Interesting Question

Kim Metzger offers the following thought:

“Will the tea partiers who have been elected refuse the health plan offered to members of congress?”

PAD

118 comments on “Interesting Question

    1. From what I remember, Congress didn’t “forget.” IIRC, some legislators throwing the requirement that Congressmen purchase their health care on the exchanges in hopes of killing votes for the Affordable Care Act. Instead, other legislators thought it was a great idea and insisted that the requirement stay put.

    1. Unless of course they manage to kill it, basically leaving folks like you with no option and them with a very lucrative health care plan still in place. Which is the GOP definition of a win/win.
      .
      PAD

      1. .
        No, sadly it’s actually letting people hang on the edge, go bankrupt and suffer for a long time trying to get what they can when they can. Dying quickly might actually be kinder in some cases.

    2. Actually, it’s the same health plan (or, I should say, CHOICE of plans from certain vendors) that *I* have, as a federal employee.

      … The same, steadily-worsening health plan, with growing costs and shrinking benefits.

      Of course, I don’t have the luxury of a salary three to five times what I DO get (despite their having all transportation and housing and travel paid for, and getting a per diem above salary for days they do their actual job in their actual place of business–that in addition to their either already being rich or having grown rich in office on speaking fees and book deals), which makes the rising costs of health care premiums much easier to take.

      … and, of course, I don’t have the luxury of strolling into Bethesda Naval Hospital if I get a tummyache. (Don’t forget that there’s an Attending Physician of the U.S. Congress on staff–we barely have one nurse to serve a 5000-person-plus facility)

  1. I’m sure they will follow the Democratic members example, in that they have continued to pay the same tax rates they payed before the 2002 cuts.

      1. But it would be very smart to pass a law that requires congress to live by the same rules they force on others, in all areas.

      2. Bill, given the lack of Constitutional knowledge that many of this year’s GOP candidates have shown, perhaps we should have a law passed requiring that all candidates running for public office to pass a basic civics test.

    1. Way to compare apples-to-oranges there. Members of Congress CAN opt out of receiving the health-care coverage that is provided to them as a “perk” of the office. Now, while ANYONE can pay more to the IRS than they actually owe (believe it or not, there’s NO requirement that forces you to accept the refund you’re owed), you CANNOT decide for yourself what tax rate you want to pay. Again, if you want to effectively pay a higher tax rate, you, even Congresscritters, can actually choose to have more money withheld from your paycheck.
      .
      By the way, have you actually checked to see how much income tax Democratic members of Congress pay compared to GOPers?

      1. You know, I’m not really fond of apples, but I enjoy oranges quite regularly. So when I compare apples and oranges, oranges always win.

        You could also not take tax deductions you are entitled to, this would increase your rate.

  2. Huh? Am I missing something here? Why would Tea Party candidates who were just elected be expected to feel some sort of moral quandry about paying into a traditional health insurance plan common to plans offered by employers around the country? Why would anyone expect them to “refuse” participation? Congress exempted itself from participating in the president’s new healthcare plan, so there’s no moral quandry I can see.

    1. If they are true libertarians, they would disapprove and turn it down (just like Rep. Ron Paul has consistently done).
      .
      And as some have already mentioned, when the exchanges kick in, they are obligated to participate by law — no special treatment or exemptions.

  3. “Will the tea partiers who have been elected refuse the health plan offered to members of congress?”
    .
    The answer is in doubt?

    1. I always thought a Congressperson’s salary should be equal to the average income of folks in their district. Want a raise? Then improve things for the folks back home.

      1. That would probably just lead to massive expensive pork projects. (I mean worse than we already get.)
        I’ve long thought it might be a good idea to tie Congressmen’s salaries to the amount of legislation they pass– every time they vote for a new law, they get a pay cut.

  4. In truth, David the Bold, the Affordable Care Act is a Republican health plan at heart. It relies entirely on private insurers and requires an individual mandate. In this, it resembles the Lincoln Chafee plan from the mid-90’s and Massachussetts’ Mitt Romney plan far more than Lyndon Johnson’s single-payer Medicare or Medicaid health insurance plans.
    .
    In fact, the Affordable Care Act was partially written by Republicans like Chuck Grassley. However, no Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, so the Democrats get to take all the credit for the Republicans’ health plan.

    1. Don’t worry. As soon as it becomes popular enough, the GOP will relabel Obamacare to Republicare and say it was their idea all along.

      1. Don’t worry. As soon as it becomes popular enough, the GOP will relabel Obamacare to Republicare and say it was their idea all along. — Sasha
        .
        Heh. That’s true — Chuck Grassley’s already taking credit for the legislation that he voted against.

    2. Ummm, actually I wasn’t saying anything in particular about the relative merits of various real-world policies. I was just pointing out that PAD’s statement that “leaving folks like you with no option… is the GOP definition of a win” demonstrated reasoning straight from whatever planet Congressman Grayson inhabits. I feel safe stating that the GOP does not view people lacking coverage as an affirmative good. It’s certainly a possible consequence of a GOP goal– getting the Federal government out of the field– but that isn’t the same thing. I am confident that the Republican Party would be perfectly content for “folks like” Ms. Hachigian to obtain insurance options on their own. (I don’t disagree with the other part of PAD’s statement, that GOP Members of Congress would consider maintaining their Congressional benefits to be a win. Congress looks out for itself pretty well no matter who’s in the majority.)
      .
      Although to get the full effect of Graysonism, PAD would have needed to selectively quote a GOP position paper to make it sound like it said the opposite of what it actually said, and then compare the GOP to the Mafia.

    3. I am confident that the Republican Party would be perfectly content for “folks like” Ms. Hachigian to obtain insurance options on their own. — David the Bold
      .
      I’m glad to hear that the Republican Party would like me to obtain insurance options on my own, despite Republicans’ refusal to vote for the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act gives me the option to obtain insurance on my own, while the status quo did not.
      .
      Now that they have taken the House and control funding, I am especially interested in the Republican Party’s future choices on this matter.

      1. The Affordable Care Act gives me the option to obtain insurance on my own, while the status quo did not.
        .
        Mmmmm no, you still have the option to seek insurance on your own. I don’t know your financial or health situation– none of my business, really– so I don’t know how affordable or attractive your options are. The Democrats’ actions may well benefit you personally, and your options otherwise very well might stink. What I objected to was the implication– actually, explicit statement– that arranging for “folks like you” to have no options was a Republican goal, as though there were a cabal of Republican organizers sitting around the cloakroom discussing ways to maximize the number of uninsured citizens.

