Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Nationalized Health Care’ Category

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the new 112th Congress?

Answer: Republicans will bring up a healthcare repeal measure.

The New York Times reports:

Soon after the 112th Congress convenes Wednesday, Republicans in the House plan to make good on a campaign promise that helped vault many new members to victory: voting to repeal President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The vote, which Republican leaders pledged would occur before the president’s State of the Union address later this month, is intended both to appeal to the Tea Party-influenced factions of the House Republican base and to emphasize the muscle of the new party in power. But it could also produce an unintended consequence: a chance for Democrats once again to try their case in support of the health care overhaul before the American public.

First of all, the repeal effort will more than likely fail, but it will show the American people that the new Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives is down to play hardball.

Secondly, I love the New York Times’ wishful thinking. I don’t know where these so-called journalists – Jennifer Steinhauer and Robert Pear – have been, but President Obama’s health care overhaul is still (and will always be) unpopular. After all, a majority of the Democrats that ran for reelection back in November ran away from their so-called “historic” health care reform accomplishment.

What makes these journalists think that the American people will suddenly embrace the hijacking of one-sixth of our economy? Oh yeah… I forgot that these are the same political ideologues that believe it’s a “messaging” problem when it comes to health care reform. I don’t know about the New Yorks Times, but I find these to be great reasons to hate it:

You get the picture… Bring on the repeal vote!

*UPDATE* – January 3, 2011 – 10:12 PM.

Bill Kristol – from The Weekly Standard – reports:

I’m told the Speaker’s office is about to announce that the House Rules Committee will meet on Thursday, and that a rule to consider the repeal of Obamacare will be brought to the House floor on Friday.  The House will then vote on the repeal of Obamacare on Wednesday, January 12. In order to comply with the new transparency rules, the repeal legislation will be posted tonight, available here.

I was waiting to post this update on my blog until the legislation was posted online. Well folks, it is here! Introducing The Job-Killing Health Care Law and Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Click here to read the official legislation.

Props to US Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) for coming up with that straight-to-the-point name for the legislation!

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post?

Answer: More proof that liberals have the hardest time understanding why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another.

Here is their op-ed where they continue to bring up the same ol’ debunked argument:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

Apparently the mind of liberal doesn’t allow for the common sense comparison between auto-insurance and Obamacare to seep in. If the Democrats are capable of understanding and passing a 2,000+ page piece legislation (which is debatable), then why can’t they understand the distinct differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare?

First of all, auto-insurance places requirements on the voluntary act of driving and not on life itself. Second, there is a difference between the powers of the federal and state governments – shocker, right? Thirdly, auto-insurance requirements are limited to individuals that choose to drive on public roads (private property is off limits). Lastly, auto-insurance only covers injuries to others, not yourself. If you still don’t see the differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare, Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – put together a good article that explains it in further detail:

Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.  It’s not applicable at all.  Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles.  Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property.  People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well.  Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs.  Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation.  That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk.  If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft.  If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver.  Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses.   Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.  Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness.  That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Debunked once again.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked President Obama’s health-care reform bill today?

Answer: The bill’s individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional!

Bloomberg reports:

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, today rule that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, which was to become effective in 2014, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid.

“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” wrote Hudson, who was appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2002.

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out. Constitutional scholars said unless Congress changes the law, its fate on appeal will probably hinge on the views of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Victory! This is a critical milestone, but the fight against Obama-care is far from over. Either way, today is a great day for our United States’ Constitution.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the Democrats’ advertising strategy for the upcoming mid-term election?

Answer: Their self-proclaimed “historic” vote for Obama-Care is nowhere to be found.

Honestly Democrats, what’s wrong with millions of Americans losing their current health insurance? Or the individual mandate that will erode our liberty and increase taxes? Or the fact that it’s not paid for? Or better yet, creating a complex one-size-fits-all health-care system that will eventually centralize America’s health-care decisions in Washington? What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps that’s why Democrats are avoiding the subject all together – besides the few Democrats who just-so-happen to be running against the new health-care law. Politico reports:

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.

Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one.

I have one word for Democrats: Meow.

Here’s a suggestion, how about you liberal cowards “man-up” and back your record if Obama-Care is such a great thing for the United States? (Democrats’ reaction: click here) Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked President Obama’s health-care reform bill (aka. Obama-Care)?

