I get her point that a state mandating purchase of health insurance is not unconstitutional in the same obvious and insulting way as a mandate from Congress is.
That said . . .
Really?
Even his most avid supporters can barely muster one, let alone two.
And Ann is giving three?
Really?
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
Besides the forced purchase, my main problem with ObamaCare and RomneyCare is the same: the both outlaw actual INSURANCE.
Insurance:
Which of course neither systems allow unless you ALSO purchase pre-paid medical services to cover the first dollar of need, which young people, healthy people and well-off people generally wish to avoid.
An ideal policy for many middle-class folks (assuming that they themselves are paying for it), is a policy that pays everything over, say, $10,000 and lets you pay 100% of the negotiated rate up to that point. Since the insurance company wants to keep your annual expense under $10K, they still have an incentive to offer a good negotiated rate, and you still have an incentive (pay less) to stay within their provider system.
This kind of policy, however, is absolutely forbidden under both systems, the argument being that poor folks and deadbeats would buy these cheaper plans and then leech off the state for the first dollar needs. There should be a way to prevent that without making healthy and/or responsible people overspend for pre-paid plans they don’t want or need. But the state designed these plans to ITS needs not yours.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:11 amBy the way, I had the weirdest argument about Romney with a liberal friend today, with him taking the position that the difference between Obama and Romney is too small for anyone to want Romney instead. And I said that there were large differences.
It turned out that my friend is more concerned about social issues and sees them the same there, and kinda doesn’t care much about the economic issues, since “real business” pretty much plays by any rules.
Pained me A LOT to back Romney here.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:20 am“Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative…”–Ann
It’s the old mandatory free market routine.
Like myself, Ann is a big Grateful Dead fan, and I’m afraid she might have indulged in a little too much ganja and electric kool aid back in the day.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:30 amWell, gosh, if it offended the famously even-tempered, soft-spoken, and mild Mark Levin, Ms. Coulter’s remark must be badly out of line.
[/snark off]
Ms. Coulter has picked a candidate and is now his advocate. Her own fans are fans precisely because they enjoy it when her arguments go “over the top.” Mr. Levin’s fans adore him for the same reason. Personally, I think they both diminish their effectiveness by the frequency with which they go over the top, but they are basically in show business, so political effectiveness is, at best, a secondary goal for either of them.
Beldar (22c1e5) — 2/2/2012 @ 1:01 amSorry, that last may make no sense without a link.
Beldar (22c1e5) — 2/2/2012 @ 1:05 amCornell, you are being exposed. Land grant U, 20,000 students, and this chick an esteemed alumni still you are Ivy League?
Come on.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 2:11 amAnn is well and truly over the shark now, and she will NOT stick the landing…
the only upside for me is that since i never thought too much of her to begin with, watching her go down in flames causes no personal grief on my part.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 2/2/2012 @ 2:39 amSo this is what it’s come too.
I suppose a small kudos is in order for Ann in trying to muster a clear distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare.
E for effort, F for failing.
I’m waiting on her next article on how automatic minimum wage increases that are based on inflation is the next greatest business jujitsu for our stagnant economy that is feeling the inflation bearing down on us due to an intentional plan to devalue the dollar by the government.
Drider (7ff99c) — 2/2/2012 @ 3:51 amYay and stuff.
Regardless of one’s feelings about Romneycare, hard to believe it isn’t a step – if not an entire staircase – above the morass that is Obamacare. Democrats hoping for a splintered GOP on this and other issues are partaking in their favorite pastime and, if history is any guide, greatly overestimating their chances for success in November … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
ombdz (2a81ef) — 2/2/2012 @ 4:37 amSorry ombdz, government intervention in free enterprise on both the state and federal level that mandates that the citizenry has to buy a product is completely unamerican.
justavoter (b003e1) — 2/2/2012 @ 4:53 amWhat is just slaying me is that there are other ways to bring down healthcare via the free market system but that isn’t even being discussed, it’s all about who’s government/state mandated health insurance plan is better.Hence, is the glaring probability that Mitt is going to get creamed on it if/when he faces Obama.
It seems now he is even tossing away his strength of his business experience by trying to make up for his slip of the tongue, with the auto minimum wage increase based on inflation.
I seem to recall when the bar for acceptable public policy was a lot higher than constitutionality. The settling has begun.
Looney Newt (b120ce) — 2/2/2012 @ 5:21 amOops, that was me.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 2/2/2012 @ 5:22 amYou know, the simplest, most honest explanation to differentiate Romneycare from Obamacare is that the former had no previous examples to inform them that it wouldn’t work. Whereas the later did.
I don’t fault Romney, or Republicans for that matter, for advocating mandatory insurance previously. In theory, the idea is sound. But reality turned out different. And in the face of reality, they changed their stance. What is wrong with that?
It would give them the high ground with regards to Obamacare: “Mr. President, we tried mandatory insurance and it didn’t work. Yet you ignored the previous failures in order to gain social control. We don’t need people in office whose thirst for power causes them to be blind to facts.”
I think if Romney did this, you would not hear another thing about Romneycare from the left.
Robocop (8efdaa) — 2/2/2012 @ 5:34 amRobocop, sir, Romney is defending Romneycare as a success if you hadn’t noticed.
In theory, it also sounds like a good idea to force people to buy and eat vegetables as well as ban sugar and other unhealthy food items, I think overall that would bring down health care costs.It also would give “our” government the power to rule our lives so it is an unspeakable solution to the problem, now and forever.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
justavoter (b003e1) — 2/2/2012 @ 5:49 amMy favorite advantage of MassCare over ObamaCare is the Federal Backstop that pays $700 Million off the top.
Since I’m not a MassHole tho, I guess ‘favorite’ and ‘advantage’ don’t really make sense, do dey?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 6:01 amSuppose there’s a way we can get the UN to backstop ObamaneyCare?
That’s right, we pay for them too.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 6:05 amListen up young ladies, bleached roots and boob jobs are the road to tardation.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 6:08 am6. alumnus, better still alum
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 6:13 am2. Seriously, Mr. M., a unified Progressive regime would be worse than divided government.
Try selling that to a Liberal tho. Nevermind.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 6:18 amIn her own inimitable fashion she is becoming another version of Andrew Sullivan.
Sigh.
Mark L (da8bb9) — 2/2/2012 @ 6:27 amI read Coulter’s article as supporting the mandated insurance provision of Romneycare, not the whole thing. Where she discusses other specifics of Romneycare it’s negative.
Gerald A (7d960d) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:09 amCoulter’s inconsistency bothers you? It’s about time!
tadcf (ead2bd) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:10 amTadcf is a clown. Midget clown.
JD (65d1c1) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:11 amPhilip Klein methodically fisks Coulter.
Y’know, Coulter ought to be smart enough to realize that beclowning herself this way only makes things tougher for Mitt at the margin. Which suggests to me that — like a number of his backers in the media — they are more interested in garnering traffic for themselves than actually persuading anyone.
(And yes, other candidates’ supporters write idiotic things, too. But when your candidate is heavily favored to win, it comes off very poor winner.)
Karl (8cdbad) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:13 amIs Ann still talking?
justavoter (b003e1) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:18 amStrange, I can’t hear her.
I love how beldarturd always brings the snark whenever anyone exposes his guy Romney as the fraud he is.
Honestly I wish you would stfu Beldarturd.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:28 amMr. biden really
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:39 amI don’t do three cheers for Romneycare and this sort of desperate whorewellian spectacle makes it easy to decide not to pull the lever for Wall Street Romney
there’s just something not right going on here
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:42 amSorry.
But Levin is correct.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:45 am#27
You’re thinking of not voting for Romney in Nov. because of Coulter?
Gerald A (7d960d) — 2/2/2012 @ 7:55 amI sure wish that Ms Coulter would move to Minnesota and run against Al Franken in 2014. Not only is she far better qualified (JD Michigan, law review editor, Senate Judiciary staff), but the debates would be priceless.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:06 amthis frantic and disingenuous stampede involving Coulter and Drudge and Bob Dole’s animated corpse is very off-putting Mr. A
A Romney administration doesn’t promise anything remotely in proportion to the whorish lapdoggery on display here
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:16 am_______________________________________________
And Ann is giving three?
When anyone wonders why a family member, friend, colleague, acquaintance, neighbor or anyone else, including politicians, can be so squishy, just keep in mind Ann Coulter. She’s a good example of why people can go into the voting booth on election day and mark their ballot in a way that’s not only unpredictable, but also quite dumb.
I guess the good thing about such chameleon-like qualities is that there are left-leaning versions of Coulter throughout America who will do something surprising and on occasion vote for a conservative. That includes the folks in the district in New York City who replaced the ousted Anthony Weiner with a Republican.
