Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2010

WSJ: Mickey D’s Threatens to Cut Health Insurance for Hourly Workers Thanks to ObamaCare

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:25 pm

Another victory for Big Government Meddling in health insurance:

McDonald’s Corp may cut health insurance for its nearly 30,000 hourly workers unless U.S. regulators waive a requirement of new health care legislation championed by President Barack Obama, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a company memo.

The restaurant chain is at odds over the new law’s stipulation that so-called “mini-med” insurance plans spend at least 80 percent of premium revenue on medical care, the newspaper said on its website on Wednesday.

McDonald’s told federal regulators in the memo that it would be “economically prohibitive” for its insurance carrier to continue to cover hourly workers unless it receives a waiver to the 80 percent minimum requirement, the Journal reported.

Federal officials say there is no guarantee a waiver will be granted, it said.

The linked story says McDonald’s has told Reuters they won’t be dropping the coverage. I find that internal memos are generally far less accurate than statements to the press, don’t you?

Between that and Barack Obama’s assurance that nobody will lose their health insurance because of ObamaCare, McDonald’s workers can rest easy.

72 Responses to “WSJ: Mickey D’s Threatens to Cut Health Insurance for Hourly Workers Thanks to ObamaCare”

  1. The system worked!

    I’m not certain, but those mini-med plans with capped annual benefits do not sound kosher under the brave new world of ObamaCare.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  2. I am so happy about this.

    Making Obama-ites eat the dog food.

    Schadenfreude.

    Heavensent (4f78d0)

  3. Prob with the 80% requirement is that in order to get to that mathematical point you actually have to provide a ton of benefits or really bad service to the beneficiaries.

    But the insurers could do it without increasing benefits (premiums) if they simply force all these beneficiaries onto an online service platform and send service to India.

    Heavensent (4f78d0)

  4. send back office service to India.

    Heavensent (4f78d0)

  5. The regulators can determine, case by case, who has to obey the law and who doesn’t?

    What could go wrong?

    ras (ffe6ea)

  6. No kidding, Ras. Just another avenue for siphoning profits into political campaign coffers.

    That old argument for a simplified tax code works here. It’s why politicians claw for seats on the right committees and bureaucrats claw for the right roles as arbiters of who gets what exception. And over time, the whole mess starts to fall apart.

    BTW, McDonalds doesn’t give much to politicians, but is considered Republican in its donations. Their policy is to not make political donations unless a policy issue will impact their business. I guess that means they will have to pony up.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  7. Dustin, I have heard that the late Ray Kroc was generally conservative in nature, but that his widow was something of a lefty and used the Kroc Foundation to fund a whole lot of feel-good liberal social issues. For instance, there are a number of “Peace Institutions” and other think-tanks on various campuses funded by Joan Kroc and named for her.

    The other thing about the McDonald’s Corporation’s political stance is that they were also happy to use Big Government in order to consolidate their position and harm their smaller competitors. For instance, I read once that McDonald’s was always big on raising the minimum wage. It didn’t matter to them at all because by the time the wage was being raised from $3.35 to $4.25 per hour McDonald’s employees were already starting at $5+ per hour, but they knew that it would hurt the mom-and-pop burger shop across the street who would struggle to pay the extra wage while still keeping prices competitive. Same with being for health care mandates: McDonald’s was already providing health care to its employees, and they wanted their smaller competitors to be forced into doing so too.

    JVW (eccfd6)

  8. So, how do you measure negotiated rates? Suppose a negotiated group reduction of a doctor’s normal $80 visit charge to $40, which is then covered by a $20 co-pay and $20 plan-pay.

    Is that a $20 benefit or a $60 benefit? The plan counts it as $20 against the cap, but the worker is saving $60. Certainly some of the premiums go to the overhead of negotiating/maintaining the group. What counts into the 80% and why is this overhead called “profit”?

    Kevin M (298030)

  9. Kevin M – It’s based on the cash received by the insurer, 80% of the premiums have to go for care or benefits.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  10. JVW,

    Hadn’t heard about the min wage issue. Pretty crafty. Also not surprised that the person who built the company would be more conservative than the family that spends what he earned. Poetic.

    No doubt, Mcdonalds is not an angel descending from heaven in order to provide delicious french fries to orphans.

    They are simply another major employer that will have a hard time providing the benefits it has, thanks to government becoming too intrusive.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  11. daley–

    And again, how do indirect expenditures that reduce member costs count? If the plan spends $100K on lawyers or contract fees to negotiate a plan discount with a physicians group (which gives the members a double benefit (cost reductions not counted against the benefit cap)), it seems the insurer is penalized by the government rules.

