« Chuckie Schumer, U.S. Senator (really!) | Main | The Liberal Mind – Taxes to Mandated Spending »

01 February 2011


Todd Juvinall

When I read the left's defense of Obamacare I can onl shake my head in grief. How could someone as smart as MA appears to be be so blind? The people of our country have rejuvenated my faith in the basic tenets of freedom. Obamacare is the antithesis of freedom. I have actually never agreed with the lefts initial premise that the government could tell a private business, the healthcare industry, what they can and can't cover. We need to review that because for some reason the left has been able to force through government power the inner workings of offerings by a private business. The commerce clause is being used by the left to force their socialized agenda on every citizen. This strategy has now been exposed for the fraudulent methods it is. The healthcare insurance industry is a state by state, no across the lines business in America. How the left can then say the Commerce clause is relevant when there is no interstate commerce with the insurance is just another example of the left's educational results of our people.

Mikey McD

It amazes me that progressives are still pushing for more government when government failures are smacking us in the face (skyrocketing government run debt, government run and failed social security system, failed government run medicare system, failed government run foreign policy, horribly run government education system, failed government run depart of energy, failed government run SEC..insert government agency here..) and still trust government to run more of our health care. I stopped trying to understand where a socialist's faith in government comes from; cause it sure as hell ain't from a good track record.

D. King


Michael is correct, and clairvoyant.

“You lose by default.”


“…away from the fog of the controversy.”

With stalwart determination he proclaimed….”All hail Nebulous...ness...ly!”

Michael Anderson


I'm going to respond to your responses because I want to keep this dialogue rolling along for a bit. I think it's worthwhile.

I'll send it to you in email and then you can choose to publish it or not. I think that would be better than if I post it here under the Comments section.

I was a bit surprised when Jeff Pelline featured my admittedly rant-ish response to the Tea Party Patriots on his blog, but I'm glad he did because I think it has created a healthy meeting of the virtual minds.

For the record, when I wrote that "we are not really very interested in hearing what you have to say on this issue any more", I was only talking about the attempts to repeal or find unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). I didn't do a very good job of making that clear.

I wholeheartedly encourage all attempts to modify PPACA through ongoing legislation, and welcome the vigorous debate that will engender.

Michael A.

Todd Juvinall

It has been deemed unconstitutional and it appears we are now going to have a constitutional crisis because Reid and Obama are thumbing their respective nose at the judiciary. Amazing.

Michael Anderson


So far the score is 12-2 in favor of PPACA. Hardly a constitutional crisis.




D. King

12-2 really?

1 of the 2 represents 25 states attorneys general making the score 26 to 12, nice spin but no altitude Michael.

Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you're alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?

Michael Anderson

D. King wrote: "Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you're alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?"

They already make me "buy" Medicare and Social Security. If you're going to repeal or find unconstitutional PPACA then you should be working to get rid of these 2 as well, on the same grounds.

Todd Juvinall

MA you are mixing apples and oranges. The history of the process is when a federal judge rules such as Vinson has, the law is deemed null and void and set aside. The Obama/Reid strategy is thumbing their nose at this. Besides, the 26 states and the separate ruling against Obamacare in Virginia (total 27) demand the process of putting the Obamacare rule making on hold. Regarding SS and Medicare. Yes you are probably one of those people who would belittle and point a nasty finger at those that would agree SS and Medicare are also unconstitutional so it would seem you are trying to have it both ways.

D. King

"They already make me "buy" Medicare and Social Security. If you're going to repeal or find unconstitutional PPACA then you should be working to get rid of these 2 as well, on the same grounds."

Please answer the question.

Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you're alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?

Michael Anderson

D. King wrote: "Do you really think the Feds have the right to make you buy something just because you're alive, or send you to jail if you don’t?"

This is a very narrow question that you ask. Do the Feds have the right to make me "buy" the roads that I drive on? Do the Feds have the right to make me "buy" the 737 US military bases overseas? (China has 0, BTW.) My answer is, "yes, I think the Feds have the right to make me buy roads, and send me to jail if I don't."

Here's a nice narrow question for you: What's the difference between an insurance exchange and an interstate freeway?