Mark (31bbb6) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:36 am25. Wonder what el abogado thinks of Ted Cruz for Senate, Yarbrough in District 12 or Williams District 25.
Might tell us more.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:51 am30. I was hoping Michele would have a go, provided she doesn’t blow her career in a vain and futile play for Romany VP.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:55 amColonel Haiku is the king of whorish lapdoggery.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:56 amJust proves that Coulter is a fraud.
Wayne (0f5387) — 2/2/2012 @ 8:57 amKarl @ 23 – Phillip Klein methodically fisks Coulter by referring by to his own reputed fisking of Romney’s debate comments in which he claims Romney’s stated purpose for purpose for Romneycare could not possibly have been true because that’s not the way it turned out.
Good logic Phillip.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/2/2012 @ 9:35 amThe US debt level is catastrophic. Romneycare increased it by billions and made healthcare more expensive anyway.
Taxpayers are funding abortions and healthcare for illegals.
I do not think honest conservatives cheer this policy or Mitt Romney.
Ann should dial it back to the electability argument, which at least I recognize as plausible.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 9:56 amI do not think honest conservatives cheer this policy or Mitt Romney.
Take a look at how deep Texas is into Uncle Sam for… billions and billions. I would admonish you to at least be consistent, but I know that would be unrealistic, given your OCD.
Colonel Haiku (af1a14) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:08 amRomneycare increased the US debt level by billions?
I guess when you’re all alone in the middle of a calm, calm sea, one must take a new tack in order to reach his intended destination.
Icy (bedb4a) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:11 am“Taxpayers are funding abortions and healthcare for illegals.”
Dustin – Whether you know it or like it, you are already funding healthcare for illegals in Texas, so it’s a BS talking point. Most states are hitting their residents for cost of uncompensated care for illegal aliens and people are completely unaware of the fact. Don’t know about the abortions, though.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:34 amI was a fan of Ms. Coulter who has relegated herself to the level of Bill Maher (sic). Check out the many interviews she gave regarding Obamacare and Romneycare where none are too flattering. **Sigh** I’m done listening to these chuckleheads hence I’ll be moving forward based upon my own interpretation of my own due diligence. Sell them books Ann but unfortunately no longer to me as you seem to have run completely off the reservation, Mach 5 with your hair on fire.
Tina Rocha (3ba870) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:45 amFirst of all, that is a radical stretch to compare the two situations.
Second, did Ann Coulter say “three cheers for Texas funding health care for illegals”?
No? Then why are you bringing that up? If she did cheer that, I criticize that too. Are you saying she did?
Romneycare DOES subsidize healthcare for illegals among many others. I disagree with that. And an obnoxious ‘oh, but it’s “a bs talking point” to criticize that because something remotely similar also happens’ is not a very illuminating explanation for cheering Romneycare doing that, is it?
What do you mean?
I guess you mean you didn’t know Romney signed into law taxpayer funding for elective abortions after he flip flopped on abortion rights?
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:48 am39. “Take a look at how deep Texas is into Uncle Sam for… billions and billions.”
Channelling Carl Sagan?
Where’d the ‘look’ go? Minnesota is near the bottom in Federal tax dollars returned to the state, 72 cents on the dollar.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Texas gets like 94 cents, Maryland $1.30 and Virginia 1.51 where DC gets $5.55.
Like that’s going to change.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:52 amActually, Icy, you’re right that I got the number wrong. Romneycare is projected to lose $2 billion rather than $20 billion. I apologize for the good faith error.
————-
As to Daleyrocks comparing Texas’s county hospitals to Romneycare, I think one reason that’s absurd is well explained by CATO’s discussion of how Romneycare is a failure:
What happens when Romney gives illegal aliens a huge entitlement? It increases demand.
Now, the alternative was some emergency care for folks who have no money. And Texas has controlled the abuse of this care by not filling prescriptions. Romneycare attempted to control the abuse by giving free health care, which had the opposite impact.
I criticize that, and I don’t think they are even remotely similar problems in size.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:57 amHere’s that CATO article I neglected to link.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 10:57 amLook at that Cali, you get 88 cents of every dollar you invest in Amerikkka back in envirosadism.
What in blue blazes is Nan, Diane and Barabara doin with you’re lucre? I mean, Minnesota is the armpit of the nation, I thought you had pull?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 11:03 amGary, it’s not even clear what this guy means.