    Odd that one would want to discourage negotiated rates in private plans when that’s exactly what Medicare/Medicaid is all about. Almost like they want to put private plans at a disadvantage.

    Kevin M (298030)

  12. Can WalMart be far behind?

    Icy Texan (9b7145)

  13. Most p/t health plans are going away. Ask any major company, they have little choice as a result of the law.

    bob (3eefb2)

  14. Kevin,

    I believe the fees for lawyers negotiating reimbursement rates do not count in that 80% towards care or benefits calculation.

    I can’t look up the news reports now, but some states had similar laws about maximum overhead and profits, and insurance companies in those states started playing funny with the accounting to meet those limits. Such as counting customer service reps answering the phones as a “benefit”, etc.

    Xmas (073757)

  15. “I’m not certain, but those mini-med plans with capped annual benefits do not sound kosher under the brave new world of ObamaCare.”

    Wasn’t the point was to end these kinds of schemes?

    imdw (ce700c)

  16. The point was to screw up health care so badly the agitate public would be amenable to single payer.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. “The point was to screw up health care so badly the agitate public would be amenable to single payer.”

    Makes sense. This is what Romney did in MA and what the GOP wanted to do in the 90s.

    imdw (2020d4)

  18. From what I understand (and I could be wrong), things like customer service for patients isn’t considered “medical care” by these government bureaucrats.

    So, good luck getting someone at the insurance company to answer the phone if you have a question… not to mention getting what one would consider acceptable customer service from whoever answers.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  19. Those mini-med plans with a $10K coverage cap are pretty useless anyway. But yeah, these consequences of O-Care were entirely predictable.

    gp (72be5d)

  20. Folks like imdw see this as a feature, not a bug.

    JD (b88cc9)

  21. Democrats have demonstrated utter incompetence at the reins of government. Unbelievable incompetence frankly. I thought that things would be bad after the November ’08 election, but in all seriousness, Obama and the rest have been far worse than I thought.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. gp–

    If a plan has significantly lower negotiated rates for service it is worthwhile EVEN IF IT PAYS NOTHING AT ALL directly. Any analysis that ignores this fact is at best careless.

    Example: If a hospital procedure normally costs $10K, but the negotiated rate is $2K, how much does it matter what portion of the $2K it covers?

    This is of increasing importance as medical providers jack up the “list price” of service to the uninsured. Discounts like the above are not only common but often even greater. I have seen bills where a $50K service was discounted to under $5K, before any insurance payment was applied.

    Kevin M (298030)

  23. Okay, so a mini med plan with a $10K cap is pretty much useless. [Since I’m looking at a UCLA Hospital bill of $43,000 for a 2 and a half stay for a recent surgery–that’s the rack rate–Medicare will reimburse UCLA $12 K or so) I can understand how in today’s medical world you can blow through $10 K in an afternoon. But to say that it is not sufficient is not to say that it has no value. A mini med may well be enough for 80% of the hourly workers at McDonalds actual annual medical expenses. The outliers (slip and fall, broken arm–cancer–stroke) are screwed. Under Obamacare and Katherine Sebelius–all of the McDonalds folks–not just the outliers– are screwed.

    Mike Myers (0e06a9)

  24. Mike–

    And that’s especially so since the other kind of cheap plan — catastrophic-only coverage — is OUTLAWED by Obamacare.

    Kevin M (298030)

  25. Question: If there was a $15/week plan that

    1) paid nothing at all for any medical service
    2) had no drug benefit
    3) guaranteed an 80% discount off of list price for any medical service from any provider

    would you take it if that was the only plan your employer offered? Would it be worth it?

    I ask this because most people look at the schedule of benefits when comparing medical plans when the major benefit is the negotiated discount.

    Kevin M (298030)

  26. “But to say that it is not sufficient is not to say that it has no value.”

    It’s not just that it has no value, it’s that it also screws up the goal of expanding the risk pool, which must come with the requirement to treat pre-existing conditions. Otherwise people would just get a plan that covers nothing, pay little, and then once they got sick get a plan that costs more and covers more.

    imdw (522aa3)

  27. About 15 years ago, I had a high deductible plan from Blue Cross, that is no longer legal to offer. But being self-employed, it was what I could afford at the time.

    It had a $2000 deductible. I had an infection on my foot that got to the point that my doctor had me hospitalized mainly for IV antibiotic treatment. The hospital stay was initially billed at around $9,000 but after the insurance contract rates were applied, the total bill ended up at $1990 as I recall.

    I was happy. I’d gotten my money’s worth from the insurance.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. So, iamadimwit basically admits that left left and Barcky were lying in the manner in which they attempted to foist this on the public. If you like your plan you can keep it. Unless we outlaw it. Or make it cost prohibitive.

    JD (00db08)

  29. And don’t forget, JD, that the Democrats themselves admitted that the best case result of their “plan” would still only cut the number of “uninsured” by half.

    Its all an incompetent fraud.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. Makes sense. This is what Romney did in MA and what the GOP wanted to do in the 90s.

    Comment by imdw —

    Well, you often don’t make your claims directly, for whatever reason. If you’re claiming this is a crazy idea, you need to let Obama know. He actually taught this idea at Chicago. We all have seen that picture of him with the chart on the chalkboard. He is talking bout how to agitate the public so that more government intervention is possible.

    That’s what he meant by community organizer. The last thing an Alinksy follower wants is a happy community that has few problems.

    The reason this sounds crazy is because it is very crazy. Someone’s personal priorities have to be completely out of whack to support Alinksy tactics. But Obama does support them, and they explain his health care approach. He promised health care reform would eventually lead to the massively different single payer system. Why would it do that, if it worked well under the present form?

    It’s like Honda boasting that if you buy an Accord, in a few months, you’ll be in a Toyota.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  31. “We all have seen that picture of him with the chart on the chalkboard.”

    I’m curious to see this.

    “But Obama does support them, and they explain his health care approach”

    Does this also explain the health care approach used by Romney in MA and in the GOP proposals in the 90s?

    imdw (150cd7)

  32. Someone’s personal priorities have to be completely out of whack to support Alinksy tactics.

    Someone has to be a sociopath to support Alinsky’s tactics. People forget that Alinsky was basically a Mafia acoloyte who got bored and decided that figuring out how to tear communities apart would be a lot more interesting.

    And you’re right, the last thing Alinsky followers want to see is contented, high-trust communities. Their only power and influence comes from fomenting discord and breaking down trust bonds. And they have to keep agitating discord, or else they become irrelevant to society.

    Think of community organizers as modern-day Wobblies and their tactics make a lot more sense. It’s the one thing that revealed just how clueless Thomas Frank was about “what’s the matter with Kansas”–that a malcontent, parasite class is going to be a greater threat to a smaller, more ruralized community where trust bonds are critical for the community’s survival. Wobblies (in the past) and community organizers (ward heelers) actually destroy those bonds, but in the cities these breakdowns aren’t as great of a threat to the entire urban infrastructure. The rich or well-connected can simply ghettoize the parasite class in another part of town and maintain the illusion of stability. Smaller towns don’t have that luxury.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  33. LOOK BUNNIES AND SHINY THINGS!!!

    JD (d9926c)

  34. “Someone has to be a sociopath to support Alinsky’s tactics. ”

    Doesn’t faux pimp james o’keefe describe himself as using Alinsky tactics?

    imdw (c5488f)

  35. Comment by imdw — 9/30/2010 @ 10:48 am

    Considering your side of the aisle’s responsible for more community breakdowns in this country than any other in history, I’ll take that comment for the weak-willed admission of your own contribution to the country’s degradation as it is.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  36. Doesn’t faux pimp james o’keefe describe himself as using Alinsky tactics?

    Comment by imdw

    Meh. Did he? Other than proving ACORN is a criminal enterprise, committed mortgage fraud among the least of its crimes, and getting it defunded for a very short period, how did O’Keefe agitate for the government to filter money from private to public sector?

    I don’t think your claim makes any sense.

    O’Keefe illustrated the viciousness of the democrat mode with a snarky reference to Obama’s philosophy. He applies the philosophy in piecemeal ways that clearly are the opposite of Alinksy’s actual method. Notice, for example, that O’Keefe stopped the flow of money into ACORN, agitated AGAINST Senators taking billion dollar bribes.

    It is fair to criticize O’Keefe for some of his actions. It’s not fair to say he practices Alinksy tactics just because he quotes some of them.

    Oh, I guess I’m arguing with the brick wall again.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. dustin

    o’keefe is unabashedly alinskyite in tactics as is breitbart.

    one of their favorite passages is the one about forcing the enemy to live up to their own rules.

    i think they way they would explain it is this. they use alinsky tactices to achieve reaganite outcomes. in other words a sharp difference between goals and methods used to achieve them.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  38. Now we have AJB, wheeler’s cat, and imdw all introducing the “Look! O’Keefe!” troll in multiple threads.

    Axelrod sure is getting his money’s worth.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. I agree with you, Aaron.

    But I think the issue I identified as Obama’s practices is quite the opposite of O’Keefe’s.

    Specifically, making a health care ‘reform’ that leads to many problems, in order to fulfill his goal of leading to single payer. He knows single payer is not achievable unless the current reform is a disaster, and it’s not surprising that many of these provisions in Obamacare are creating huge problems.

    This is the method Obama taught, after all. This is what he’s all about.

    And it’s got very little relationship with O’Keefe. O’Keefe practices normal gotcha journalism, and frames it cleverly. It’s not like ‘hold them up to their own set of rules’ is the novel aspect of Alinsky. That’s just good basic debating. Alinksy also talked about enjoying what you do, but I’m not going to accuse my guidance counselor from high school of being cut from the same cloth as Obama.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  40. Comment by JVW — 9/29/2010 @ 10:53 pm

    Joan may have been (was) a Soc-Lib, but that (like John Kerry) didn’t stop her from purchasing a 100’+ motor-yacht.

    AD-RtR/OS! (5da4fc)

  41. Dustin

    well, what you are engaging in, is the age old debate…

    or at least two year old debate…

    is obama really this bad at his job? Or is he doing it on purpose?

    and honestly, i still say the man is incompetent rather than ingenious. but i can see the other side has some valid points.

    like on health care, i was reminded of this movie i watched “amazing grace.” i was hoping this movie would be great but instead it was only okay. it was about how wilberforce ended the slave trade in england.

    Now i can’t quite explain the technicalities but this is the idea. they tried the direct approach for years and parliament kept saying now, because those members who were representing slave traders didn’t want to go out of business.

    So instead they slipped something into a bill in the middle of the night that would in a less-than-obvious way, expose every slave-carrying ship to piracy. It had something to do with taking down the british flag in certain situations that slave ships did all the time.

    within a year the entire industry was destroyed. Then once the industry was destroyed, it was a simple matter to actually outlaw it. And england eventually went the other way actually fighting to stop the slave trade. it is really a feather in their cap that they did the last part. they deserve more credit than they get. anyone can enslave in the name of greed; people have done it for millenia. But expending blood and treasure to fight slavery, when you yourself are not part of the enslaved class, is very unusual in human history.

    Anyhoo, so my point is, i have wondered if that is their goal.

    But here is where the conspiracy theories crash. i cannot believe that obama wants to lose these midterms. and yet his policies have been so rotten, i have to think if he knew how bad they would be, he would have to have also known that it would have been killing his party at this point.

    So i have to believe that our economy is in this shape because he is incompetant. and once you explain one failure by stunning incompetance, its easy to understand how the rest are, too.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  42. “He applies the philosophy in piecemeal ways that clearly are the opposite of Alinksy’s actual method.”

    I just saw him saying he was inspired by and took to heart the teachings. I think he’s using them to advantage traditionally powerful sectors of society and to attack social progressives working for traditionally less powerful groups, and in that way is ‘opposite.’ But I don’t think that’s quite how you see it.

    Aaron, on the other hand, agrees with my assessment.

    Now O’Keefe is just a douchebag whose own cohorts are ratting out.

    imdw (b327fd)

  43. Why can’t be incompetent most of the time, while also intending some obvious agitation?

    It’s actually not very ingenious to pull an Alinksy con. You just make sure things are not working well, or don’t worry too much when they are, and move for a reform that entails government intrusion. It has all the genius of a sledge hammer.

    There’s no question that Obama believes in keeping the community agitated, and expecting that agitation to permit more government. That’s simply what he taught. Does that mean the entire economic situation is some amazing plot to lead us to socialism? I agree with you that this is far beyond Obama’s capabilities, not to mention, probably not something he would want to do. At least I hope. Cloward Piven Strategy and all.

    Anyway, I do think most presidents do employ many strategies that are complicated and perhaps ingenious. Sometimes they completely fail, and most of the problems they face were mainly out of their control. I am not suggesting everything is a big conspiracy just because I realize that Obama promised single payer, and intends to keep that promise, and the only way to do that is if he’s hoping Obamacare fails.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. imdw

    Yeah, how dare he try to prank a news reporter. my gosh, that is worse than the holocaust.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. I think he’s using them to advantage traditionally powerful sectors of society and to attack social progressives working for traditionally less powerful groups, and in that way is ‘opposite.’ But I don’t think that’s quite how you see it.

    Right, because you see the massive government, unions, ACORN, etc as the less powerful groups.

    What a shock that you want to talk about O’Keefe. Here we’re talking about yet another massive problem with Obamacare, which was passed in a reprehensible manner, and you want to complain about how O’Keefe is oppressing you.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. “Does this also explain the health care approach used by Romney in MA and in the GOP proposals in the 90s?”

    imdw – Why don’t you describe those GOP proposals in the 1990s for us so we can make the comparison, mkay?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  47. “Yeah, how dare he try to prank a news reporter”

    That’s not the part that was so weird here.

    “imdw – Why don’t you describe those GOP proposals in the 1990s for us so we can make the comparison, mkay?”

    In handy chart form:

    http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx

    imdw (8a8ced)

  48. Can any of this be blamed on Bush?

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  49. Kasier Health? Isn’t that the group that kept putting out polling showing the country loved Obama care? Of course they couldn’t have asked the question straight as other pollsters clearly showed the public was against it (just ask Scott Brown). So they had to ask things like ‘do you want free health care’ or ‘do you mind if we have your neighbor pay for your healthcare’.

    I’m going to read the link. For a laugh.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  50. imdw

    So a RINO from Rhode Island proposed a semi-similar law in its broadest outlines and you think this is relevant… how?

    and mind you there are alot of big difference. like Chafee offered malpractice reform.

    And other things are pretty vague, like asserting obama’s bill aims to reduce costs. this is already proving a lie.

    Sorry, color me unimpressed.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  51. “So a RINO from Rhode Island proposed a semi-similar law in its broadest outlines and you think this is relevant… how?”

    Because that was the GOP proposal. It had co-signers, you know.

    “and mind you there are alot of big difference. like Chafee offered malpractice reform.”

    Yes I noticed that difference.

    imdw (604a8a)

  52. Kaiser is a well – known whore for ObamaCare, you ignorant slut. But I thought that all insurance companies were now evil – what gives, Einstein?

    Dmac (84da91)

  53. imdw

    > Because that was the GOP proposal.

    not according to even your democrat fawning source.

    > Yes I noticed that difference.

    and many others. really even this “tumbnail sketch” of the law demonstrates that they were very different proposals.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. “Kaiser is a well – known whore for ObamaCare, you ignorant slut”

    So? Does this change what the GOP proposal was? There’s more detail on their page if you want it.

    “and many others. really even this “tumbnail sketch” of the law demonstrates that they were very different proposals.”

    But the basic outline is there: A mandate to buy health insurance; this insurance has certain minimum and comprehensive coverage; it must cover pre-existing conditions; and people qualify for aid in purchasing this insurance.

    I’d say this “mickey’ds” problem identified today is due to elements shared with the republican plan from the 90s.

    Overall what this shows is just how centrist “obamacare” was. And just how batty the right wing has gotten.

    imdw (150cd7)

  55. IMovegoalpostsinDefenseofmyWhining needs to stop mentioning O’Keefe, who has nothing to do with this thread. Shiny Bunnies!!!

    Icy Texan (cc5e5e)

  56. Overall what this shows is just how centrist “obamacare” was. And just how batty the right wing has gotten.

    Stop threadjacking off to O’Keefe and answer my earlier question, since you consider yourself an expert on the subject thread – you linked to a study by Kaiser, yet they’re now considered Public Enemy #1 by Obama and his Hack – in – Chief of Healthcare, Kathleen Succubus. Please tell us why this is so, with extensive details.

    Dmac (84da91)

  57. “I’d say this “mickey’ds” problem identified today is due to elements shared with the republican plan from the 90s.”

    I’d say trying to claim a Republican Plan authored by a Rino in the 1990s as an alternative to HillaryCare in an ancestor of ObamaCare and should be therefore be welcomed and supported by conservatives has about as much intellectual substance as a 15 minute Keith Olbermann special comment – none.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  58. I’d say this “mickey’ds” problem identified today is due to elements shared with the republican plan from the 90s.

    Okay, since you claim to be such an expert, why not show us, chapter and verse, with verifiable links (and not links to DailyKOS or any other lefty site) the “elements shared with the republican plan from the 90s” which caused this problem.

    If you post another O’Keefe Red Herring (or any other attempt to spin) before answering this question, imdw, I will assume that you are doing so because you are unable to answer the question, probably because there are no such “elements shared with the republican plan from the 90s,” and that you’re just spinning furiously.

    Can you do it, imdw? Can you prove what you say? Or are you full of Bravo-Sierra?

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  59. I like this wanderer person.

    I do not understand how dimwit thinks that pointing to a RINO plan from over 15 years ago is any way relative to the fact that BarckyCare is having the exact opposite effects than he claimed it would. If you like your insurance, you can keep it. It will just cost way more. And will have less coverage. And decreased availability. What a mendoucheous twatwaffle dimwit is being. Hope Soros is paying well.

    JD (4b5a65)

  60. I like this wanderer person.

    Thanks, JD!

    That’s actually one of my favorite online debate tactics, I learned it quite some time ago. If you demand verifiable proof, most lefties will either spin or scurry… and since I warn them not to try spinning, they usually scurry back under their rocks for a while.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  61. “It will just cost way more.”

    JD – They have to bend the cost curve up before they bend it down or something, I think.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  62. “Okay, since you claim to be such an expert, why not show us, chapter and verse, with verifiable links (and not links to DailyKOS or any other lefty site) the “elements shared with the republican plan from the 90s” which caused this problem.”

    I showed them — the plans have to have a minimum coverage.

    “I’d say trying to claim a Republican Plan authored by a Rino in the 1990s as an alternative to HillaryCare in an ancestor of ObamaCare and should be therefore be welcomed and supported by conservatives has about as much intellectual substance as a 15 minute Keith Olbermann special comment – none.”

    I said it was centrist. Conservatives wouldn’t welcome that. The fact that the GOP leadership and right wing think tanks liked it doesn’t make it conservative.

    imdw (8a8ced)

  63. Where are the links, imdw? Your unsubstantiated statements are worth less than Obama’s promise to close Gitmo within the first year of his presidency.

    You haven’t shown a thing yet, nor proven anything, all you’ve done is spin.

    Which is about what I expected.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  64. LOL, Centrist.

    So centrist! It’s probably extremely popular. Why, I bet most of the voters love the idea.

    Oh wait, no, it’s extreme leftist. It’s none of the government’s business. The center thinks this kind of health care reform is a crock.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  65. Dustin – it is just throwing chaff out there. It wants to avoid, at all costs, talking about how BarckyCare is jacking up rates, making people lose coverages, and decreasing the availability of coverage. That must not be discussed.

    JD (9a2e5c)

  66. I can’t blame him, JD. Obamacare is an absolute disaster. Centrist was a word used to describe that too, of course, but it was passed despite the fact that the people didn’t want it passed. It was passed without being read or researched, with lies about its costs.

    Obamacare won’t be forgotten for a century at least, as an example of a crime against our country. Democrats would love to talk about anything else. I read somewhere that zero democrats are running ads pointing out support of this legislation. I don’t know if that’s true, but I’ve yet to see anything to the contrary.

    It’s 2010, and you can’t hide things like that anymore. You can screw around on the internet, or beat up a Tea Partier, maybe bite his pinky off, or fly your plane into a building in the name of communism, but ultimately, you can’t change the narrative.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  67. “Oh wait, no, it’s extreme leftist.”

    Leftist would be single payer.

    imdw (7c85b9)

  68. Leftist would be single payer.

    For once, we agree.

    That part starts in 2014, or didn’t you read the bill?

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  69. If I wanted to debate imdw on what constitutes leftist, I would note that it’s unreasonable to say anything more moderate than something extremely leftist cannot also be leftist.

    But I don’t want to fence with imdw on this, because it’s not really possible to do so. Call it centrism if you want, but most of the country disagrees with it. It’s not mainstream and it’s going to be part of the reason for November’s mass democrat extinction.

    Obamacare has only begun to be understood. We’re going to have plenty of surprises, since it cannot be repealed so long as Obama is in office. My faith that it will ever be repealed is quite limited, actually.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. I don’t think single payer starts then, but there is no doubt that left viewed this as a first bold step towards that.

    JD (b14a2f)

  71. JD, I know that, and you know that, but I bet imdw doesn’t know that. After all, I’d bet he’s never actually read the bill.

    ConservativeWanderer (41d634)

  72. “That part starts in 2014, or didn’t you read the bill?”

    I stopped once I got the death panels part because then we’ll all be dead.

    imdw (51cc50)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6607 secs.