      2. .
        David, I may be reading too much between her lines, but what I think she’s telling you is that she has a pre and that the insurance companies won’t give her any insurance. That’s been the status quo and that’s what destroyed my wife’s finances before we met.
        .
        Now that we’ve met it’s the kids doing that.

      3. Mmmmm no, you still have the option to seek insurance on your own. I don’t know your financial or health situation– none of my business, really– so I don’t know how affordable or attractive your options are. The Democrats’ actions may well benefit you personally, and your options otherwise very well might stink. What I objected to was the implication– actually, explicit statement– that arranging for “folks like you” to have no options was a Republican goal, as though there were a cabal of Republican organizers sitting around the cloakroom discussing ways to maximize the number of uninsured citizens. — David the Bold
        .
        No, David the Bold. I do not have the option to seek health insurance on my own. I tried three times, with three different insurers. Each one rejected my application for health insurance because of my preexisting condition.
        .
        The Affordable Care Act will allow people like me to buy health insurance without discrimination in 2014.
        .
        As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I am deeply grateful for the existence of the Affordable Care Act. I do not want the Republicans to repeal it or starve it of funding.

      4. They are not some evil cabal plotting to deny people’s insurance, but the Republicans and other fiscal conservatives worldwide come across as dogmatists whose insistence that the free market can solve everything (even when real world evidence clearly tells otherwise), ends up hurting individuals like Jennifer. And that is very ironic when they parade as protectors of individual rights.

      5. David, I may be reading too much between her lines, but what I think she’s telling you is that she has a pre and that the insurance companies won’t give her any insurance. That’s been the status quo and that’s what destroyed my wife’s finances before we met. — Jerry Chandler
        .
        You guessed correctly, Jerry. :^)
        .
        I’m sorry to hear about what happened to your wife. :^( If it’s any consolation, she’s not alone. I’ve met several people over the years with similar experiences. They were either uninsured, or their health insurance did not offer enough coverage.

  5. Why should they refuse it? It’s not a government benefit, as traditionally understood, but a benefit of their employment.
    .
    What they might try to do — and I hope they do — is to require Congress to use the ObamaCare plan that they think is just grand for everyone else. Or roll back Congressional pay and budgets to prior levels.
    .
    The discussion about overpaying taxes reminds me of the law in Massachusetts, where there are two optional income tax rates. The last time I checked, less than one twentieth of one percent actually chose to pay the 5.85% rate over the 5.3% — and it’s never been any of the high-ranking Democrats like Kerry, the late Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Governor Deval Patrick. None of ’em choose to pay more than they absolutely have to.
    .
    It’s certainly going to be interesting come January…
    .
    J.

    1. I can’t believe the Massachusetts story, but your other statements sound reasonable, so they won’t happen.

    2. What they might try to do — and I hope they do — is to require Congress to use the ObamaCare plan that they think is just grand for everyone else. Or roll back Congressional pay and budgets to prior levels.
      .
      As noted upthread, the legislation requires just that.
      .
      No better way to make sure that healthcare reform works for the average citizen if the average Congressman has to live by it as well.

    3. Can’t believe I missed this one the first time around…
      .
      It’s not a government benefit, as traditionally understood, but a benefit of their employment. — Jay Tea
      .
      Jay Tea, the American government subsidizes employer health benefits. Employers use pretax dollars to buy health insurance for employees. In this way, taxpayers indirectly pays for employee health benefits.
      .
      Employer health benefits are a government benefit, whether the employer is a private or government entity.

      1. Actually that is one of the problems with health reform: those benefits are now considered income. Capturing that lost revenue is part of the financing plan. So much for middle class taxes not going up.
        .
        I am not convinced that not taxing something is quite the same as subsidizing it or making it a government benefit, by the way. My dog chews socks. If he chooses not to chew on the argyle ones, that isn’t equivalent to him giving me socks.

      2. Actually that is one of the problems with health reform: those benefits are now considered income. Capturing that lost revenue is part of the financing plan. So much for middle class taxes not going up.
        .
        I am not convinced that not taxing something is quite the same as subsidizing it or making it a government benefit, by the way. — David the Bold

        .
        Good news: the middle class will not be taxed for their employer health care benefits.
        .
        The W2 reporting requirement does not make employer health benefits taxable on the part of the employee. It just lets the employee know how much his employer spent on his health benefits. This is yet another Republican idea in the bill — Senator Chuck Grassley’s — and it’s a good one.
        .
        The 40% excise taxstarts in 2018. The middle class will not pay this tax. Only certain employers will pay this tax. The tax applies to “Cadillac” health insurance plans, and even then only for those amounts that exceed a set threshold. The majority of employers still get to pay all of their employee health insurance costs with pretax dollars. Again — no tax on the middle class.
        .
        I disagree that employer health benefits are not government subsidized. The tax break we give employers for health insurance is worth $250 billion/year.

      3. Hm, looks like my boss bit on an urban legend and passed it along to me. Good to know.
        .
        Philosophically, I disagree with you completely. A tax break is not a subsidy. Subsidies are cash grants paid out to economically struggling businesses to keep the industry afloat. It involves giving a business something it wouldn’t otherwise have had. A tax break just means that an enterprise that is generating income will have less of that income taken away in tax, because the taxing authority approves of the way in which the enterprise is spending its own money. That is hardly an act of governmental largesse.

      4. Subsidies are cash grants paid out to economically struggling businesses to keep the industry afloat. It involves giving a business something it wouldn’t otherwise have had. A tax break just means that an enterprise that is generating income will have less of that income taken away in tax, because the taxing authority approves of the way in which the enterprise is spending its own money. That is hardly an act of governmental largesse. David (the Bold?)
        .
        If you truly believe this, you will be glad to know that the subsidies in 2014 come in the form of tax breaks, not “cash grants.”

      5. Yes, that David was me. I used to go by “David the Lawyer” but I was accused of posturing, so I went with a “Calvin and Hobbes”-inspired pseudonym instead.
        .
        And while I am overjoyed that future incentives involve tax breaks, I still think by definition that makes them not a subsidy. I think we’re really arguing about semantics, however. I would note, though, that part of that slew of provisions is a refundable tax credit, which actually is a cash payout.
        .
        As an aside, the fact that you cited that section of the article as, presumably, an example of “Good Things in the Reforms,” is probably why there will never be a consensus between conservatives and liberals on the issue, because I look at that same list as a litany of “Very Bad Things in the Reforms.”