You didn’t back that up with a link. My link shows that Romneycare eats up nine digits of federal dollars every year.
The reality is that given the FEMA bs,the federal government owes Texas billions, not the other way around. Why would you want to attack Texas when it’s such a good example of how conservatism should work, and something the federal government and other states should attempt to emulate?
Is it simply because you’re trolling?
Why would you want people to associate Mitt Romney support with racist crap like “prawn of arab loins”?
Either you’re a clever moby or an astonishingly unpersuasive Romney fan.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 11:06 am48. “it’s not even clear what this guy means.”
Like you say, Duster, a feature of chumming. Get the rubes chasing their own tails trying to correct some ‘misinterpretation’ or another.
Daley has to get better help for the team of Minders. If Jenny, Ann and Sununu are an indication its a really short bench.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 11:32 am“Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.”
Yeah, well that’s one of the objections. I don’t want to be forced to buy healthcare at the point of a government gun, while doctors can charge any outrageous fees they want…and, their fees are totally outrageous.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:12 pmYes he did but the romneytards don’t wanna listen.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:13 pmYou know what I like best about Romneycare?
It doesn’t affect me. In any way. Whatsoever.
That won’t be the case for Obamacare. One is constitutional, the other isn’t.
Joseph (9240f9) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:40 pmJenny beclowned:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/egomaniacs-r-us-trump-to-pick-newt/2012/02/01/gIQA5iC8jQ_blog.html
Ah that knucklehead combover, always the jokester.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/2/2012 @ 12:42 pmSure it does. Your federal taxes are funding it.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/2/2012 @ 1:08 pmI still think it’s wrong for a state to force people to do that, but it’s not the federal government’s place to outlaw such wrongs. It’s up to the voters, and they keep electing liberals so I guess this won’t be fixed.
It’s interesting that a lot of MA citizens take the fine, instead of getting the insurance. And a lot of them don’t go to the hospital… they just get an extra tax for a choice that was never Mitt Romney’s business to control.
I agree with you that the best thing I can say for this is that they aren’t controlling me this way. And that does show why Obamacare is much worse.
Which of these candidates will flip flop on their promise to fight the fight to prevent Obamacare from doing that? Which will stay the course even if it takes a government shutdown?
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 1:20 pmSusan G. Komen and the History of the Toughly Worded Letter
I’m told that 22 Dem Senators have signed on to a toughly worded letter urging Komen to reverse its decision, which Komen has justified by citing a new rule prohibiting it from funding any group under investigation by the government. (This has conferred legitimacy and signficance on the probe into Planned Parenthood that has been launched by anti-abortion GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida.)
Ronald (d1c681) — 2/2/2012 @ 1:32 pm(shakes head until dizzy)
Brian Epps (2f898a) — 2/2/2012 @ 2:06 pm(turns head to a 48.7 degree angle)
(crosses eyes)
OH! It’s you, Ann! I didn’t recognize you!
Here’s a link for the folks who continue to dodge the fact that Texas has had to depend on
Uncle SamAmerican taxpayers to pull their nuts out of the fire…http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=federal%20government%20money%20to%20fix%20texas%20deficit&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2011%2F01%2F23%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Ftexas_perry_budget_stimulus%2Findex.htm&ei=syUrT–mHpTMiQKxtPnDCg&usg=AFQjCNEj7UgMXLNTENCq5pOP6FfUKJvgAQ&cad=rja
Colonel Haiku (e6abb6) — 2/2/2012 @ 4:16 pmMy last haircut was by a brain surgeon (stroke on Christmas day) and the bill exceeds a $100,000 just for the operation. If not for insurance … bankruptcy or, worse, unavaliability of the best doctors and hospitals?
I understand the objections to the mandated part, but the manmade law most times mirrors the supreme law — Anagke (necessity).
nk (0498ac) — 2/2/2012 @ 9:28 pmnecessity may be the mother of invention but prosperity is the midwife
glad you’re hanging in there mister
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/2/2012 @ 9:32 pmnk, sincerely, best wishes getting better. You’re right that these medical bills can be staggering. My opinion is that we should get government out of the equation of what constitutes acceptable insurance. Just one example of the preexisting conditions discrimination bar in both Obamacare and Romneycare.
I think a lot of folks would like a low premium plan that covered catasrophes. Checkups and routine issues like a cold can be handled very affordably without insurance.
It’s unfortunate that some will make an economic choice the government doesn’t like, but this is the most effective way.
—-
Haiku, sorry you have a problem with Texas taxpayers getting their share of federal spending.
Seems pretty petty to me. It’s true that Texas had natural disasters and has done its best to deal with the expenses.
I find your article interesting in how it calls Perry’s budget “austere”. What does that mean?
It also discusses how democrats and RINOs have been clamoring for Perry to use the “rainy day” fund. This proves you were incorrect when you said Perry was “forced” to cut education spending to reach that “austere” budget. In fact, the article references Texas’s education spending, and the impact that will have on the state (they don’t like it, but perhaps money isn’t the real problem in education?).
It’s nice to see you’re willing to prove yourself wrong so conclusively.
Now, I asked you point blank why you said
Why, when I’m ignoring you, do you say things like that?
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/2/2012 @ 9:39 pmGlad to see nk is still with us. Obviously his brain is still functional, for which thank God.
Good luck, and I hope you’re doing well.
As for doctor’s fees, they’re completely ridiculous. I think that going to a national, mandatory, socialist healthcare dealie is a huge, huge mistake, but if we do, then I want the fees of doctors to be set by law.
I don’t want to be forced, at gunpoint, to pay whatever they feel like charging. And, if I’m going to be forced, I want them also to be forced.
Of course, there’s no way in hell that will happen in real life, because the rich (ilke doctors) have all the clout, and any system that government sets up will primarily benefit those that have clout.
Always has been that way…always will be that way.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/3/2012 @ 3:42 amAnn’s fear is that the American people will not vote for a chubby, white haired, white guy over a sharp tongued, light skinned, black guy. That’s it! That’s her game!
She is convinced that style over substance, image over imagination, and identity over ideas is what will win the next presidential election. So she has thrown all in with the handsome white businessman over the porky politician.
Coffee260 (3f1d37) — 2/3/2012 @ 5:41 amDoesn’t that meme about federal dollars going to Texas ever get old? If I am not mistaken, they use military spending at all if those bases in TX to arrive at that.
JD (3d848c) — 2/3/2012 @ 6:39 am64. Doubtless, and MN has nuthin but a practice lot and Coast Guard station.
Army Corps of Engineers does a good job with Mississipi headwaters.
Note how Bite Me’s fake state, in the shadow of Emerald City is the dog under the table.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:13 am59. Reminds me to slack off on the peanut butter. Grams, best person ever met, passed at 74 on cerebrovascular accident.
May He bless and keep.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:17 amNews of the day, manufacturing index way, way up on back of inflation, that critically important criterion Bennie says is comatose, end of life flatlined:
“Corrugated Cartons is the only commodity reported down in price.” What was up? “Airfares; Beef; Chemical Products; Chicken; Crab; Coffee (2); #1 Diesel Fuel (2); #2 Diesel Fuel (3); Fuel; Gasoline; Medical Supplies (2); Paper; Petroleum Based Products; Resin Based Products; Vehicles; and Wire.”
Will yahoo Walmart inflation data presently.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:30 am“Doesn’t that meme about federal dollars going to Texas ever get old? If I am not mistaken, they use military spending at all if those bases in TX to arrive at that.”
JD – Don’t know which meme you’re talking about, but the one about Texas getting almost all the tax dollars it sends back from Washington excludes junk like military bases. It only counts money sent to the state.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:31 am“No? Then why are you bringing that up?”
Dustin – Why do I bring up that residents of most states are already paying for free care for illegal aliens without knowing about it?
That should be obvious. You make it sound like it’s a radically new feature of Romneycare, when it’s not. Federal law requires certain health care providers to provider care to people unable to pay for it themselves. Many states tax their citizens in various ways to help pay for such care. Texas already does to the tune of a few billion dollars.
So you are already paying for the free care of illegal aliens in Texas and being taxed to help pay for it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:40 amMilitary bases are junk?
JD (3d848c) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:48 amTax plan scorecard of Repugnant candidates:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/27849.html
Santorum and McBain bring up the rear of a sad parade.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/3/2012 @ 7:50 am“Military bases are junk?”
JD – Obviously what I meant. Include NASA, etc. Payments don’t flow through the state, but benefits accrue to the state.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/3/2012 @ 8:00 am68. “excludes junk like military bases”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf
It ain’t a lie if one doesn’t know what the ‘eff one talks about.
