The GOP Response to Obama’s Health Care Plan
[Guest post by DRJ]
Republicans want reform without rationing or higher taxes. They call on President Obama to agree to these four bipartisan ideas that most Americans seem to agree on:
All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.
Individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.
Provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.
Insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention.
Republicans also support the following ideas that President Obama does not agree with:
Real medical liability reform, including tough liability reform standards, speedy resolution of claims, and deterring junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care.
Let families and businesses buy insurance across state lines to help control premiums and hold down costs.
www.healthcare.gop.gov
— DRJ
“Let families and businesses buy insurance across state lines to help control premiums and hold down costs.”
So this would end a state’s ability to regulate the insurance business in their state?
imdw (9811a2) — 9/9/2009 @ 6:55 pmIt’s about creating more opportunities to pool risk and to help make this sort of think more portable I think.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 9/9/2009 @ 6:57 pmIs there any evidence that states that have put caps on medical malpractice recoveries by patients and/or their attorneys have seen drops in malpractice insurance rates?
Ira (28a423) — 9/9/2009 @ 6:58 pmimdw,
We’re all federalists now!
DRJ (6a2898) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:00 pmIt’s about creating more opportunities to pool risk and to help make this sort of think more portable I think.
Like every other business in existence.
Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (784fd8) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:01 pmIra,
According to the Texas Medical Association, Texas premiums dropped almost 50% after health care liability reform.
DRJ (6a2898) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:02 pmI agree with most of those. I do not see how you can force an insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions. Not as long as you still want to call them an insurance company.
JD (3399c0) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:04 pm#1, I think the insurance commissioners can regulate auto insurers, or any insurers, even though their policies are available nationally. I don’t know why health insurance evolved this way, peculiar to each state. No other insurance is like that.
Maybe someone can enlighten me.
cassandra in MT (9208db) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:07 pm“According to the Texas Medical Association, Texas premiums dropped almost 50% after health care liability reform.”
And what share of health care costs was that?
“#1, I think the insurance commissioners can regulate auto insurers, or any insurers, even though their policies are available nationally.”
Yes but the auto insurance that, say, progressive, sells in one state has to meet that state’s regulations, say your liability minimiums, etc.. I think this proposal would end that for health insurance, so you could buy insurance regulated by Montana in Maine. Otherwise what is the problem they’re trying to fix?
imdw (d54c8c) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:12 pmimdw’s #9 demonstrates, for those that did not already know it, how fundamentally disingenuous this twatwaffle is.
JD (5f5402) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:21 pmIs there any evidence that states that have put caps on medical malpractice recoveries by patients and/or their attorneys have seen drops in malpractice insurance rates?
Comment by Ira
California passed MICRA in 1975 and insuranec rates have been stable ever since. In 1972, my premium was $3500. In 1974, it was $35,000. When MICRA passed in 1975, we waited until 1978 to buy insurance again. From then until I retired, it averaged about $6500/year.
I’m watching biography channel’s history of Animal House and it is much more interesting than Obama’s speech. I took my kids to it in 1978 and was horrified to have my daughter there. She’s 42 now.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:41 pm“I think this proposal would end that for health insurance,”
Well if so that would be great. We’ve got 40 friggin’ mandates here in MT, and I’m told by an insurance guy that we’re the last state to mandate unisex rates. You know, for fairness and all that.
cassandra in MT (9208db) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:44 pmThe GOP response should have been, “If this was so important, maybe we could talk about it without the President lying to our faces. If it is a crisis maybe we should make the effective date 2009 instead of 2013. And if this is deficit neutral, what planet do you live on?”
JD (1825ff) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:45 pmIMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
Time for him to go, Dems SAVVE OURSELVES BEFORE ITS TOO LATE
that is all from Doha 🙂
But seriously, they need to let go of the third rail unless they want another 6 8 years watching from the sidelines
Some people are starting to think that if the republicans get the house there will be a slate of Senate retirements Hawaii, West Virginia, to naem a few
EricPWJohnson (b0ac71) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:50 pmThanks, DRJ.
Anybody have any information on other states besides Texas on the question of whether or not tort reform has effected medical malpractice insurance premiums?
By the way, here are a couple of articles that indicate that regardless of the effect on premiums, tort reform would have no significant effect on overall health care costs, while injured people get the shaft. (FYI: I get no money, directly or indirectly, from medical malpractice claims.)
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB_Report_200907.pdf
Ira (28a423) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:53 pm“All individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.” I’d be happy if I could negotiate a custom policy that excludes coverage for certain conditions and treatments. But when your policy application shows a preexisting condition, they just immediately reject your app, with no opportunity for negotiation.
Without that kind of customization, I don’t see how the insurers can cover preexistings, without raising premiums.
gp (ddb675) — 9/9/2009 @ 7:58 pmThey should have just run tape of Joe Wilson:
LIAR!
Houston Native (eb71f6) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:00 pmI’d like to be able to buy insurance that covers the pre-existing smashed front end of my car and the scorched bathroom wall near the gas heater. Think the Rs can swing that while they’re at it?
Diffus (8cf5d0) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:02 pmThere are two clear ways to allow pre-existing conditions without nationalizing the industry.
One, an assigned risk program where the premium, while high, is capped at something less that stratospheric. Perhaps subsidized by Uncle Sugar (i.e. me).
Two, creating a regime where once you are in and paying, whether individually or through employment, you cannot be canceled and your rates rise only with age, regardless of your condition. Such coverage would be portable, so long as you continued to pay in, perhaps with some premium insurance thrown in. This would differ from the present system as whole life differs from term life.
Or maybe both, where #1 is what happens if you try to skip paying and get some illness later, although I’m inclined to be unsympathetic.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:12 pmIra, they always say that, but it’s a common sense idea that would obviously save costs.
Tort reform makes far more sense than all the speculative concepts like using preventative care to cut costs, or cutting costs by drastically increasing demand.
Sure, there aren’t many states that have done it, and sure, it won’t cut costs in half, but the studies that say it won’t make any impact are completely full of it. Those lawsuits ruin lives. John Edwards is extremely wealthy, entirely because of these kinds of suits. He not only scared parents from getting their kids vaccines, which of course is bad health care 101, but he got tons of money that was eventually paid back to doctors by patients.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:15 pmAnd what share of health care costs was that?
Meanwhile, you direct little or no cynicism towards ambulance-chasing trial lawyers. Yep, you’re a sloppy, ass-backwards liberal.
BTW, I’ve read that one factor that at least compensates for the more socialized nature of healthcare in France and Japan — particularly the latter — is that unlike the US, the legal profession in France and Japan doesn’t have its claws in every nook and cranny. So the need to cry “kill the lawyers!!” isn’t as great across at least some portions of the Pacific and Atlantic.
Mark (411533) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:19 pmThat NYT article on tort reform is flawed (who would have thunk it?). It states “That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.”
That implies that tort reform could only reduce costs by 1 to 1.5%. But the full truth is that studies show that 10% of costs are incurred by defensive medicine in an effort to prevent law suits.
When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopaedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?
The current medical liability system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the addressing of system errors to improve patient safety. The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs.
George (d57b1d) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:20 pmDidn’t the CBO show that the preventative care suggestions would actually cost more than the status quo?
The direct costs of malpractice reform are dwarfed by the defensive medicine costs incurred in the futile attempt to stay out of the lawsuit lottery.
JD (9d17e7) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:24 pmHeh.
Tossing a Bone Their Way | 8:55 p.m. Katharine Q. Seelye NYT
Perhaps surprisingly, Mr. Obama makes a nod to the clamor for changing the malpractice system (a.k.a. tort reform). This is one way of showing he is open to Republicans. He says that changing malpractice will not be a silver bullet, but he knows that doctors practice defensive medicine, which helps drive up costs. So, he said, he would support a Bush idea of demonstration projects in individual states to test some ideas about “how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.”
Just recently, Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, noted that members of his party don’t want to tackle this issue because of the powerful trial lawyers lobby.
Dana (863a65) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:30 pm#19, Kevin, making insurance portable over a life time is a Hilary idea and a good one.
The Policy can be traded in the open market between you and insurers who “want your health risk for the year” and “want to invest your savings accounts.”.
The Policy would have a “savings component” and a “yearly premium” component.
The Government could mandate 4-5 risk pools that all people would need to be put in by insurers.
The Gov.t would mandate a certain amount of savings each person needs to do for end of life care.
Every year you get a quote from insurers who wants to manage your policy and your savings accounts. They would rate your risk, you health premium for that year, and your “savings payment.”
As a consumer, you can then see how much you pay, how much you save and how your risk changes based on how you live.
The Gov.t can then also allow Companies to “pay for your premium” or “you can pay yourself.”