      6. I would note, though, that part of that slew of provisions is a refundable tax credit, which actually is a cash payout.
        .
        As an aside, the fact that you cited that section of the article as, presumably, an example of “Good Things in the Reforms,” is probably why there will never be a consensus between conservatives and liberals on the issue, because I look at that same list as a litany of “Very Bad Things in the Reforms.”
        .
        — David The Bold

        .
        A refundable tax credit puts the individual who purchases private health insurance on even footing with the individual who receives government-subsidized health insurance from his employer.
        .
        I still do not understand conservative opposition to the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is a conservative solution to a the growing number of uninsured Americans in the United States.
        .
        A liberal solution would have replaced all private health insurance companies with a single-payer system. However, not enough Democrats in Congress are liberal enough to vote for a single-payer solution, so the Affordable Care Act represents the conservative solution.

  6. .
    I have a better question. How bad of a campaigner do you have to be to lose to someone who has been dead for over ten days and their death is a well known fact?
    .
    Just ask Republican John Stammreich was a distant 2nd place (35.7 percent of the vote) to the late Democratic Sen. Jenny Oropeza.
    .
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_16506535
    .
    He should just leave public life now. He’s never living this one down.

    1. Jerry, it’s not the first time it’s happened, and it won’t be the last. It happened to John Ashcroft when he ran for Senate in 2000 — the Democrat (the sitting governor) died (alongside his son) in a plane crash, his widow arranged with the new governor to be appointed if he won and promised to honor his legacy if elected, and won handily. Ashcroft said “how do you campaign against a ghost?”
      .
      In fact, I’d be surprised if when presented with the option, the deceased candidate didn’t win more often. Americans have a tendency to try to monkeywrench the political process, and it’s a great temptation.
      .
      J.

      1. .
        Yeah, I know it happened to Ashcroft. I annoyed Rush and Hannity quite a bit in the same day with that tidbit. I know that it’s happened in at least a few other cases over the years as well. Interestingly, when it happens it usually happens to Republicans.
        .
        Ashcroft said “how do you campaign against a ghost?”
        .
        The same way you campaign against a living person. You promote your ideas and positions. Saying you can’t campaign against a ghost is just a cheap excuse to lie to yourself about the fact that you’re such a piss poor candidate that the people would rather vote the option that causes a do over than vote your sorry butt in to office.

      2. Voting for a dead person is the equivalent of voting “none of the above”, which would win in a lot of election if it were offered, which is why it will not be.

    2. Oh, the possible campaign slogans:

      “I’m dying to serve my constituents!”

      “Guaranteed to be scandal-free!”

      “I’ll serve you for eternity!”

      “Dead serious about the issues!”

      “I can’t be swayed by special interests!”

  7. Pity the Society for Creative Anachronisms has probably already copyrighted it, otherwise this makes me think the US – or at least the Tea Party people should change their motto to “Forward – into the past!”

    1. Just for the record, StarWolf, I immediately started reading your post in Mr. T’s voice.

      Curse you, StarWolf. Curse you.

  8. I bet if they refuse the health care they won’t be fined or possibly jailed…unlike the rest of Americans who want no part of Obamacare.

    1. OK, I keep hearing / reading this. And, I’m wondering where it is coming from.
      .
      Reading the final bill (which, BTW, is less than 200 pages, not 1,000+ if viewed at 12 point font rather than 48), I see that lifetime coverage limits are banned, and that yearly coverage limits will be banned as of 2014. I see that denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions for children are banned, and will be banned for adults as of 2014. I see that there will be a price regulation starting in 2014. I see the expansion of Medicaid. I see the federal subsidies to private insurance companies. I see the tax cuts to hospitals who reduce readmissions.
      .
      I see that citizens must have insurance coverage of some kind by 2014 or else face a penalty of 2.5% of the citizen’s income. I see that there is an exception in place for citizens whose insurance coverage would cost more than 9.5% of their income, as that is considered unaffordable.
      .
      I do not see, “Obamacare” as a health care plan. I do not see that everyone except congressmen have to have it. I don’t see any reference to jail time.
      .
      So, am I missing it? Or is it yet another media fabrication that has taken on a life of its own?
      .
      Theno

      1. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/buy-insurance-or-go-to-jail-.html
        .
        The latest spark is a letter that Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, sent Thursday to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
        .
        Given that the health-care bill written by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus contains a $1,900 fee (or excise tax) for not buying health insurance, Ensign wanted to know what would happen if an American didn’t pay the penalty.
        .
        In a handwritten letter, Barthold told Ensign that under an existing provision of the Internal Revenue Code, willful failure to pay a fine can result in being charged with a misdemeanor which could carry a penalty of up to $25,000, or up to a year in jail, or both. The handwritten letter was a follow-up to an answer that Barthold gave Ensign during Thursday’s mark-up of the Baucus bill.
        .
        So it was a possibility at one time but there is a provision that explicitly takes that off the table. Of course, we had to pass the bill to know what was in it so that was not at all an entirely illegitimate fear.
        .
        (And taking off the jail option illustrates a weakness in the system–if you don’t buy a health plan the government can only collect the fine by reducing the amount of their tax refund. For a lot of folks that holds no fear, they don’t make enough to have any to be refunded. So forget the plan, just wait until you need it and then go buy some–they can’t turn you down for a pre-existing condition.
        .
        Will many take advantage of that loophole? Time will tell. But anyway, the jail thing was not made up from whole cloth. (it also didn’t help when people like Keith Olbermann said stuff like “I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health-care reform. Pass this at your peril, senators. And sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a law-breaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must.”

    2. I find myself hard-pressed to imagine why any sane person, let alone Congressperson, would refuse to purchase health insurance if they could afford it. (Yes, there are “young invincibles” out there, but that mindset doesn’t exist in an average Congressman who is going to be over 40 years old.)
      .
      But if we’re talking about Tea People, then that would explain a lot.

      1. Sasha, the question is “do people have the right to make bad decisions on their own behalf?”
        .
        I think they do. I think that, within reason, people can make bad decisions — that’s the best way most people can learn how to make good decisions.
        .
        Let’s also remember that under the new rules, the “minimum” coverage goes up quite a bit from what people have now. So they can’t choose to take risks with the only thing they can truly call their own — their selves.
        .
        I live in a state that has no laws requiring adults to wear seat belts, or helmets on motorcycles. I like that. I think anyone who doesn’t use them is an idiot, but I support people’s rights to be idiots. Because I don’t think that one size fits all for all solutions.
        .
        I knew a very short woman. As such, she had to sit very close to her steering wheel. In an accident, her airbag was pretty much guaranteed to break her neck instantly. But because of state and federal “safety” laws, she had to wear her seat belt and couldn’t have the airbag disabled. But I guess, in the big picture, a measure that might save otherwise-ignorant people from their own stupidity is worth risking her life over, right?
        .
        J.