Words don’t mean what dey sez, people do.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/3/2012 @ 8:09 am“I still think it’s wrong for a state to force people to do that, but it’s not the federal government’s place to outlaw such wrongs. It’s up to the voters, and they keep electing liberals so I guess this won’t be fixed.”
“Haiku, sorry you have a problem with Texas taxpayers getting their share of federal spending.”
JD – I think the above two comments summarize the worst of the over the top negativity about Romneycare and the contradictions in the positions of its critics.
It only affects Massachusetts residents. It’s a liberal state. Romney faced a legislative imperative to get a health care reform bill passed. A lot of him critics advocate that he should have moved into thumb sucking mode and let the liberals do whatever they wanted because they would have screwed up whatever he got involved with anyway. Look at the article by Phillip Klein that Karl linked, that’s his thesis. Roll over and play dead because you can’t sustain a veto.
To me that is just what it sounds like, abdicating your role as governor, yet that is actually what many conservatives are saying he should have done. Instead he attempted to craft something based on conservative free market principles that had a chance of making it through the Massachusetts legislature which addressed the state’s very low percentage of uninsured residents.
He had both conservative and liberal advisors working on the plan with him. People make a big deal about Ted Kennedy being at the signing ceremony and getting thanked. BFD. I thought it was customary for governors to thank senators who greased the skids for projects in Washington. People make a big deal about the same advisor working on Obamacare as on Romneycare. BFD. Did Heritage work on Obamacare?
If people can say it’s unfair to criticize Texas for getting $0.94 cents of its tax dollars back from Washington, or pick another state, isn’t it also unfair to criticize Massachusetts for getting some of its tax dollars back to fund Romneycare? The answer is yes.
I don’t think Romneycare was necessarily the best solution, but I can understand why Romney did it. Coulter is absolutely correct about the plan getting larded up with coverage mandates. Heritage has put out several pieces which I have linked here before which describe their views of why the anticipated cost savings did not materialize and their fingers point directly at Deval Patrick.
I think a more interesting question for Romney would be if he was governor of a state with a higher uninsured population, say the 26% of Texas, or if he had a conservative legislature, would he have implemented the same plan.
Asking him to disavow it just sets him up to be more of a flip flopper.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/3/2012 @ 8:29 am“It ain’t a lie if one doesn’t know what the ‘eff one talks about.”
gary – Take that word summary to one of the federal receipts and outlays by state tables by state and I will admit to being mistaken.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/3/2012 @ 8:35 amI wonder if anybody actually READ the column? And I wonder when exactly conservative became libertarian? I’m neither conservative nor libertarian; I prefer Federalist. I took a bunch of online quizzes and found I’m all over the map; Pew says ‘staunch conservative.’ Other said libertian, extreme libertarian, social conservative and fiscal conservative/social liberal.
My point is that the Heritage Foundation, certainly a conservative organization, backed and helped plan Romneycare. I disagree with Ann about how good it is, but her point is well made that no matter how good a plan any Republican/conservative/libertarian etc crafts, it can be, and certainly will be, corrupted by the Dems when they gain power. Just like no matter how close our relationship with another nation, every so often we elect democrats who’ll betray them, so nobody in the world can trust us. Her point that the original plan on paper was good is hers to believe; I disagree, but I can’t say it’s not conservative in the sense that it was created and supported by many conservatives. It doesn’t violate the principles of Federalism, as it’s within the state’s rights, however I would never support such a law in my own state. I will not, however, declare Heritage a CINO organization, and everyone who supported it a traitor to conservative principles.
With all these RINO/CINO accusations flying about, somebody had better come up with an actual definition. By the standards some apply these days, Goldwater wasn’t a conservative, and neither was Reagan. If Jefferson was the only conservative president in US history…oh wait, supported slavery, not a conservative position. Jackson maybe? Oh wait…uprooted citizens and stole their property because of their color…not a conservative position. How about Lincoln? Nope, suspended habeus corpus for the duration of the war.
Fine. There’s never been a conservative president. So what exactly are you expecting from Gingrich/Paul/Romney/Santorum?
Renaissance Nerd (56f20f) — 2/3/2012 @ 8:41 am“Take that word summary to one of the federal receipts and outlays by state tables by state”
Unh huh.