The savings account linked to the policy can then be used to defer premiums for hi-risk categories later in life and upon death if there is money there …. your family can take it.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:37 pmThe President was eloquent, as always. His words sounded firm and sound.
However, can anyone tell me of a single federal government agency that works efficiently, and more importantly, for the good of the citizens it serves?
I’m really not some crazed radical.
Sure, the post office delivers my letters. The Department of Defense certainly protects the country, although they waste a tremendous amount of money.
And that’s really my point, in regards to the Department of Defense or Agriculture or Homeland Security or Health and Human Services or Transportation or Energy or State or Treasury or any other department you might name.
The whole game of Washington is to benefit constituents on the House of Representatives level through whatever means that any Department requires.
It may create jobs, but it also creates a false economy.
And, now, we’re expected to entrust our health care to a government that builds airports and roads and buildings for the powerful, while we actually work to accomplish some sort of future for our kids.
I’m sorry, I want my money to work for me. Not for Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Byrd, et al. And if you want me to list Republicans, I’ll do that, too.
We are citizens, not subjects. We can find our way and do what is best for our children and our fellows.
Ag80 (01be36) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:43 pmMy understanding is that Barack Obama lied.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:50 pmSince Obama and the Dems want the government to pay for insurance, how about getting the government to pay for malpractice insurance?
If the associated trials and judgements were public information, we could finally see what effect torts have on medical costs. This would also remove the judgment ‘cap’ problem of making sub-standard physicians immune to accountability – something that even CATO types are arguing over. It would also give the government incentive to crack down on frivolous claims.
I don’t immediately see how this system could be gamed, but I just thought of it, so I haven’t thought it through.
MikeK and others: What about it?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:53 pm“One, an assigned risk program where the premium, while high, is capped at something less that stratospheric. Perhaps subsidized by Uncle Sugar (i.e. me).”
In Texas, there is a sbusidized high-risk pool that is paid for by assessing the other insurance premiums.
Govt could subsidize catastrophic healthcare for people’s pre-existing conditions.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:53 pm“Without that kind of customization, I don’t see how the insurers can cover preexistings, without raising premiums.”
gp – Creating a mandate for everybody to purchase insurance, the healthy as well as those with preexisting conditions is intended to offset some of the anticipated price increase you correctly forecast from forcing insurers not to medically underwrite customers for preexisting customers. Obama did not, however bring up the topic of community rating, where everyone is charged the same price regardless of age or risk. That type of provision adds further huge upward pressure on premium rates but had been a staple of the left’s discussion the consequences of which had been conveniently swept under the table in Obama’s honest debate.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:56 pmIra-
tyree (353f22) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:56 pmThe article at the first link is wrong and wrong headed. He repeats the common liberal talking point that compares how much is paid out in claims to the overall cost of health care. To pretend that the cost of obscene tort law profits is only levied when a doctor actually loses a case is to ignore the billions that are spent in higher rates by doctors who never lose a case, in addition to the billions spent on unnecessary defensive medicine to keep the sharks at bay. My fathers experience mirrors Mike’s that he posted above. $3500 in 1972 and $35,000 in 1974. They didn’t call it a “Malpractice Insurance Crisis” for nothing. Any article that looks at the last 10 years of data ignores the fact that the problem started in the early 70’s.
“My understanding is that Barack Obama lied.”
Many times feets. I ran out of fingers and toes.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:57 pmSo, he said, he would support a Bush idea of demonstration projects in individual states to test some ideas about “how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.”
EGADS… He only grasps at Federalism when his back is to the wall and he wants to wiggle out of political peril.
How about doing that for mandates (oops, Massachusetts, proven failure) or ‘public option’ (oops, Maine, struggling) or ‘community rating’ (oops, states that tried that like New Jersey ended up with huge insurance premium jumps.
Every aspect of ObamaCare could and should be tried at the state level.
The best reform? Federalism.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:58 pmI think that would give the government complete control over doctors and their practice.
“Oh, you don’t want to follow our guidelines? You’re no longer covered. Good luck in court.”
Also, if the government refuses to pay a claim, where does the patient get relief? Can’t sue the government without their consent. That’s why I didn’t need malpractice insurance while in a government facility, but did if I moonlighted in a civilian one.
Stashiu3 (ed6467) — 9/9/2009 @ 8:59 pm“Obama did not, however bring up the topic of community rating, where everyone is charged the same price regardless of age or risk.”