      2. A corollary question that then arises is “If someone’s bad decisions adversely affect other people, do those affected people have a right to do something about it or prevent it?”
        .
        The reason the mandate exists is that it is the only way a market-based (as opposed to a socialized or single payer) universal healthcare program can work.
        .
        I agree that one size rarely fits all, but it usually fits most; however, it can lead to unfortunate consequences, as in the case of your acquaintance. That said, laws can be modified to address your friend’s issue, and cars could be designed by car makers to remedy the problem as well.

      3. Sasha, the question is “do people have the right to make bad decisions on their own behalf?”
        .
        I think they do. I think that, within reason, people can make bad decisions — that’s the best way most people can learn how to make good decisions. — Jay Tea

        .
        Jay Tea, do you know who pays for the uninsured people right now who wind up in the emergency room and cannot pay their bills?
        .
        You do, in the form of taxes and higher health insurance premiums.
        .
        Every uninsured person who winds up in the emergency room puts a drag on your finances. Their “bad decision” does not occur in a vacuum.

      4. Jennfer – Problem is, by removing their ability to make decisions – good or bad – for themselves, I’m also removing my own ability to do so. And I don’t much care for that.

      5. So, where do we draw the line? Seat belts and motorcycle helmets, health insurance… why not toss smoking on that list? Cigarettes are the only legal product that, when used precisely as intended, will kill the user.
        .
        Men having sex with men is extremely unhealthy. All kinds of diseases and conditions can result. Let’s ban that, too.
        .
        (I’m on the record as supporting gay marriage — I’m just making a point here.)
        .
        New York is getting ready to get soda machines off of city property.
        .
        San Francisco just banned Happy Meals.
        .
        Transfats, anyone?
        .
        The question is simple. Where do you draw the line on telling people they can’t make their own bad decisions? At what point are you saying “you can’t be trusted to not screw things up for yourself, and neither can I, so we’re going to MAKE you do what I think you ought to do!”?
        .
        (That last punctuation is a mess. Sorry, but I think my meaning’s clear.)
        .
        I will always be biased on the side of “give the individuals the freedom to make their own choices, for good or ill.”
        .
        J.

      6. Smokers do suffer a penalty for their choice in the manner of having to pay higher premiums.
        .
        I’m sure you’d agree that men having sex with women, and vice versa, is just as unhealthy, if not more so. 🙂 That said, many of the issues that might arise from whatever kind of sexual activity are covered by having health insurance.
        .
        NY removing soda machines off city property – are they banning soda machines on private property as well? If not, not a big deal (although the SF fatwa on Happy Meals is a bit much) IMHO.
        .
        “Where do we draw the line?” is the eternal question, isn’t it? But like I mentioned before: If someone’s individual actions adversely impact other people, do the impacted people have a right to do something about it?
        .
        In the case of voluntarily uninsured people who suddenly find themselves in need of care, the rest of society is impacted since everyone else pays higher taxes and premiums for such foolishness. The only other option is to let such people suffer and/or die and that is something that society cannot countenance.
        .
        Unless we are willing to move to a socialized or single-payer model for universal healthcare, an individual mandate is the only way a market-based solution is feasible.

      7. Jay Tea has a point there. Let people make their own decisions. Unfortunately, both the Right and the Left want to make your decisions for you.
        .
        It’s only that the Left is the overprotective Mommy that wants to protect you from the big, bad world. While the Right is the stern Daddy that wants to make sure you don’t go to the wild parties.

      8. Jay, “mandatory healthcare” is not about denying people the right to make bad decisions. It’s about making sure they do their part to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions. No one is stopping you from getting drunk and climbing up a tree, but voluntarily refusing healthcare dumps the cost of your trip to the emergency room on taxpayers.

  9. San Francisco just banned Happy Meals. — Jay Tea
    .
    Wrong, Jay Tea. San Francisco banned toys in children’s meals that do not meet appropriate nutritional standards.
    .
    They did not ban Happy Meals.

    1. They did not ban Happy Meals.
      .
      I think this one just might be chalked up to the media’s sensationalist headlines.

      1. They didn’t ban Happy meals…just meals that have the nutrition of a happy meal and the toy of a Happy meal. But not happy meals.
        .
        Couldn’t McDonalds just add a 5 lb pumpkin to the meal, which would, on a percentage basis, probably bring it up to snuff? The school lunches always add some carrot sticks or something that the kids throw out…maybe we need some law that would actually force them to eat it. For the greater good.

    2. That’s what makes a Happy Meal happy. It sure isn’t the fries.
      .
      Learn to say “No” you gutless wimps, then you won’t need to depend on the state to make parenting easier for you.

      1. .
        “That’s what makes a Happy Meal happy. It sure isn’t the fries.”
        .
        Then there’s no problem. They can sub apple slices for fries (as we have to do for Ian) and the meal should fall in line with the rules to still be able to hand out toys.

  10. To those who oppose the Affordable Care Act (Bill Mulligan? Jay Tea?), please consider the Act’s Waiver for State Innovation.
    .
    Each individual state is free to ignore the Affordable Care Act *if* that state can come up with something better.
    .
    I am deeply grateful for the Affordable Care Act. If you push your state government to replace the ACA with a different system, though, I won’t object.

    1. I was not aware of that provision. Interesting. Who gets to decide what is “better” is the only question I have. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Jennifer.

    2. You’re welcome, Bill. :^)
      .
      Who gets to decide what is “better” is the only question I have.
      .
      “The plans the states develop have to offer coverage and out-of-pocket spending protections that are at least as good as what the bill promises. They can’t increase the deficit, either. Beyond that? Go nuts.” — Ezra Klein
      .
      I think California has a good chance of sidestepping the Affordable Care Act with its own legislation. In the past, California tried to pass SB 810, which would implement a single-payer system here in California. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 810 twice, but we recently elected a Democratic governor. So there’s a chance this legislation will finally pass here in California.

      1. So what happens when a physician refuses to accept the single-payer system’s approved rate? Is the patient on the hook for the balance?