Paul Emery

So Todd and D. King Should we or should we not repeal Medicare and Social Security on Constitutional grounds?

Todd Juvinall

No, let's repeal the military. LOL What is interesting to me about your question of repeal is the lack of recognition you give us that have paid a gazillion bucks into those systems. Maybe you could say, are you for repeal and the return, with interest, all the money you have paid into those systems. Then maybe you would be taken more seriously. BTW, my dad died at age 62 from pancreatic cancer. He received five checks from SS. Then they asked for the fifth check back. He paid into the system for fifty years. Seems they made a profit on him eh? Oh and he had private health insurance, never used medicare.

Mikey McD

Q: What's the difference between an insurance exchange and an interstate freeway?

A: You are not forced to pay for and use an interstate freeway, an interstate freeway does not erase the existence of all other roads and byways (decrease choice), an interstate freeway does not insure the indebtedness of both current and future generations, an interstate freeway does not create dependence on nanny government...

Paul Emery


Todd, are you for repeal and the return, with interest, all the money that has paid into those systems.

D. King

Ah Yes, the difference between "buy" and "tax".

I'm sure a mind blowing enigma for ya.

Paul Emery

D. King

Actually I appreciate the honesty and consistency of your opinion. You're not a hit and run guy. I think the Libertarian view is essential in any discussion of the future of our country. Of course you realize that it's a small minority that shares such a fundamentalist Libertarian viewpoint. As I've stated before Ron Paul emerged as the most influential independent voice in the last election. As we have seen in these pages before, most Tea Party types don't have the stomach for deep Libertarian mantras. I actually applaud you and, even though we may disagree on fundamental issues I respect the dialogue.

Michael Anderson

"I'm sure a mind blowing enigma for ya."

OK, we're doing well. We're on the right track. Let's keep going.

Next question: If I live at the top of a mountain in the remote corner of north-eastern California--such that the only way for me to get food is to drive my pickup truck--does the state of California have the right to make me buy auto insurance, or send me to jail if I don’t?

I already know your answer, but I'd like to see it anyway. Thanks.

D. King

You should live here with Auntie Em, then you won't need a truck.


Oh sorry, and therefore no insurance.

Michael Anderson

D. King -
Nope, that wasn't the answer. The answer was "yes." If you check out judicial findings on federalism and the Commerce Clause starting at the beginning of the 20th century, you see an inexorable rise in federal rights usurping states rights. Your original question was already decided about mid-20th century. That's the main reason many people all over the political map find the activist movements to repeal and/or find PPACA unconstitutional so frustrating. It's an unnecessary do-over of 20th-century precedent that does nothing to address the complex social and political systems that are emerging in the 21st century.

Mikey -
"You are not forced to pay for and use an interstate freeway..."
You don't have to use it but you pay for it at the gas pump regardless.

"...an interstate freeway does not erase the existence of all other roads and byways (decrease choice)"
A single-payer system might decrease choice, but that's not PPACA. And an insurance exchange could potentially increase choice, just as anti-monopoly regulations increase choice in any kind of market.

"...an interstate freeway does not insure the indebtedness of both current and future generations"
Rhetoric. OMB says PPACA will reduce the deficit.

"...an interstate freeway does not create dependence on nanny government..."
Rhetoric. The insurance brokers I've talked to aren't worried about nanny gov't and PPACA.

Todd Juvinall

Apples and oranges MA. The freeway is a misnomer since it has the word free in it wouldn;t you say? The freeway like every road can have people traveling on it by foot (no insurance), a animal (maybe a license) and a vehicle (a license probably). The Obamacare said whether you travel the freeway or not you are gonna pay Uncle Sam. No choice there.

D. King

O.K. Michael,

This is the first time in the history of this country we are being taxed to be alive.
If you save a million dollars for retirement, which you have already paid taxes on and decide to stop working, you could have lived on that money for rest of your life (B.O.) before Obama. Now, you are being forced to spend your savings on government edicts (a back door to tax, savings principle). Get it? This has been talked about for years. They would like to do the same with business wealth savings. Just listen to them! Businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty and that will be used to get at their wealth, also talked about for years. The patent laws are being trashed as well, why, same reason; it’s property. Can you say redistribution; can you spell that? Not a very nice legacy to leave the kids.

Todd Juvinall

He is a socialist, your logic is falling on deaf ears.

Account Deleted

M A, you lose big time here. There is no Constitutional grounds for the govt to require a citizen to buy a good from a company in order to remain a free person. I do not have to buy car insurance, gasoline or anything you have or can mention from a private company to remain in good legal standing. SS and Medicare are taxes that the govt has been authorised to levy on the citizens of this country. BO promised us repeatedly this was not a tax. He called the naysayers liars. Then his lawyers went to court and said it was a tax. The courts pointed out that: 1 - BO can't have it both ways and 2 - BO himself said when he was running that there would be no Fed mandate to buy insurance. The labor unions that begged for this law are now being exempted from it. There is so much to this monster that has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the govt moving towards what BO has repeatedly stated was his goal of single payer govt run health care. The stupid lie about how it will reduce the deficit rests solely with forcing doctors and hospitals to care for patients below a cost that would allow the providers to stay in business. There have been lots of laws proposed by R's that would have reduced health care costs, but the Dems have fought them tooth and nail.

Paul Emery


Any response on to the question you asked me to ask you?

" Maybe you could say, are you for repeal and the return, with interest, all the money you have paid into those systems."

I was originally asking if you supported the repeal of Medicare and Social Security

Barry Pruett

The car insurance analogy...apples and oranges.

Car insurance requirements for liability are a state action. If a state required you to purchase health insurance, I think (though I have not done the research) they can do that.

The issue is can the federal government? The federal government is only allowed to do those things that the Constitution specifically enumerates.

Congress is relying upon the commerce clause to force people to affirmatively do something. That is stretching the commerce caluse way too far. This issue will be a 5-4 decision in favor of a limited reading of the commerce clause.

Though it should be a 5-3 decision, but Kagan has decided that despite arguing these cases as solicitor general that she need not recuse herself.

Michael Anderson

As Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I just want you all to know that I'm liking the heat just fine, I'm finding this discussion to be very enjoyable. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to participate.

Todd wrote: "Apples and oranges MA."
Conservatives are the ones always saying that taxes, fees, and other mandated gov't obligations are all the same--a tax. I happen to agree with that opinion.

D. King wrote: "Can you say redistribution; can you spell that?"
I can say it and I can spell it too. The moment I pay a penny of sales tax for my purchase, my wealth is being distributed. What we are talking about here is only about degrees, and where lies taxation's angle of repose.

Scott O. wrote: "M A, you lose big time here."
Well, that's your subjective assessment and I accept it for what it is. However, I don't lose by default because I supported PPACA and it passed. I may "lose big time" but you lose by default. I invite you to point me to those comprehensive health care initiatives put forth by Republicans during the past 40 years that were defeated by Dems fighting "tooth and nail."

Barry wrote: "Congress is relying upon the commerce clause to force people to affirmatively do something. That is stretching the commerce clause way too far. This issue will be a 5-4 decision in favor of a limited reading of the commerce clause."
Thanks for chiming in Barry. This is what I have been wanting to discuss since the Tea Party Patriots first sent out their caustic call for repeal. I happen to disagree with your prediction, and I am saddened that the pro-repeal crew are not putting their efforts into reforming the bill instead of killing it. It took us almost a century to get to this point, and the whole thing will unravel if the entire bill is tossed.

I am also saddened that this entire mess is being placed on Kennedy's head. My hope is that he will be so irritated at having watched the acrimony in this country since WWII that he will default his decision to the politicians who were actually able to git 'r done.

Michael Anderson

Oh, and a hat tip to Paul Emery for approaching this discussion from a bit of a different angle. Libertarianism, capitalism, socialism, freedom, liberty, yum yum, them'r good cookies.

Here's a homework assignment for everyone who's interested. Read this carefully, then post your book report for all to see.


D. King

“It took us almost a century to get to this point, and the whole thing will unravel if the entire bill is tossed.”

I do empathize Michael. But, you can always go live with Jorgy in Norway and smell dead fish all winter.

Here, this will cheer you up.