The is a shockingly ignorant and stupid idea. It will destroy the whole concept of insurance pricing and real risk and force healthy to subsidize unhealthy. Its ‘price controls’ for health insurance.
bread lines follow.
Community rating + Mandates = destruction of healthcare freedom and sanity
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:01 pm“I think this proposal would end that for health insurance,”
Well if so that would be great. We’ve got 40 friggin’ mandates here in MT, and I’m told by an insurance guy that we’re the last state to mandate unisex rates. You know, for fairness and all that.
Abolish all mandates, get people back to paying for their own healthcare (with health savings accounts) and we could have sanity in health industry. Right now, though, the Dem plan is to declare “We are in a hole … WE MUST KEEP DIGGING!”
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:04 pmStashiu3 – Also, if the government refuses to pay a claim, where does the patient get relief? Can’t sue the government without their consent.
Excellent point, and the main reason that government should have nothing to do with health care.
Because I’m ignant of malpractice insurance, do the private carriers have guidelines to follow so as to not invalidate coverage?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:04 pmOne particular mendacious bit bothered me in his description of the new government insurer which will operate at breakeven and not be subsidized and add to the deficit, so people don’t have to worry about unfair competition that way.
Obama was talking about people losing their jobs and health care and being unable to find affordable coverage. He specifically said “we will provide you with an option.” Does that mean for a person with preexisting conditons the government entity will write a policy at an anticipated loss so that the policy is affordable to the customer? Does it mean the government will subsidize the purchase of the policy so it becomes affordable? Either way, as an insurance loss or a subsidy, the taxpayers are paying for it and it is not deficit neutral, whatever you lipstick you decide to put on it in the end, because it amounts to fundamentally the same thing.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:06 pmIf tort reform only saved $1, it’s still savings. We know it will save millions, if not billions, and even if that’s not huge… it’s savings, right? The measures taken to avoid lawsuits cannot be measured anyway.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:06 pm“That’s why I didn’t need malpractice insurance while in a government facility, but did if I moonlighted in a civilian one.”
Right. When the industry is in bed w/ Govt and screws consumers, that’s corruption.
When bureaucrat A and govt worker B are working together to screw consumers, that’s socialism.
Only a danged fool liberal thinks the latter is preferred…
These liberals ‘retort’ to the death panels and QALY ratings and fears of govt rationing was a weak ‘hey, HMOs say no as well sometimes!’ … yeah, well at least someone can watch the HMOs on independent basis.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:08 pmApogee – Guidelines so as to not invalidate coverage? I did not follow this question.
JD (74e7ad) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:11 pm“Obama was talking about people losing their jobs and health care and being unable to find affordable coverage. ”
So Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP and the trillion we spend a year on govt spending in healthcare have been proven failures and should be repealed, then … right?!?
How come liberals arent held accountable for the fact that everything they did prior did not live up to the promises they made about them?
How come if the status quot is unacceptable in a sector dominated by the govt, the answer is always “MORE GOVT”.
Obama – the “more cowbell” of American liberalism.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:12 pmWe seem to be caught between two principled positions: On the one hand, if we insist on preventing insurers from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions, then don’t we have to mandate that everyone purchase insurance to maximize the available revenue in the pool, otherwise no one will bother to purchase it until they have some health crisis? On the other hand, how in the world can we justify requiring a free people to purchase insurance if they don’t want to? Though it sounds harsh, do we have to say to those people, “I’m sorry, but you chose not to purchase health insurance so you will have to pay for those cancer treatments out of pocket.”
The only idea I can come up with is to de-couple catastrophic health insurance from regular health care plans. Everyone would be required to carry catastrophic health insurance. The plans would be priced based on general risk factors such as age as well as the deductible that you are willing to carry. The part where you pay for your annual doctor’s visit, the various tests, prescription drugs, etc. would be a separate aspect. No one would be forced into purchasing this plan, and one of the choices would be a Health Savings Account that would allow you to set up an account of pre-tax contributions (matched by your employer or, in some cases, the government) that would be used for any health related matters. This would put financial decisions into the hands of the consumer. You want an MRI? You had better have enough in your account to pay for it. Other insurance plans would be available, but you would be subject to many of the same bureaucratic problems that exist today.
JVW (d1215a) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:14 pmApogee, it’s been so long since I worked in a civilian facility that I have no idea. Maybe someone else does.