    3. So what happens when a physician refuses to accept the single-payer system’s approved rate? Is the patient on the hook for the balance?
      .
      Good question. My Canadian in-laws in Ontario have single-payer healthcare. They never get bills from doctors or hospitals for anything, so the patient is not “on the hook” for any balance.

      1. I think it would be GREAT if California instituted a single payer system–kind of a lab experiment for whether or not all the theory really would work.
        .
        With 50 states we have 50 opportunities to try things out. Granted, not all states have the same populations and issues but I think a lot of good could come from seeing some attempts at solutions that do not involve a national overhaul of the entire health care system. I’m just nervous that if it doesn’t work we will have really bollixed things up.

      2. Well, your liberal intelligentsia has already thought about that problem. What they will do (already slowly implementing), is tie in licensing to practice medicine with agreeing to be part of the single payer system. It is evil to the core.

      3. The problem with having the nation’s most populous state conducting a lab experiment is that if the lab experiment blows up (my prediction), 37 million people have to live with the consequences. I suppose that’s better than turning the entire country into a lab experiment and having it go blooey, but that’s small comfort for the lab rats, um, citizens.
        .
        I suspect having only one or a few states engaged in the endeavor would actually make failure more certain. Neighboring states would provide substantially better markets for providers.

      4. “So what happens when a physician refuses to accept the single-payer system’s approved rate? Is the patient on the hook for the balance?”
        .
        Probably. Of course, under the current system, if your health care provider suddenly decides to not accept your insurance plan, you are on the hook anyway.
        .
        I recently had surgery, and dutifully cleared the surgeon and the hospital – the only providers with whom I had any prior contact – with my insurance company. I discovered after the fact that my anethesiologist, specifically requsted by my surgeon, was neither a member of the surgeon’s practice nor an employee of the hospital, but a private contractor. And I also discovered that this man I have no conscious memory of meeting (he did a good job, I will admit) now expected me to pay him $6,000. But, if I “act now(!)” and pay him within the month, he will knock it down to only $400.
        .
        When I questioned ethicacy this practice, my surgeon’s staff simply explained “Well, you can’t accept *all* insurance plans.”
        .
        A Single Payer System won’t solve everything. But at least it would reduce the chances of you getting jacked while unconscious in the operating room. Doctors won’t have to play spin the bottle with scores of insurance companies hoping to get paid. And patients won’t have to accurately predict their future illnesses when they go to choose the right combination of health plan and doctor. You are either in, or you are out. Period.

    4. Jennifer, nice idea. At first glance. But it has some serious flaws.
      .
      Who decides if it’s “better?”
      .
      What about people who say that their decisions about their health care are no more the state’s business than they are Washington’s?
      .
      But it’s being tried in Massachusetts. Only a couple of years into RomneyCare, the program’s grossly over budget. Doctors are looking at the state-mandated fee structure and retiring or moving out of state. Medical practices are moving out of state. A lot of companies are running the numbers, seeing that the state fines are less than the premiums, and dumping their coverage. A lot of individuals are running the numbers, seeing that the state fines are less than the premiums, and dumping their coverage. Insurance companies are looking at the state-mandated rates, seeing that they’re losing money, and leaving the state. And a lot of people are finding that they can’t find a primary care physician, like they’re mandated to have.
      .
      This simply isn’t a problem that you can command a solution to. In the end, “health care” relies on individuals — health care providers — to work. Trying to control costs boils down to telling them what they can or cannot charge for their services.
      .
      And until you repeal the 14th Amendment, they can just tell us to go pound sand and simply get out of the medical profession. Or move into a less regulated specialty. Or move into academia or research.
      .
      That’s the dirty little secret (well, one of many) of ObamaCare and RomneyCare and socialized medicine: at its core, it’s dependent on medical professionals quietly assenting to be controlled. If they choose to opt out, the program is screwed.
      .
      That’s what’s happening in Massachusetts. Doctors, practices, and insurance agents are saying “screw this” and walking away. And there’s not a dámņëd thing the state can do to stop them.
      .
      And nor should they have that power.
      .
      J.

    5. Well, your liberal intelligentsia has already thought about that problem. What they will do (already slowly implementing), is tie in licensing to practice medicine with agreeing to be part of the single payer system. It is evil to the core. — Rudy
      .
      Um, no. This is the kind of hysterical hyperbole that Jon Stewart skewered in his Rally to Restore Sanity. It stirs up emotions, but it is not true.
      .
      Canadian doctors are free to work anywhere they want after they get their licenses. A tiny percentage of Canadian doctors move to the United States to practice medicine. The majority choose to work in Canada. Anecdotally, one Canadian doctor prefers the hassle-free experience of the Canadian single-payer system.

  11. Jennfer – Problem is, by removing their ability to make decisions – good or bad – for themselves, I’m also removing my own ability to do so. And I don’t much care for that. — The StarWolf
    .
    Please consider my situation, StarWolf. I tried to make a “good” decision three times. I applied for health insurance to three separate health insurers. Each insurer turned me down because of my preexisting condition.
    .
    Why can’t people like me have the ability to make a “good” decision?

    1. why didn’t you have it before — Steve H
      .
      When I moved to California, I initially had health insurance under my employers. However, I work as a visual effects artist. Every time a project ends, VFX artists get laid off, so I move from employer to employer. My health insurance plan changed with each employer.
      .
      Around 2005 most visual effects studios stopped offering health insurance plans. I paid for a short-term health insurance plan after my previous employer’s health benefits ran out. In 2006 I applied for insurance from Anthem Blue Cross.
      .
      That was the year I found out I had a preexisting condition, because Anthem Blue Cross sent me a rejection letter. Until that point, I did not know I had a preexisting condition. Anthem rejected me for health care I had received years ago.

  12. It is in every citizen’s best interest to have health insurance. People remaining uninsured has the following ramifications:

    1) Less likely to take advantage of preventive treatments, most of which is either free or inexpensive on insurance — ranging from dental check-ups to routine physicals — that can prevent long-term issues that cost far more. Generally, this occurs after young people spend their 20s without health insurance and when they manage to finally get it, these issues come up.

    2) The uninsured don’t live in a vacuum. An unwed mother without health insurance still has to have the child. No hospital will turn her away. The bills cost a fortune and the result is usually passed on to you, the taxpayer.

    I regret that it has to be a mandate to have health insurance. After all, how many uninsured people have cable, Internet, cell phones or iPods (not all, I’m just pointing out that choices are often made that don’t make sense logically).

    However, as Obama himself said when campaigning, people would be more inclined to get health insurance if it’s affordable. I think we’ve all been there. If you have a job without benefits, the cost of health insurance is so expensive that you could be a luddite — no cable, Internet, cell phone or iPod — and still not afford it on your own. If premiums could be made what they are for people with jobs, the situation would improve greatly.

  13. SER, no one argues that everyone SHOULD be responsible enough to get their own insurance. The issue is, does the federal government have the power to insist on it, under penalty of law?
    .
    Replace “have insurance” with “not smoke” in your above. Sounds pretty convincing to me.
    .
    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to order a citizen to buy a product merely for the privilege of living in the United States. It’s an obscene perversion of the Commerce Clause, which has already been stretched beyond recognition.
    .
    I do not dispute that insurance is A Good Thing. I do not acknowledge the federal government’s right to demand that I buy it and provide them with proof that it meets their minimum standards.
    .
    At that point, they have asserted their right to control how we live our lives, having shown as having an interest in our living healthy lives. (After all, they’re picking up the tab for us — he who takes the king’s gold plays the king’s tune.) So if they want to regulate alcohol consumption, risky sexual practices, ban smoking, and whatever else they want to do.
    .
    Think I’m exaggerating? Go buy some decongestants. Try to get a meal with transfats or salt in New York City. Buy your kid a Happy Meal in San Francisco.
    .
    Gotta draw the line somewhere. I say here.
    .
    J.

    1. Jay, would you be in favor of a socialized (like the VA)or single-payer (like Medicare) universal healthcare system instead of the Obama market-based one, which requires an individual mandate to work?

      If not, what system would you use?

      BTW, the decongestant thing isn’t because the government is playing nanny, it’s because drug dealers frequently buy large amounts of psuedophedrine products to make speed (authoritative daddy). You won’t have any difficulty buying non-psuedophedrine decongestants.

      1. Nanny: I am going to prevent you from doing something because it is bad for you.
        .
        Daddy: I am going to prevent you from doing something because you might do something bad.
        .
        But that’s my take. Ultimately, it’s all semantics.

      1. Jennifer, I have insurance through my employer. And I came in with a rather nasty pre-existing condition, but they accepted it. (shrug)
        .
        What would I prefer? Well, the source of employment-based insurance was when wages were frozen by the government, and non-salary benefits like insurance were offered to let employers compete for workers on other grounds.
        .
        I dunno what I’d prefer. I’ve advocated letting the states experiment with solutions, giving us 50 laboratories for finding out what works and what doesn’t, instead of this massive, flawed “one size fits all” federal alleged solution that is bound and determined to repeat many of the mistakes being made in Massachusetts — with the added benefit of being wrapped up in national politics (note how the House shut out ANY Republican involvement when they were preparing the bill) and all the baggage that goes with that.
        .
        Jennifer, I feel for you, but the solution we have now that fixes your problem makes things tremendously worse for a lot of others and tramples on the foundations of our entire system of government. No offense, but that’s too high a price for me to accept.
        .
        There are other proposals out there that would address your situation without doing violence to the Constitution and nationalizing a full one-sixth of the economy. I’d recommend the federal government authorize the states to experiment with solutions, offering support and coordinating data and whatnot — but letting the several states trying out various solutions.
        .
        To think that the federal government can find the “one size fits all” solution the first time out, with one party shut out of the initial deliberations, and demonizing those who challenge the presumptions and point out what they see as flaws (lame duck Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL): “here’s the Republican plan: die quickly!” comes to mind — thank god he’s on his way out) ain’t gonna work.
        .
        J.

      2. I dunno what I’d prefer. I’ve advocated letting the states experiment with solutions, giving us 50 laboratories for finding out what works and what doesn’t, instead of this massive, flawed “one size fits all” federal alleged solution that is bound and determined to repeat many of the mistakes being made in Massachusetts — with the added benefit of being wrapped up in national politics (note how the House shut out ANY Republican involvement when they were preparing the bill) and all the baggage that goes with that.
        .
        With the Act’s Waiver for State Innovation, that is exactly what can happen. If the individual states choose to not experiment, you can’t blame the federal government for that.
        .
        I don’t remember exactly how things went down in the house, but considering that Repubs had no goal in healthcare reform except to make sure it never came into being so that Obama’s presidency would be knee-capped, I can hardly blame what happened.
        .
        To think that the federal government can find the “one size fits all” solution the first time out, with one party shut out of the initial deliberations, and demonizing those who challenge the presumptions and point out what they see as flaws (lame duck Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL): “here’s the Republican plan: die quickly!” comes to mind — thank god he’s on his way out) ain’t gonna work.
        .
        I saw Grayson’s comment as a pushback to the idiotic “death panels” nonsense the Republican peddled.
        .
        Really, how could Dems work in good faith with people who demand concessions on the bill in Washington, yet denounce the bill as a grandma-killer when they speak to their constituents back home?

      3. Jennifer, I feel for you, but the solution we have now that fixes your problem makes things tremendously worse for a lot of others and tramples on the foundations of our entire system of government. No offense, but that’s too high a price for me to accept.
        .
        There are other proposals out there that would address your situation without doing violence to the Constitution and nationalizing a full one-sixth of the economy. — Jay Tea

        .
        These are emotional words, but they are empty of facts.
        .
        Insuring 30 million Americans and protecting the existing insured population does not make “things tremendously worse.” In your case, you should be glad that your “rather nasty pre-existing condition” will no longer dictate your career or where you live. You should also be glad that the premium costs of the uninsured will no longer steal from your paycheck.
        .
        We are also not “nationalizing a full one-sixth of the economy.” The Affordable Care Act does not use existing government programs like TRICARE, VA, Medicare or Medicaid to deliver health care to the previously uninsured middle class. The Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare for senior citizens and expands Medicaid for those making 133% above poverty level, but that’s it.
        .
        For the uninsured middle class, the Affordable Care Act uses Blue Cross, Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, and other existing private insurers. It does not nationalize these private insurers. Our government is not going to run Blue Cross.
        .
        The Affordable Care Act relies on private doctors, private hospitals and private pharmacies to deliver health care to the middle class. Again, there is no “nationalization” going on here at all. Our government is not going to run the Mayo Clinic or Walgreens.
        .
        The Affordable Care Act keeps inline with the Constitution. It was written, voted into existence and signed by our elected officials, most of whom campaigned on health care reform.
        .
        The Affordable Care Act also seems fully in keeping with the preamble of the Constitution, which states that it was ordained to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

      4. The Affordable Care Act also seems fully in keeping with the preamble of the Constitution, which states that it was ordained to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
        .
        Of course, the preamble has no actual effect, so complying with a rhetorical flourish is not really dispositive of constitutional objections to the bill.
        .
        The excision of the “public option” removed the single biggest objection I had to the reforms, but I still oppose even the watered down version. For me, the pink elephant in the room is a single payer system. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think if you took a survey of liberals who were pushing for health care reform, their ultimate goal is a single payer system, and these reforms are a first step toward that ultimate goal. (Which is why removing the “public option” was such a bitter pill.) For those of us on the other side, the single payer system is the ultimate nightmare, and these reforms are a first step toward that ultimate nightmare. To avoid that slippery slope, my solution is to minimize the federal government’s interference in the insurance industry. Since I generally favor limited roles for the government in pretty much everything but foreign policy, law enforcement, and defense, this is a pretty easy conclusion for me to reach. Wyden-Bennett was about the only health care reform I’d have been able to stomach, and even that was more governmental meddling than I’d prefer. (It would result in a fundamentally better system, in my opinion, than either what we have now or the Democrats’ reforms. For that I’d be willing to hold my nose and support governmental social engineering. Just this once.)
        .
        And yes, I realize that federal legislation is already intimately involved in every aspect of the economy, and instituting a night watchman state is not a realistic option. I am not a straw man. But I still have to believe that this approach– declaring a commodity (health care) to be a right and inching toward a new entitlement– is taking us in the wrong direction. Governmental attempts to make things better backfire far too often for me to be optimistic about grand plans.

      5. For me, the pink elephant in the room is a single payer system. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think if you took a survey of liberals who were pushing for health care reform, their ultimate goal is a single payer system, and these reforms are a first step toward that ultimate goal. — David The Bold
        .
        There aren’t enough liberals in Congress to expand Medicare (our single-payer system for senior citizens) for the entire country. Many Democrats come from blood-red states and vote conservatively, which is why we got a conservative health reform law that relies on the private market and incorporates Republican ideas.

    2. So if they want to regulate alcohol consumption – Jay Tea

      It required a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and another one to rescind the first one.

      1. Yup, micro, selling alcohol is legal — but incredibly regulated. It can only be sold by state-licensed dealers to qualified buyers. And it’s restricted at every level of sale — manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, consumers.
        .
        And in some states, even more. Here in New Hampshire, the state has a monopoly on hard liquor — it’s only sold at state-owned liquor stores.
        .
        Massachusetts just repealed a sales tax on booze that was actually a tax on a tax — alcohol has its own dedicated taxes on each sale, and recently the state added it to the sales tax as well, so it was double-taxed.
        .
        We have laws about drunk driving, public intoxication, public consumption, and open containers in public. And all under the Constitutional amendment that repealed Prohibition.
        .
        J.

  14. Jennifer Hachigian,
    When I moved to California, I initially had health insurance under my employers. However, I work as a visual effects artist. Every time a project ends, VFX artists get laid off, so I move from employer to employer. My health insurance plan changed with each employer.
    .
    Around 2005 most visual effects studios stopped offering health insurance plans. I paid for a short-term health insurance plan after my previous employer’s health benefits ran out. In 2006 I applied for insurance from Anthem Blue Cross.
    .
    That was the year I found out I had a preexisting condition, because Anthem Blue Cross sent me a rejection letter. Until that point, I did not know I had a preexisting condition. Anthem rejected me for health care I had received years ago.
    .
    Jennifer, very sorry to hear about your situation. All I would say is that is why i feel the biggest problem is that instead of having truly private insurance that you can buy directly, like car insurance, we still have primarily employer-based insurance. It’s why a lot of people stay in jobs they hate, etc. So rather than the radical overhaul that is under way, i feel it would have benefited – and still would benefit – more people to have health insurance you could buy directly and that you won’t lose by changing jobs because it’s YOURS. The Geico Gekko and Progressive’s “Flo” could start pitching health insurance.

    1. .
      “All I would say is that is why i feel the biggest problem is that instead of having truly private insurance that you can buy directly, like car insurance, we still have primarily employer-based insurance. It’s why a lot of people stay in jobs they hate, etc. So rather than the radical overhaul that is under way, i feel it would have benefited – and still would benefit – more people to have health insurance you could buy directly and that you won’t lose by changing jobs because it’s YOURS. The Geico Gekko and Progressive’s “Flo” could start pitching health insurance.”
      .
      That wouldn’t do any good either. If she lost her job and couldn’t pay for the stuff she would lose it. The next time around that she goes to buy it they tell her that, no, she gets no insurance because of her pre.
      .
      Jenn could not get insurance through work or on her own. The only way she got it at long last was by being added to my insurance as my wife.

    2. Jerry, I’m glad to hear your wife now has health insurance.
      .
      …rather than the radical overhaul that is under way, i feel it would have benefited – and still would benefit – more people to have health insurance you could buy directly and that you won’t lose by changing jobs because it’s YOURS. — Jerome Maida
      .
      Thanks. :^) For what it’s worth, this would not have worked before the Affordable Care Act. My preexisting condition occurred under my parents’ health insurance, not my “own” health insurance. If I had applied for private insurance at the beginning of my career, the only difference is that I would have been rejected right away instead of years later.
      .
      The good news is that the Affordable Care Act creates the exact same system that you described for currently uninsured Americans. In 2014, uninsured middle class individuals can purchase private health insurance on state-based health exchanges. I don’t consider this radical at all, since both insurers and providers remain private entities.
      .
      If you have nine minutes to spare, please watch this animated short film. It does a good job of explaining how the Affordable Care Act will work.

    3. Jennifer, very sorry to hear about your situation. All I would say is that is why i feel the biggest problem is that instead of having truly private insurance that you can buy directly, like car insurance, we still have primarily employer-based insurance. It’s why a lot of people stay in jobs they hate, etc. So rather than the radical overhaul that is under way, i feel it would have benefited – and still would benefit – more people to have health insurance you could buy directly and that you won’t lose by changing jobs because it’s YOURS. The Geico Gekko and Progressive’s “Flo” could start pitching health insurance.
      .
      That was pretty much the idea behind the well-regarded and truly bipartisan Wyden-Bennett proposal. It was designed to move away from the employer-based model.
      .
      Unfortunately, since knee-capping nascent Democratic administrations was more of a priority to Republicans than actually reforming healthcare, it never had a chance.

