, you realize after it passed, after the rush rush to pass it, Obama took his time signing it, allowing the Democrats to spend even more nights changing and adding to it. Thieves in the night forcing you buy health care insurance, with the government & the IRS running it.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »