Comments on: Introducing “Competition” to the Health Insurance Market

By: eyesopen007

eyesopen007 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:20:29 +0000

We should not using the liberal’s teminology. We shouldn’t call it a “public option”, we should call it what it is, a GOVERNMENT OPTION.

By: larryp

larryp — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:25:35 +0000

is dead on.
They wanted ideas. Here is mine, along the same lines as yours.
It gives the “governmentistas” their govt involvement…
Cut taxes.
The so-called refund (which is really the taxpayer keeping the dough), can be applied to the Health Ssvings Account. It is at the option ofthe taxpayer, us.
Our decisionr. If the money is put into the HSA, then the govt will match it to some %. Then we can withdraw money tax-free to pay for premiums or operations or co-pays. If we are healthy and don’t need the money then some % can be withdrawn each year after a certain age say 65.Not all of it, just some of it. But with the doubling of the amt every 7 yrs or so the totals will be very large, and therewill be money for illnes AND some retirement expenses.

By: Ausonius

Ausonius — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:35:49 +0000

I agree completely with NO COMPROMISES – as I wrote earlier in a diary today (“No Prisoners”)

The solution of “it must be in the Constitution” is too facile unfortunately, because of the left-wing post-modern manipulation of language. The leftists have famously and with little difficulty found a right to abortion in the Constitution, just as they are finding a right to health insurance, and will no doubt find a right to die early.

With a left-wing Supreme Court and many leftist judges in the lower courts, we have no guarantee of Constitutional safety being on our side.

By: jackhammer

jackhammer — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:17:56 +0000

I even saw a huffpost article recently from some Doctor Toffel, which included many of the points above too….so the solution for sane people seems to be pretty standard.

But one question that still does get to me, is what form does the tort reform need to take? There are lottery style cases, but a lot fo the justification for high award amounts are anticipated health care costs for the victims of malpractice going forward. Soem of these cases are also Insurance Company vs. Insurance company to cover the future medical expenses that are considered to be the direct result fo the malpractice. What is the best way to actualyl handle this?

By: wolfgang

wolfgang — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:40:31 +0000

…is the key to the motives behind Euthenasiacare.
Recall the sleight of hand that occurred in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Chrysler owed the bondholders, the Indiana Teachers and Police pension funds, some twenty nine billion dollars. Chrysler owed the Union some eight billion dollars. Yet, after the bankruptcy dust had settled, the Union owned 55 per cent of the company, the bondgholders 8 per cent, twenty one billion dollars, expropriated from the bondholders and given to the Union. Some of that will find its way back into the DNC’s coffers, another good portion will find its way onto the union members bedsheets after paying for the members’ Cialis, Levitra, and Viagra. Nonetheless, a goodly portion of the Nation’s wealth has been redistributed.
Recall also, Roosevelt’s TVA Program bankrupted the Southern Company Electric utility, wiping out its shareholder’s wealth.
The nation’s Insurance companies are some of the largest repositories of this nation’s wealth. Euthenasiacrae will cause a cash flow crunch in these companies, forcing some or all into bankruptcy. The Government under THE OBAMBI, being the humanitarian institution that it is, will step in under the guise of helping the people, seize the insurance comapnies assets and redistribute them to whomever it chooses.
Brand new BMWs and Mercedes to the folks in downtown Los Angeles and New York making less than18 thou a year. No problem. 100 dollar wagyu steaks for dinnner at the WhiteHouse. No Problem. Paying off the budget defeicit. No Problem. 500 dollar sneakers for the First lady. No Problem. Its the Chicago way.

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:19:55 +0000

is excellent, I’m making my way through it now. You perfectly describe the Progressives and their unrelenting quest for power. If they succeed, it will destroy our nation as they will have nullified our Constitution.

We must remember they don’t have a conscience about what they are doing. To them “the end justifies the means.”