Answer: It might end student health-care insurance at universities and colleges!

Once again, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was correct when she told America that we had to pass this gigantic health-care reform bill in order to find out what’s in it.

McClatchy reports:

Colleges and universities say that some rules in the new health law could keep them from offering low-cost, limited-benefit student insurance policies, and they’re seeking federal authority to continue offering them.

Their request drew immediate fire from critics, however, who say that student health plans should be held to the same standards that other insurance is.

Among other things, the colleges want clarification that they won’t have to offer the policies to non-students.

Without a number of changes, it may be impossible to continue to offer student health plans, says a letter that the American Council on Education sent Aug. 12 to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, signed by 12 other trade associations that represent colleges.

Additionally, the colleges say that some provisions of the law don’t apply to their policies, including those that require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their revenue on medical care and that bar them from setting annual coverage caps.

Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – sums this up nice for us:

In ObamaCare, policies can no longer be tailored to clientele, nor can consumers make choices that best fit their lives.  All policies must look mainly alike, thanks to the top-down command “reforms” in ObamaCare, which mandate coverages regardless of risk or need.  Needless to say, a comprehensive policy designed to cover Americans in their 50s would be vastly unnecessary for almost everyone who attends college in their youth, and vastly more expensive than they can afford.

Thus, universities and colleges have a conundrum.  They can either offer policies that are so expensive that only a few can afford to buy them, which creates all sorts of problems in managing a risk pool, or they can simply get out of the health-insurance business altogether.

Hmm, I wonder which decision they would pick if they were forced to choose? Personally, I think it’s a no brainer. Unfortunately, the Obama-Zombie (students) demographic didn’t bother to indulge themselves in some old-fashion common sense before they headed to the polls back in November of 2008.

My generation can be extremely frustrating at times, because we will be paying for their ignorance for years to come.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked President Obama’s socialized health-care reform bill three months after it was signed into law?

Answer: The Obama administration could end up dumping sick people out of Obama-Care’s federal high-risk pool.

Once again folks, we have further proof that Congress had absolutely no idea what unintended consequences, complications, or costs were hidden in the Obama-Care bill and its programs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was right… we had to pass Obama-Care in order to find out what’s in it.

The Hill reports:

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

Right… Obama administration officials “insist they can make changes to the program to ensure” that the federal high-risk pool doesn’t run out of money. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the federal government we are talking about here. There’s only two scenarios that can happen here: 1) Congress doles out more non-existent money that we don’t have into a program that is obviously unsustainable, because of the major cost inaccuracies that have already been discovered or 2) Stop providing health insurance for individuals with pre-existing conditions, which will leave them uninsured until 2014 when Obama-Care is scheduled to be fully implemented. Hmm? Since our federal government has a bigger addiction to spending and debt than a typical crack head has with cocaine, I will give you one guess as to which scenario is most likely to occur…

So much for Obama-Care not adding to the debt… :roll:

In the end, Obama-Care should never have passed, because we are once again seeing what happens when the government attempts to run an industry designed for the private-sector without having any expertise in it.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you will find if you frisked emergency rooms after Obama-Care is in full effect?

Answer: A lot of sick patients crammed into already busy emergency rooms.

The Hill reports:

The new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.

A chief aim of the new healthcare law was to take the pressure off emergency rooms by mandating that people either have insurance coverage. The idea was that if people have insurance, they will go to a doctor rather than putting off care until they faced an emergency.

All right! Who is excited for longer lines? …What? That doesn’t sound fun? Unfortunately, most of America thought it didn’t sound like a good idea either, but President Obama and his loyal Democratic pals in Washington D.C. shoved it down ours throats anyway.

The counter-argument to what I stated above: Since more individuals are able to obtain health-care insurance, they will decide to go see an actual doctor rather than migrate to hospital emergency rooms when they are ill. Makes sense, right? Yeah it does, but there is a slight problem with it… Under Obama-Care, the number of doctors will decline!

Answer me this: Do you really expect doctors to take in more patients that are covered by the government? Might I remind you that approximately 28% of doctors no longer take new Medicare patients and 50% of doctors don’t take new Medicaid patients. Don’t worry though, this pattern will likely decrease under Obama-Care… :roll:

Let the health-care rationing begin…

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers