Jan 21 2010
We Listened, We Rejected – Now You Listen
I find it positive that a lot of Democrats reacted with shock and a touch of ‘what are we doing?’ in response to the results in Massachusetts. But in general I can see the Dems are going to put the pedal to the metal and drive over the cliff because they still don’t get the gist of what America has said in three statewide elections.
Prime example is Sen Feinstein:
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, for one, said the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts shows the fundamental political landscape has shifted and Democrats across the country have to take note, focusing on how to create jobs and keep people in their homes instead of trying to explain the need for sweeping social programs.
…
“You see anger. People are worried. And when they’re worried they don’t want to take on a broad new responsibility,†like health care reform, she said.
…
“I think we do go slower n health care. People do not understand it. it is so big it is beyond their comprehension. And if you don’t understand it when somebody tells you it does this or it does that and It’s not true, you tend to believe it, even though it isn’t true. It’s hard to debunk all of the myths that are out there.â€
She was doing so well, up until the end. You see this ‘the people can’t see how good this will all be’ is a response to the fact we all know the liberal tooth fairy doesn’t exist. We heard this same silliness on the stimulus bill.
The libs  claimed we didn’t need the tried and true, across the board, tax cuts to create jobs (i.e., John Kennedy was wrong, even though we all know he was right). They claimed we have the government to spread the wealth, which instead wasted our money on their rich friends and was so sluggish about spending the mid term elections will be here before things kick in (if even then).
We have heard the government run liberal fantasies. We reject them. We heard and understood. We know better. Now you listen DC!
You can pass some small health care solutions, ones there are broad agreement on. The Reps and Indies have to go along or else that wave of anger that is still building after it hit NJ, VA and MA will be coming for them. Here are some things possible to negotiate:
- We support tort reform, like that proposed under Bush were (a) losers pay court costs for both sides and (b) there is a special medical claims court to filter out bogus suits and (c) there are payment limits on certain classes of suites.
- We support insurance pooling for small businesses and individuals. I proposed before just allowing the groups under 50 or so to access the government options provided civil servants. This would promote small business success and growth.
- We support breaking the state barriers to buying health care – open this up nationally, now.
- We support restrictions on dumping patients when covered. If some need assistance for periods then so be it, but no dumping them off coverage.
- No denial for pre-existing conditions. Deal with this through premium prices, but allow people coverage.
It is not that hard to find some reasonable changes which will have huge impacts and cost us very little. We don’t want what DC is selling. We are not a liberal loving nation. We tolerate them as we do anyone and everyone. But that is a far cry from adulation and following them. No more liberal arrogance!
If DC Dems are unwilling to use this lucky lesson well, then they deserve twice the heat in November. They were, in a sadly ironic way, given a huge gift by the passing of Ted Kennedy. If they had not been forced into this special election in MA, then they would still be blissfully ignorant of their pending demise.
Don’t go all Howard Dean on us (re Chris Mathews’ Show last night) and pretend everyone voted against the liberal and for the republican because they wanted more liberalism. We’ll kick you out just for being crazy.
I would like to add, everyone who buys their own insurance receives a tax credit, say $3000 for a single, $5000 for a family.
100%….. A+….. So good I have nothing to add and thats’ good! IMHO!
Yes, very nice list, although good luck getting the first item (tort reform) passed through Congress…
President Eisenhower once said that it was clear that the American people wanted the Democrats running things, so he moved toward the middle to reflect this. President Ronald Regan attempted to fix Social Security and found that the public did not want it fixed, even though it was a serious problem. President Clinton dropped health care reform when the resistance was demonstrated to be so decisive. President George W. Bush dropped his Social Security fix when it was shown that the American public did not want it fixed.
Will President Obama adjust his attempt to ‘reform’ the health care system when the American public is so set against it?
As a general rule, I don’t know much about politics. I do believe that President Obama is NOT a moderate. This issue should be a good indicator if I am wrong about this or not.
“I think we do go slower n health care. People do not understand it. it is so big it is beyond their comprehension. ”
Does that idiot realize that it is much harder to understand something you have not read because they will not publish it.
“We support restrictions on dumping patience” [?]
.
Freudian slip? heh…
Toes,
Writing before caffeine …
My President opined that his win and Scott Brown’s were rooted in the same public sentiment…
.
Hopefully, he and his party are not in such denial that he [and the Dems] believe what he said…
.
Senator Brown could be a national hero if he made his first speech on the Senate floor and said… something like..
.
The People of Massachusetts have sent a rookie to you with this message… Scrap this present bill… Start over with a series of small bills that address the medical situation in the USA…
.
Here are 4 one page bills the People would like passed… in one day…
…
The World Bids Farewell to Obama
Talk about far weather friends
Today, in an effort to deflect attention from the election results and the health care mess, President Obama, during open trading hours, announced that he will ask Congress to enact new legislation to reign in the banks. The markets, already under stress, fell rapidly.
Is he totally clueless?
Yes, I’m afraid he is.
He is likely to leave office with the title “The Great Polarizer”.