By: marshmom

marshmom — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:18:27 +0000

is that Republicans (at least some) are comfortable with the “co-op” option. What are they thinking? Don’t they know that this still the same animal, just with different spots?
This is infuriating. Now we not only have to fight the Democrats, but the Republicans too if they think this is acceptable.

The exhausting part is that this isn’t even my only grievance with this monstrous piece of garbage they call “legislation”. I’m not comfortable with the ambiguous abortion issue, I’m not comfortable with the whole “home visitation” for things like immunizations, child-rearing “education”, and the like. The whole entire bill needs to be incinerated then buried 6 feet deep.

By: nessa

nessa — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:57:30 +0000

By: DerKrieger

DerKrieger — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:49:36 +0000

good catch – how could I forget that one?

By: bs

bs — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:45:41 +0000

By: ColdWarrior

ColdWarrior — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:44:21 +0000

From here on out until election day in 2010, it should be, “It’s the Constitution, Sstupid.”

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:42:22 +0000

that at the DMV, ticket number 101 gets serviced next while tickets 102 through 301 wait. After all, it’s not the DMV’s fault that there are so many waiting in line.

By: DerKrieger

DerKrieger — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:41:51 +0000

is actually easy.

1. Expand the use of HSAs
2. Expand the use of high deductible, low premium plans
3. Use the Commerce Clause to allow for the creation of a national market rather than 50 state markets
4. Allow individuals to purchase insurance with pretax dollars
5. Replace Medicare and Medicaid with prepaid HSA cards and allow or direct all recipients to purchase their own health insurance with their HSA subsidy
6. Stand back and watch the market work its magic

By: DerKrieger

DerKrieger — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:38:17 +0000

…is quite simply…control. The elitist socialist believes he is uniquely qualified to direct the lives of 300 million individual Americans better than those individuals acting in their own best interest. It is truly breathtaking hubris and arrogance. They crave power like the nobles of medieval Europe. They do not care at all about resolving outstanding problems in the health care market, which they created, but only in taking absolute control over it. Their goal is obvious. They just will never admit it.

The history of Progressives is a history of incrementalism. They never take their eyes of the ball and always are moving forward. I recently finished Jonah Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism’ and it is outstanding. It gives a very concise history of the Progressive movement and its totalitarian roots. I highly recommend it.

The fact that Progressives never abandon their goal can be seen today in the Democrats reaction to the overwhelming push back by We the People to Obamacare. Do they care? Do they seem willing to return to the table and invite the GOP? No, they float the possibility of passing Obamacare via reconciliation. Why? Power.

This is whyt we can never, ever compromise with the Democrats unless the compromise pushes back government. If we give them half of what they want now, they will be back for the other half in a few years. If we give them half then, they will be 3/4 of the way toward their goal. Then it’s only a matter of time before additional compromises delivers them 100% of their original goal.

And then what? What will the Progressives go after once they’ve achieved government run health care? I believe the next target will be the private retirement system. After all, it’s an “unfair” system because those with means are able to utilize more fully options such as 401ks and IRA’s. The next goal will be to establish a new public retirement plan that ensures a “fair, comfortable” retirement for \all Americans.

Progressives never never stop.

What is our best defense? The Constitution. We must demand that all legislation be founded in the Constitution. If we can’t draw a Constitutional line in the sand with Obamacare we may as well forget it exists because the federal government will have broken completely free of the Constitution.

I suggest we remember Jefferson’s admonition “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

A fabulous quote.

By: briann

briann — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:32:44 +0000

“Now, some kind of national system of “co-ops,” which will be functionally indistinguishable from a public option[...]”

If the liberals are now proposing the same thing under a different name, they are going to find the same reaction, perhaps moreso for insulting us by changing the name and hoping we don’t notice it’s the same thing.

Want to fix health insurance? De-couple it from employment. Health insurance is bought by corporate HR folk, but used by (mostly) other people. If the consumer and the payer were the same, insurance companies would act much differently.

-Bri