    4. I agree that employer-provided insurance is the worst way to do it. In addition to interfering with job mobility, it means people are stuck with the policies their employers consider the best, rather than finding the one that fits them best.
      .
      You may notice that the two fields in which inflation has been the highest in recent decades are medical care and education. While there are other factors involved, one reason is because of the gap between provider and consumer. Education is largely paid for with grants and loans, so there is less incentive to keep costs down. Medical care is paid mostly by insurance which is provided mostly by employers, so there are two levels separating the providers and the consumers. It adds paperwork and bureaucracy, and it reduces the incentive to shop around. So naturally, it drives up costs. (I’m not denying that there are many, many other things driving up the costs.)

  15. Jennifer,
    I’ll give you my opinion on the short in a bit, but under the plan I envision and espoused by others, being under your parents’ plan would be like them buying life insurance for you or a savings bond. Even when you come of age, you would not lose it since the account and money put into it is YOURS and you would no longer have to go through an employer/

    1. Jennifer,
      I’ll give you my opinion on the short in a bit, but under the plan I envision and espoused by others, being under your parents’ plan would be like them buying life insurance for you or a savings bond. Even when you come of age, you would not lose it since the account and money put into it is YOURS and you would no longer have to go through an employer — Jerome Maida

      .
      I would not object to a system like that. However, we had nothing like that system in place before the Affordable Care Act.
      .
      That said, the Act’s Waiver for State Innovation allows each state to ignore the Affordable Care Act if that state can create a better health system for its residents.
      .
      There’s nothing to stop any one of our 50 states from abolishing employer-based insurance and replacing it with an entirely individual system like the one you describe.

  16. We are also not “nationalizing a full one-sixth of the economy.” The Affordable Care Act does not use existing government programs like TRICARE, VA, Medicare or Medicaid to deliver health care to the previously uninsured middle class. The Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare for senior citizens and expands Medicaid for those making 133% above poverty level, but that’s it.
    .
    For the uninsured middle class, the Affordable Care Act uses Blue Cross, Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, and other existing private insurers. It does not nationalize these private insurers. Our government is not going to run Blue Cross.
    .
    The Affordable Care Act relies on private doctors, private hospitals and private pharmacies to deliver health care to the middle class. Again, there is no “nationalization” going on here at all. Our government is not going to run the Mayo Clinic or Walgreens.

    .
    Under ObamaCare, insurance companies are so tightly regulated that they might as well be owned by the feds. They have to spend 85% of all premiums on patient care. They can’t count investigating and fighting insurance fraud as a patient benefit, either; that has to come out of their other overhead. And that’s just one part of the micromanagement.
    .
    ObamaCare sure does “depend” on doctors and hospitals — depends upon them accepting government control on what they can charge for their services.
    .
    It’s ALL based on the government deciding what things are worth, and enforcing those terms. And it ain’t The American Way.
    .
    J.

    1. Last year, at the age of 37, I developed rheumatoid arthritis. Should I leave my job in the next 4 years, I face the possibility that I lose my health benefits.
      .
      I have a good friend who just finished nursing school for the express purpose of getting a promotion at his workplace. In the time he was finishing his education, his company downsized their nursing staff. No positions will be open anytime soon, and he can’t afford to keep his current job and pay back the student loans. But, if he moves to a different company, he may lose his health insurrance. He has a hereditary heart condition that hasn’t caused problems yet, but his doctor warns and advises him about. He literally has to gamble with his life when he interviews for jobs.
      .
      Another good friend of mine has recently found out that his employer is pulling out of the area. He feels confident that he will be offered a position in the company, in another state. But, he has family obligations that may prevent that from being an option. Primarilly, both of his children are suffer from mental development disorders, and his wife is a stay-at-home mother. If he leaves the state to stay with the company, he is rolling the same dice he would be at finding a new employeer. Both scenarios may financially destroy his family should either or both children be denied care. Granted, they cannot be now, but because the Republicans threaten (or, promise, depending on your point of view) to repeal the Act, this is a legitimate concern.
      .
      My girlfriend finally, after two years, got a full time job. She’s always been heavy, but depression, worry, and the inability to eat properly (sacrificing her own dietary needs to make sure her kids ate well) she has put on about 40 pounds over the last two years. Her company’s insurrance rejected her, saying that she had to lose 100-120 pounds before they would consider her as a customer. Her weight, naturally, being a pre-existing condition. (And, please don’t insult my intelligence by trying to say, as many pundits and congressmen have said, that weight isn’t a rejectable pre-existing condition. She’s by far not the first person this has happened to.)
      .
      In the spring of 2009, my girlfriend’s daughter went into the hospital for acute depression and suicidal tendencies that were (in my opinion, I didn’t speak to any doctors as I’m not yet family) triggered by her finding her grandmother’s body when Gramma Tucker passed away. But, because this was an emotional problem, and her mother has a history of depression (was treated for it in the months following her divorce) her father’s insurrance dropped her coverage. Fortunately, Medicaid was able to cover the bills, but what if it hadn’t? Again, if the Act is repealed, how will she get medical coverage once she is an adult?
      .
      My ex-roommate was fired from his job because he took the blame for a register error at the store he worked at. (Well, more accurately, his union leader threw him under the proverbial bus, but this isn’t a union rant.) A few months later, he suffered a heart attack. Of course, the hospital had to diagnose it as a “heart episode” so that they could release him sooner (this was verbally admitted to by the doctor.) Becuase he was unemployed and uninsurred.
      .
      So, my question to you Jay is this: how many of these people actually have to die (assuming that financial devistation of those whose conditions aren’t immediately fatal still leaves them starving and freezing to death in the street) to preserve this theory of what the legslative branch of the US Government should or should not legslate?
      .
      Theno

      1. Apparently, it doesn’t matter how many people have to die. It isn’t the American Way to tell corporations how to run their business. End of story.

      2. But, Rene, the government tells corporations how to run their business all the time. Federal regulations, mandates, standards, etc.
        .
        What makes health care special over, say, mining operations, railroad transportation, airline travel, etc.? Why is it ok to regulate property insurance, for example, but not health insurance?
        .
        Theno

      3. I was being ironic, Thenodrin. I agree with everything you have said in this thread.
        .
        In fact, if health care is special in any way, it’s because it involves a lot of life-and-death situations and is hideously expensive for individuals to boot. If there is ONE ares where government regulation is even more needed than in other industries, it’s health care.

    1. I particularly loved the part where he was outraged over the notion of a medical plan that took thirty days to kick in. There’s a real man of the people; I’ve had jobs where medical takes anywhere from thirty to sixty days.
      .
      PAD

Comments are closed.