Trog,
He should only hope his title is that good. I was thinking “The Great Destroyer” or “The Great Disappointment” …
Sry for too many posts but in 71 geezy years have not heard this saying… hmmm… seems like it is somewhat common but here it is anyway…
.
President Obama trying to do too much…
.
He’s trying to boil the ocean…
.
In this insightful article…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-19/hes-done-everything-wrong/?cid=bs:archive3
Suppose Obama was talking to a very small segment of society when he talked about Hope and Change. Suppose he was talking only to those whom he believes have not had a chance for the American dream? Those who he community organized? But many of us thought he was talking about of all our hopes and dreams. Housing, transportation, health care, education, will receive billions to create cities or redevelop cities with new schools, health care clinics, energy good transportation, energy efficient homes, employing the unemployable, or hourly wage earners. If we follow the money, I’ll bet the foundation is being set with the $786 billion stimulus money. Obama’s big problem is that Bush didn’t leave him with a thriving economy and no wars so that money was readily available for his projects, the remaking of America for the down trodden and poor. I was not able to hear all of his talk to the mayors, but the part I heard, I think I’m on to something. This man has an agenda that he make sound palatable to all Americans, but is meant for a very few at the expense of the majority. I’m not opposed to helping the poor, or lower middle class, but I would like to know what I’m giving to and not lied to for political cover.
Suppose Obama was talking to a very small segment of society when he talked about Hope and Change. Suppose he was talking only to those whom he believes have not had a chance for the American dream? Those who he community organized? But many of us thought he was talking about of all our hopes and dreams. Housing, transportation, health care, education, will receive billions to create cities or redevelop cities with new schools, health care clinics, energy good transportation, energy efficient homes, employing the unemployable, or hourly wage earners. If we follow the money, I’ll bet the foundation is being set with the $786 billion stimulus money. Obama’s big problem is that Bush didn’t leave him with a thriving economy and no wars so that money was readily available for his projects, the remaking of America for the down trodden and poor. I was not able to hear all of his talk to the mayors, but the part I heard, I think I’m on to something. This man has an agenda that he make sound palatable to all Americans, but is meant for a very few at the expense of the majority. I’m not opposed to helping the poor, or lower middle class, but I would like to know what I’m giving to and not lied to for political cover.
The proposals for a realistic health care bill are quite good – with one exception. Personally, I am *very* sympathetic to the idea of having no denial for pre-existing conditions, and I know this is the popular piece of the bill that everyone wants.
But I’ve been thinking and I just cannot concieve of any this could work in the real world.
First, I adamantly believe that any government mandate to purchased health care is not only immoral, but also unconstiutional. It’s the combination of this problem with the inability to deny coverage which dooms the concept with regard to pre-existing conditions.
Here’s the problem I can’t solve in my own mind: suppose you are a reasonably healthy person who can meet out of pocket expenses. Right now, someone like myself buys health insurance for the fear that some condition will come up and if I don’t have it, I sure won’t be able to purchase it after the diagnosis and I will be screwed.
But what if there is no ban on pre-existing conditions? Isn’t it then greatly in my financial benefit to wait until *after* some catastrophic illness strikes and only buy coverage then? In fact it would pay me greatly to do that because I could keep all those years of insurance payments in an investment account and be earning interest returns without the worry of being stuck without insurance at some point. Even high insurance rates at that point still wouldn’t change the financial calculations; I of course would be happy to pay high rates once I know that major medical bills will be coming in. And I could just quit paying as soon as I’m well again. How do you stop people from gaming the system that way? This is why the health insurance mandate came into the picture, but as I said I believe that is unconstitutional. How do we ever make this work?
And there’s also a problem with penalizing those who wait with higher rates; what about the working poor, those who cannot afford the rates, those who become ill and lose their jobs and all of their income? Obviously any plan is not going to just say “you’re poor, no insurance for you” (we can do that with the system we have) so where will this money come from? This is where the proposal comes to put all the working poor on medicare, and then we back into the single payer health system that we’ve been trying to avoid.
I want there to be no denial for pre-existing conditions but I don’t see how it works. About the only thing I can think of is that all those who are denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition are accepted onto the medicare rolls instead, but even this proposal has huge problems. Why should anyone buy insurance if they’re guaranteed medicare whenever they get sick?
If anyone can think of a practical way to make this work without destroying the insurance system as we know it, let me know. Every proposal I can think of results in even worse problems than we have now.
Hate to come in so out of date, but did you ever post your concept of what a “Rino” is? To my mind a rino was a person who said one thing to get elected and then did something completely different. Another word might be “liar”.
Maybe we need to step even further back, and ask if it really makes sense to address the medical needs of the indigent by buying insurance for them. The thought lurking here, although rarely stated, is that there must be some “equality” of medical care. My internal “moral imperative” just doesn’t resonate to the proposition that health care must be “the same” for the fortunate and unfortunate, the resourceful and the feckless, and producers and the dysfunctional alike. We should be focusing on providing adequate levels of care for the indigent, and buying private insurance for them would hardly seem the most cost-effective way of going about it. The “basic” policy outlined in HR 3200 appears to me to be quite a bit broader than the coverage afforded by Medicare.