Travis, patients can (and do) sue military treatment facilities. The individual workers are usually immune from being named as defendents.
Stashiu3 (ed6467) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:15 pmJD – Stash referred to one problem with gubmint malpractice insurance as the ability of said government to invalidate coverage of doctors if they didn’t follow government mandated ‘guidelines’.
I was asking him if the private malpractice insurers had guidelines as well, which, if not followed by the physician, could lead to an invalidation of malpractice coverage.
My reasoning for this idea was that by pitting the tort system against the government, perhaps some check or balance could be reached, while still maintaining the goal of the tort system for patients against physicians – accountability.
There would have to be some extremely specific rules in place to keep any of the parties from gaming the system. I like checks and balances – it’s worked pretty well for this country so far.
But maybe I’m high.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:18 pmOne way to handle malpractice risk that has been advocated for decades is to have all patients buy an insurance policy for mishaps when they have a procedure, sort of like airline flight insurance. There are bad docs but state boards are ineffective at dealing with them. I was an expert for the CA board for 25 years and testified in license hearings. They were a farce.
In California, there are several malpractice carriers. One is a coop that is member owned and will exclude docs with problems. The docs with bad claims histories are in the other insurance pools. How do you do that except by allowing private pools ?
An insurance mandate will work only with a basic catastrophic policy for young people. You could insure against the risk of cancer or diabetes or other catastrophic risks. But it will only work if they buy the policy when they are healthy. I don’t see that happening in any of the Democrats’ plans.
The French have a different legal system and that may be a factor in their system.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:19 pmTravis – Obama – the “more cowbell” of American liberalism.
Heh
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:19 pmOn the savings side, there is a monster program waiting in the wings to be dropped onto Medicare and Medicaid health care providers any time now. Mike K and others can probably do better justice to it than I. It’s called the RAC Program, which stands for Recovery Audit Contractor program. It started under Bush with three year demonstration programs in four states I believe which recovered $900 million of overbillings and, surprise, only $38 million of underbillings.
The contractors get compensated based on 9-12.5% of their recoveries for the government. If anyone has ever been through an audit or similar experience of that type with someone on the other side compensated based on a contingent fee like that, believe me it is a very unpleasant experience. Fraud is one thing, but questioning medical necessity and coding judgement are completely different matters. Hospitals and nurshing homes have been gearing up for this like it’s the second coming of Sarbanes-Oxley.
I’ve been suspicious that the national rollout of the program was delayed pending some resolution of the health care debate because of the shit storm it’s going to cause, but the more I read, the more I think it’s just bureaucratic delays due to the enormity of the project.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:28 pmThanks for the responses, guys.
MikeK in comment 11 wrote,
I had the same mortifying movie-going experience in 2004 when I took my then 11 3/4 year old daughter, and one of her friends, to see Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
Ira (28a423) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:33 pm“Apogee – Guidelines so as to not invalidate coverage? I did not follow this question.”
Negligence or gross negligence, I’m probably not using the right terminology or standard, should establish liability on behalf of the doctor to the patient. Certain intentional acts normally void insurance coverage such as Directors’ and Officers’ liability insurance – I think that’s what your looking for here. Policy exclusions.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 9:35 pmCoverage for preexisting conditions is a simple one, just like coverage for suicide in life insurance policies.
1. Put in a non-negotiable waiting period before paying out for said preexisting condition. In the case of life insurance, mine will wait 1-2 years (can’t remember the correct timeframe) from the moment of first coverage (assuming contiguous, continuous coverage) of the policy before paying out for suicide. This means you had better pony up the premiums for at least a year before you figure you need the insurance.
2. Price-discriminate using surcharges. You can already discriminate on life insurance policies based on age, why not based on other stuff as well?
Presto! You can now be covered for diabetes if you already have diabetes… but your premium will be 5x the amount others pay.
Gregory (f7735e) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:02 pmThere is, of course, another good reason to enact tort reform.
tyree (353f22) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:19 pmIt will help everyone in every business in the USA. it will help homeowners and city governments and even the Boy Scouts. We all pay a huge price for jackpot justice. Even your McDonald’s coffee will go down in price. It would help all Americans, not just the ones that have health insurance. It will even help the tort lawyers, as everything they have to buy will go down in price.