Tell me why it would matter that I prove you wrong beyond the shadow of doubt. Would you contribute a single positive to the cause beyond your vote?
How Red is your District?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/3/2012 @ 10:26 am“Tell me why it would matter that I prove you wrong beyond the shadow of doubt.”
gary – That article is a national summary by income level of who benefits from federal spending. It does not track spending back to the states. It does nothing to prove or disprove the point, but it was a nice try.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/3/2012 @ 10:29 amNice, daley… you’ve revealed gulrud’s full obfuscation mode and you’ve also shown how brown his underwear now is.
Colonel Haiku (1ae0d7) — 2/3/2012 @ 4:32 pmAnd Ann is giving three?
Your are all socialists now!
ErisGuy (5c7fe4) — 2/6/2012 @ 11:34 amSpeak for yourself, bub!
Icy (069aef) — 2/6/2012 @ 12:25 pm1. Comment by Kevin M — 2/2/2012 @ 12:11 am
they both outlaw actual INSURANCE.
Insurance:
“the act, system, or business of insuring property, life, one’s person, etc., against loss or harm arising in specified contingencies, as fire, accident, death, disablement, or the like, in consideration of a payment proportionate to the risk involved. “
Which of course neither systems allow unless you ALSO purchase pre-paid medical services to cover the first dollar of need, which young people, healthy people and well-off people generally wish to avoid.
An ideal policy for many middle-class folks (assuming that they themselves are paying for it), is a policy that pays everything over, say, $10,000 and lets you pay 100% of the negotiated rate up to that point. Since the insurance company wants to keep your annual expense under $10K, they still have an incentive to offer a good negotiated rate, and you still have an incentive (pay less) to stay within their provider system.
What with inflation, that might need to be $30,000, I don’t know. But the real problem here is that different people have different predictable medical needs.
It isn’t really that maybe some people shouldn’t have their medical costs paid for. But that needs to be distinguished from insurance. Insurance is what is unknown. Non-insurance is maybe better paid for by a tax. It is not insurance – it shouldn’t be confused with insurance.
If somehow has a pre-existing condition, the most probable level of expenses will be higher than average. People could have a semi-individualized expected medical expenses level.
I thought in some detail but maybe haven’t figured it out.. You need to divide coverage and
sort out what’s insurance and what is not and you need incentives to get things right.
Let there be a fixed premium for different kinds of coverage. Let there be different levels for every person where this kicks in though. That’s insurance. Everyone pays the same amount but for one person it kicks a in at $3,000 and for another at $20,000 and for another at $500,000.
Now for the amount below let a second reinsurance companies bid for dollars to cover anything below the level fixed for each person by the first insurance company. But they have to buy a random package.
Let the minimum financially sound bidder win and let their fee be paid by the government. I’m sure something is wrong here.
This kind of policy,
High deductible. Now actually having people pay the negotiated rate doesn’t really solve the problem. It doesn’t create a market price. It doesn’t create an incentive to stop all overbilling for nonexistent or useless visits procedures etc. It doesn’t crate an incentive for doctors and hospitals to disclose prices in advance – and by the way ALSO HELP PEOPLE EVALUATE QUALITY.
A real reform needs to be something more complicated than what you outlined.
I had this thought:
Now what would happen if a person could not afford the $10,000? (or $30,000)
I would suggets several options:
1) Borrow against a credit card if someone has one. Fixed national rate for this.
2) Borrow against anticipated federal income tax refunds, or more exactly, the federal government lends the money and collects against future income. This has to be limited in size
3) Borrow against anticipated furture Social Security benefits – reducing them if necessary.
4) If someone gets too disabled or died, just forgive the loan.
however, is absolutely forbidden under both systems, the argument being that poor folks and deadbeats would buy these cheaper plans and then leech off the state for the first dollar needs. There should be a way to prevent that without making healthy and/or responsible people overspend for pre-paid plans they don’t want or need. But the state designed these plans to ITS needs not yours.
McCain in 2008 had a way of avoiding that. Give everyone in the country a refundable $5,000 tax credit and adjust income tax rates to compensate I presume. The tax credit can only be used for medical insurance or medical expenses and replaces the business medical deduction.
Actually to avoid any kind of forced sopending money needs to be to some degree capable of being carried over.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 2/6/2012 @ 12:37 pmDidn’t Anne criticize Romneycare 7 months ago?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/6/2012 @ 1:02 pm