As for forcing insurers to cover the uninsurable at standard rates, does anyone seriously imagine that the costs are not going to be passed back to the rest of us? Any way you cut it, this is a subsidy, more appropriately funded by government.
We hear a great deal about people being forced into bankruptcy by inabilty to pay their medical expenses. I have yet to hear a rationale for why people should not be expected to expend their own resources before seeking subsidies at public expense. Life is full of misfortune, and no one is offering to plug the hole in my IRA.
You mention “dumping” people from coverage. I’m not quite sure what is meant here. Individual policies with guaranteed renewable features are commonplace. Perhaps you mean “recission,” about which there has been a great outcry. Well, the moral of this story is short and sweet: You can go over to Democratic Underground and lie to your heart’s content, but never, ever, even think about being untruthful on an application for policy of insurance. To hold down costs, they may accept your representations at face value, but when you get ill, they will pull out the magnifying glass. Nothing personal, just business.
I don’t know about this “tort reform” business. I strongly favor it, but there are some constitutional issues implicated here. We’re talking about wiping out laws that exist both at common law and on the books of the individual states. There are limits to the doctrine of federal preemption. As for the “loser pays costs” idea, such awards lie against the party, not the lawyer, and most plaintiffs wouldn’t be able to satisfy them.
Good comments Flint, and you get at the heart of some of the many problems.
A comment on tort reform – all that would need to be done would be to pass the same reform as was adopted in Texas some years ago. It has worked marvelously well, is wildly popular, has reduced legal costs, made life easier for Doctors and hospitals, and is also completely constitutional. Lawsuits aren’t banned, but awards are strictly capped. (much more complicated than that, of course.)
The only BIG problem that Democrats have with Texas-style tort reform is that it was all passed under the hated and much reviled Gov. George W. Bush, and of course it is heresy for anyone to suggest we do something that George W. Bush thought was a good idea.
Even if it works.
You’re absolutely right, WWS, tort reform has been very beneficial for Texas. It resulted in substantial reductions in malpractice premiums, and brought in an incredible influx of doctors from New York, Florida, California, and points beyond. Many of them are now practicing in the Rio Grande Valley and other underserved areas. You can only do so much, though, without falling afoul of the state constitution, and “progressos” never tire of pointing out that health insurance rates have continued to rise. There is also the consideration that what states may lawfully do with their own laws may lie beyond the constitutional reach of the federal government.
Tort reform should be through the states. I am totally against a federal mandate taking power away from the states. That is what the federal government has tried to do for decades now. Each state should be encouraged to have tort reform and if they decline, so be it. If it bother you, move to a state that has it. That’s the beauty of living in this country. We can move to any state we want to.
I can’t imagine the chaos of pooling individuals to one group. The reason insurance companies give better deals to companies is that companies are responsible for the payments. Imagine waiting for payments from individuals in the groups you mentioned. The deadbeats who would not pay until forced to and maybe never. I do agree that small businesses should be able to pool and each company pay the premiums and collect from their own employees. They have the clout to do this. A pool would not.
The federal government forcing states to allow insurance citizens to buy across state lines is a potential donnybrook. Not only does it impune on the rights of states to make their own laws, it forces insurance companies to practice in a state that they do not want to practice in. Any insurance company can practice in any state. All they have to do is buy a license. Also, the idea of paying for care will be in opposition with the way insurance companies pay hospitals. It would be chaos. I support people dealing with the laws of the state they live in and the insurance companies that are available in that state. States always have the right to encourage insurance to come and practice in their states by giving goodies to the companies.
I agree insurance companies should not be allowed to dump patients unless the patients have lied about their condition on their application and are told they would not be covered if it is found out they lied. If they have been diagnosed with a condition prior to insurance application that is a pre-existing condition no matter which stage that condition is in.
Also, I don’t know if anyone is aware of it but employees on groups are not allowed to quit their coverage until a certain time of the year, usually January, or if they quit their jobs. On individual policies the person just quits paying and their coverage stops.
I support not denying for pre-existing conditions. However, I also support the present law that says pre-existing conditions are not covered for 255 days that are in effect on group policies now. In fact, I think individual policies should be the same as group policies. But that brings us to the costs. Group policies are more expensive than individual policies. Probably twice as much in part because insurance companies cannot deny employees who apply to groups.
If the federal government wants to cover the indigent, the low earners and the deadbeat then let them be on Medicaid. Let the individual state Medicaid bill the federal government for these people, not a lump sum hoping it will cover everybody and take from state funds when it doesn’t.
I am looking at this from a business point of view. I have had 35 years experience in dealing with employees insurance groups and realize the insurance companies do not really make millions each year. Each year every insurance company I dealt with came to us and showed us how much they collected in premiums and how much they paid in claims and a lot of times the claims were more than the premiums. They never offered to not cover us, they just raised the premiums accordingly. Also, I am a big proponent of states rights. I feel that is the only thing that saves us from the feds taking over our lives. They would have done it decades ago if they could but the rights of the states to make their own laws stopped them.