Michael Anderson

Sorry "D. King," I'm going to have to give your book report a C-. A youtube video is kinda just phoning it in, doncha think?

I am of Norwegian descent, but I have no interest in living in Norway. I'm a 5th generation Pacific Coast pioneer, with paperwork, so I get grumpy when recent newcomers to this wonderful land come here and try to rewrite the rules.

Sure would like to know what the "D." in D. King stands for. Enlighten me.

D. King

"...so I get grumpy when recent newcomers to this wonderful land come here and try to rewrite the rules."

Yeah, illegal aliens piss me off too.

and D. stands for Dave.

Michael Anderson

Thanks Dave.

Todd Juvinall

I guess I am a bit confused by MA comments. From the conservatives viewpoint, Obamacare is socialism and unconstitutional. From reading MA's screeds it appears he believes it is not socialism and is constitutional? As a fifth generation American MA complains about the rules being changed and yet takes a position the free enterprise system cannot be trusted to pay for his lobotomy and only Obamacare can? LOL. BTW, Norway is five million people, all white and born and raised under socialism. I am confused as well because MA complains about the ethnic makeup being to white in Nevada County.There is no comparison to the USA I can find. I think there is a disconnect within the cranium and perhaps a review of one's personal philosophy is in order.

Mikey McD

Michael, unless all your answers are extreme sarcasm then you have lost any credibility you may have had.

To promote that Obamacare will decrease the deficit (without drastically raising taxes) is immoral. To cite my facts as rhetoric and then quote some broker you know to refute my facts is ridiculous. Your faith in government is obnoxious (thankfully not contagious).

I am one of the 200,000,000+ Americans whom love our health insurance, health care provider, the treatments and cures provided by capitalism, the freedom to choose our treatments, the freedom to choose our deductibles, freedom to choose our Dr., etc who would be penalized via anymore government control of health care. I am also one of the millions who do not believe health care to be a right afforded to one man at the expense (at the barrel of a gun) of another man. I would never ask the government to enslave you to provide for me. Free the markets, free the man.

Account Deleted

MA - you lose on your contention that the govt can force us to buy a good from a company. You didn't even try to refute my arguments. You hang your whole argument on the fact that the Dems rammed through and signed into law a mess they can't even read or understand. The fact that they passed it into law doesn't make it good or reasonable or Constitutional or even effective as measured against what they claimed it would do. The fact that the unions that spent millions to get it passed are now bailing out should tell you something. And Michael, I said "There have been lots of laws proposed by R's that would have reduced health care costs, but the Dems have fought them tooth and nail." If you are going to challenge that, please stay on track and don't change it into something I didn't say. I don't want "comprehensive health care initiatives put forth by Republicans" AKA - govt run health care. I want common sense laws to reduce the cost of health care. Tort reform would be a nice start. Dems have been solidly against that. I do like the conversation going on here as it shows the difference in core beliefs of governance.

Paul Emery

Thanks Michael for the Norway story. Of course to most of the readers of this blog the lure of Socialism is much like being lured into the vampires bite, sweet at the time but soon you'll become a slave to the master. Having lived and worked in Scandinavia from time to time I can recall the well-being of the people. I'm not sure it's our way but it sure works for those countries and any health care solution we propose should applaud those systems as being successful and well regarded by it's citizens.

But the night is near and, as we will see by the responses to my pitch the monsters are lurking ready to pounce and Norway will soon drift into totalitarian darkness.

Todd Juvinall

So you are a fan of socialism Paul?

D. King


Vampire references?

You think this is funny….yeah…well lookie here!!!

This is only Scary.


This…This is Horrifying!


Paul Emery


Good one.


Did you read the article on Denmark that Michael provided a link to? It might give a common reference to my response.

Paul Emery


The article was on Norway. Am I a fan of Socialism? It depends on the agreed definition which we haven't settled on. As far as the Marxist definition no. I do believe there are certain services for the common good that are best provided by a state controlled systems. Examples are military, police, fire, schools, parks, highways, regulations and enforcement regarding air traffic, fish and game,air and water quality etc. I can go on and on and we may agree or disagree on each example. If you call that socialism I guess I'm a fan. I have come to support some kind of national health care system based on European models that I guess you would consider to be socialistic.

Todd Juvinall

No Paul I don't call those things socialism. U call them a society. Socialism is when the government comes and takes my money and gives it to others to make us all the same. Simple.

Dixon Cruickshank

I just read all this and haven't followed along before
1 - the Fla judge basically said the commerce clause can not be used on the basis of something someone might do, on that basis what else might I do - maybe
2 the premise of Obamacare is to eliminate the healthcare industry - plain and simple, single payor - that just wouldn't fly but they certainly tried. They could only get this through although they don't even know what it says.
,elimination would have to come later - per Nancy
3 It would lower the defict if the DR's would only work for minimum wage or maybe 24K a year.
4 Nobody even knows what it says yet, nobody read it and still most haven't - finding new stuff every day - who actually wrote it? 2700 pages? probably the unions that want out - good for you but not for us.
We had the greatest healthcare system in the world, does it need help - yep

George Rebane

‘Who is a Socialist?’ was my effort to answer the question, clarify my use of the label, and suggest its understanding in these pages. Subsequently there appeared a longer essay in the op-ed pages of the WSJ that followed my development to a tee. I failed to bookmark it and am now searching for it as a corroborating reference.

And ‘The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling’ (2feb11 WSJ) is an excellent summary of the Florida US District Court’s ruling, and the tactics that the administration had to dance around in order to attempt a justification for endrunning the Constitution. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117913097891574.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

BTW, even the liberal NPR regularly uses ‘Obamacare’ as the more succinct and neutral label for the cynically named ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’. When Congress attaches such appellations, you can be sure that the underlying legislation is anything but or exactly the opposite of what is propagandized to the sheeple – the PPACA has vindicated that practice.

Please note also that in the interval the liberals have hiked the ‘people without healthcare’ to 50 million from the originally tortured number of 40 million which included over 30 million who choose not to buy available healthcare. Recall that in the final analysis, even the Democrats accepted CBO’s assessment that the country has only 9 million people who want more healthcare but cannot afford it.

Paul Emery

This is from the official report from the 2009 census showing that the number of uninsured is indeed over 50 million. Is the US Census the Liberal culprit who hiked the numbers?

"Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 46.3 million in 2008 to 50.7 million in 2009, while the percentage increased from 15.4 percent to 16.7 percent over the same period.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):"

George Rebane

Then let's believe the US Census by all means, but also let's not confuse "people without health insurance coverage" with either those who wish such coverage or seek it without being able to afford it. The 50.7 million number is partitioned into several sub-populations, and I would then venture that the current recession has caused the 9 million number to also rise. Nevertheless, the fundamental arguments against Obamacare as a reaction to all this do not change.

Counter to what the liberal leadership promised, we have instead the situation where the more people and organizations discover what's in Obamacare, there more they want to be exempt from its diktats.

Paul Emery

I'm not sure things are moving in that direction as Obama's approval ratings are climbing and are now in the double digits, except Fox of course, and that implies support for his programs. The burden will be on the opposition to come up with acceptable alternatives, something they showed no inclination in doing previously. http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm
Anyway If I was polled I'd probably show up as a negative in favor of a plan similar to the Danish system which I will describe as soon as I have time. You'll find that all's not rotten in Denmark

George Rebane

Paul, your continuing refusal to acknowledge the Republican alternatives suggested from the gitgo is an example of the leftwing chorus (a la Saul Alinsky) that harms the comity of our nation and stops/diverts/misdirects the public dialogue.

Paul Emery

It's a little hard to take the Republicans seriously on this since they did nothing during the years they could have shown leadership. Are these bold new ideas? Where were these ideas in 2004 when they had control of everything and could have made it happen or at least tried. It's like asking for religion on your last breath. It's only after the Dems proposed passed what we now have that they gave a damn, That said I'll hold my nose and give it a look but after I indulge in my favorite Danish pastry.

Todd Juvinall

A couple of things. The Reid/Pelosi machine kept using the 40+ million figure all through heir hegemonic push. When that was broken down, it was discovered, GASP!, that 20 million were young people who didn't want it, 12 million were illegals and the remainder of around 10 million were the real uninsured as described by the left. We said let us leave our great system alone and just concentrate on the ten million. But nooo. The liberals shoved aside 290 million of us who liked our healthcare to pander to the ten million. That is why they got their asses handed to them in November.

Regarding your allegation the R's did nothing. You must read a very limited set of liberal documents Paul. I watched every single R proposal get filibustered during the Bush years by the Democrats in the Senate. I then got to watch as Pelosi and Reid locked the doors to keep out the R's when the Obamacare was being created. You as a journalist must be amazed that you have missed so much.

BTW, I responded to a comment on my blog with a real life example of our healthcare system. Check it out.

Paul Emery

Here we go again. Todd please point me to those examples of Democratic filibusters. I need to be refreshed because I have no recollection. It should be pretty simple. Senate Bills, House bills dates etc. You seem to have the information but you never share details.

Todd Juvinall

Paul, you will just have too trust like you expect us to trust you. I was at home most of the year watching CSPAN and other political shows and witnessed the stuff I said. Sorry, I don't take down notes or keep a scorecard. Same over the Bush years (except I was working and limited to nighttime). Whether it was AMWR, Judges or "pick a subject", when it got to the Senate everything stopped. Oh, an Social Security Reform. Remember that? How many times did we all hear "dead on arrival" from Harry Reid? Come on man, you are supposed to know all this crap.

Paul Emery


What you offer is a overall survey of Democratic filibusters but it does not come close to answering the question as to whether the Republicans have ever offered a comprehensive health care reform program. Their main contribution has been to, yes, filibuster the Democratic attempts be it Clinton or Obama to address this urgent need. So, you can't have it both ways Todd condemning the Dems for filibusters and supporting the same tactics by Republicans. So, aside from the current Republican offerings which I will look at as promised it appears that there has been no Republican effort for healthcare reform other than to act as opposition to whatever pathetic attempts the Democrats make.

You have a real disadvantage here because you are a Republican and I don't support either party with this one because both are influenced by the same big money interests that prevent any meaningful reform.

Todd Juvinall

Paul, I never condemner the use of the filibuster, where did you come up with that? Regarding a comprehensive plan on healthcare. What the heck is that? Because the democrats call something comprehensive or reform that means it is? Wow, propaganda does work. The system we have, the free market system, is the best on the planet. The reasons I see why parts of it are a problem is because your friends on the left have interjected themselves into the equation when they should butt out. The Republicans have tried to fix the overreach by the left by submitting bills to fix things. Well Paul, just like in Sacramento, if you have a minority status as a party, you don't even get to committee. The repairs of the broken parts could happen if the bills submitted by responsible politicians had been allowed to get a vote. You are actually the one that is disadvantaged Paul, you have no one representing your views as a party in authority in Sacramento or DC. I do.

Paul Emery

What else would it be (filibuster) when you have control of both houses and the Pres. I'm not talking about minority status here. I'm just saying when they had the ability to do something they did nothing.

Let's look at it this way. Let's assume there is a real problem that needs a solution, in this case health care. Now if you believe that it's not a problem that has to be dealt with then we have a difference right off the bat but let's assume we agree on this . We (the people) hired the Republicans through the ballot box to come up with a solution and gave them the majority to assert leadership and come up with a plan. They did little or nothing during their tenure and in fact the problem got worse.

We then hire another team (Democrats) and they come up with a plan and get it through the process and it becomes law. Now the old team (Republicans) raise a fuss and say they have a better plan and we should dump the new plan and use theirs. Fair enough but why should I trust the team that did nothing to suddenly come up with a course of action that they could have introduced when they had the majority? Pretty basic stuff.

Todd, thanks for being concerned about my lack of representation. I'll be ok.

Todd Juvinall

Paul I have answered your question three times. It appears my answers don't help you understand so I am unable to proceed.

Paul Emery

This time I didn't ask a question. It was more of a statement as to why I don't take the Republicans very seriously. I am much more interested in the opinions of unaffiliated independent thinkers than regurgitation
of the dogma of either party.

Todd Juvinall

Try the Daily Worker.

Paul Emery


I'm catching up on my homework. First the GOP plan then later the Denmark system.

As promised I looked at the GOP health care plan. This is from http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

• Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American
families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.

A grand statement but how is this accomplished? No details

• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable health care for those
with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and
reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-
existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all

Is this going to be forced on current insurance companies or is it a new insurance program? Another good idea but it seems to imply Federal creation and enforcement.

• Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine
by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.

Sure why not. Euro systems all have strict thresholds on lawsuits. So if California is an example of reform why do rates keep going up?

• Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from
cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition.

Again uses the word prohibits meaning some kind of government mandate. How is that different from Obama's dictum's? I imagine applicants would go through some kind of screening and exams ant they sould take the cram of the crop and discard the rest. Where does that leave the rejects? Who if anyone would insure them? Also "conceals material facts" is an easy out for insurance company lawyers. Would tort reform include these kind of legal actions?

• Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool
together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.

No problem. Why can't they do that now?

• Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive
payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.

Good. We can reward Mass. who has the fewest percentage of uninsured due to an Obama like system enacted under Romney. In the reverse why not pnalize the highest uninsured State meaning in this case Texas.

• Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for
coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.

Why is this prohibited now? Seems like a good idea but someone doesn't like it. I could use some help here.

• Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers
greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.

Here we go again. How do you legislate healthy lifestyles? Some sort of Federal health cop that you turn a report card into? Good idea but how do you do it without violating what is considered sacred rules of privacy and freedom.

• Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for
current and future health care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSA funds to pay
premiums for high deductible health insurance.

Can't anyone do that on their own? Isn't that permissible under the current system. I save money and buy insurance. The question is what does "enhancing" mean? Is it some kind or tax credit?

• Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of
young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.

The word is "encourages" Does that mean that we say "Insurance companies please allow young adults to stay on their parents coverage....." It's the old should rather than shall context that means nothing.

That's the best I can do with this. There's not much here on cutting expenses or health care expectations or reform to create health care clinics. Also, how does this address the huge cost of emergency services. It seems a bit empty to me. Perhaps in the long run it could create improvement but right now the patient is bleeding and there is no help in sight.

Steven Frisch

I am not sure where to put the bold, gloating, headline statement I TOLD YOU SO!

Michael Anderson

A great day indeed.

Not only is the camel's nose under the tent, the ENTIRE FRIGGIN' CAMEL is now under the canvass!

Next stop: Single Payer.

Steven Frisch

Michael, I will just have to assume that people who don't work anymore don't get up nearly as early as we do! I am sure the rhetoric will be flying by 10 am, while you and I are out contributing to building a new world.

George Rebane


Douglas Keachie

So if the Right loses at the Supreme Court level, then the retreat is to States Rights? Like it or not, the one percent is simply not going to be allowed to perform genocide on the 99%, so it is high time the one percent SERIOUSLY figure out how they are going to create jobs in the USA, or how they are going to set up a system that recognises that the wealth in the hands of the one percent, and the current investments, would have never have come about without the 99% and their fore-bearers efforts.(spelling via spell checker, I still think there is no hypen)

Looking for metaphors? As Nero was to Rome, so are the current far Right to the USA, and why should they rest of us have to repeat history, just because they can't remember it?

Myth #7: An unavoidable price for progress
Claims that the disaster was the unavoidable price to be paid for pioneering a new frontier were self-serving rationalizations on the part of those responsible for incompetent engineering management — the disaster should have been avoidable. NASA managers made a bad call for the launch decision, and engineers who had qualms about the O-rings were bullied or bamboozled into acquiescence. The skeptics’ argument that launching with record cold temperatures is valid, but it probably was not argued as persuasively as it might have been, in hindsight. If launched on a warmer day, with gentler high-altitude winds, there’s every reason to suppose the flight would have been successful and the troublesome seal design (which already had the attention of designers) would have been modified at a pace that turned out to have been far too leisurely. The disaster need never have happened if managers and workers had clung to known principles of safely operating on the edge of extreme hazards — nothing was learned by the disaster that hadn’t already been learned , and then forgotten.

NBC News space analyst James Oberg spent 22 years at NASA's Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer.

The comments to this entry are closed.