Gregory – Good idea, but there are some preexisting conditions they will just not touch voluntarily.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:23 pmtyree – The price of private jets will drop, though, since the fuckers won’t be able to buy as many with their cuts of bogus verdicts and settlements.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:26 pmdaleyrocks – However, other groups of people will now be able to afford private jets because of the ‘extra’ cash in hand, so I’d wager a net gain in purchases.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:34 pmThe govt. has a role in tort reform, and in changing laws re state requirements impeding competition and portability.
For the gov. to tell insurance co’s they have to do a, b, & c is only a small step from nationalization, really, it is assuming gov. control over private businesses that have very large investments funded by us, the customers. A, b, & c are quite likely to influence competition and the bottom line, impacting investors, premiums, and threatening unintended consequences and further impositions. It goes beyond just “regulating”, a nice word for interfering with private enterprise. Having already nationalized or invaded other industries does not make it acceptable.
For the gov. to tell me that I MUST purchase insurance, or pay a fine, or face consequence x, y, or z, is an infringement of rights. I do have insurance, have been paying for it forever. They do what they have contracted to do, and I’m content. But somehow I like the illusion that I am free to be an idiot, if I so choose.
The unacknowledged subterranean topic is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security going broke, and the gov. not being able to meet it’s obligations there. Dancing around this with demands of compassion for the uninsured is folly.
What would it hurt to take a closer look at Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to see if they can be fixed or saved, and plan for possibilities either way, rather than target mendacious drama at a gov. takeover of a system that, though flawed, does work? Why not adjust these programs to cover the small percentage of citizens now between the cracks? Why not ask insurance co. experts to look at how they could address some of these issues, and which regulations could be relaxed or removed to enable them to do so and still make a profit? Exercise some creativity?
If I’m insuring a Caddilac, I expect to pay more than for insuring an old truck. Similarly, if I have a pre-existing condition, I am obviously a greater risk, and should expect to pay more. Demanding Caddy coverage for an old truck price, or demanding coverage that isn’t available in the free market is, in essence, saying I’m so special I deserve it, no matter who pays, so dump the free market just for me. Guess what – life is not fair, and no bill or law is going to fix that.
jodetoad (059c35) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:36 pmwell there’s the official response and then there’s the other one:
http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=app_2347471856&viewas=0
bishop (4e0dda) — 9/9/2009 @ 10:43 pmDRJ: I can agree with all these, strongly, except for tort reform, which I support weakly.
I’m not sure medical liability reform would make much of a difference — information from states that have it don’t show an appreciable reduction in rates. That reality should be carefully balanced with potential trampling on patients’ rights.
I also support a public option. I thought the president’s analogy of public vs. private colleges was pretty strong. Many private colleges are actually doing better than the publics. Not much threat of gov’t takeover.
But yeah, you list legitimate areas of agreement. As I’ve said, I don’t think the GOP is by-and-large approaching the issue with the integrity that you exhibit here, and will vote against anything. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.
I thought the prez gave a good speech, which I’m sure is the least surprising news on this blog. 🙂 Also not surprising, I liked the touching Kennedy moment.
Joe Wilson was an idiot, as if South Carolina, home of Mark Sanford, needed to have more shame heaped upon it. But he apologized — and it was a real apology, not one of those “sorry if you were offended” bits of crap. He admitted he got overheated, so I’m done with that and I hope the media doesn’t harp on it. (But I know they will.)
Myron (e63c20) — 9/9/2009 @ 11:09 pmWilson’s uncontrolled outburst of truth served one purpose: it took away the focus on the speech and onto the idea that there just might be lies in the smooth statements flowing from the Teleprompter.
steve miller (c5e78c) — 9/9/2009 @ 11:42 pm“As I’ve said, I don’t think the GOP is by-and-large approaching the issue with the integrity that you exhibit here, and will vote against anything.”
Myron – I get the impression that you are not familiar with the GOP positions because they are not discussed at the places you get your information and they certainly don’t get attention in the media. Criticism of the public option is also stifled in the media or not accurately portrayed in most places, especially liberal blogs so your ill informed views are not surprising.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/9/2009 @ 11:44 pmI don’t agree with the first one, if I understand it properly.
Someone with pre-existing conditions, at least really expensive ones, are usually uninsurable.
Has anyone the RIGHT to be insured — particularly if that someone costs far mar to insure than it foreseeably will cost to provide care for that person?
No. I’m not saying, “so screw ’em,” but I don’t agree that the person has a RIGHT to coverage — on the taxpayer’s subsidizing dime.
Mitch (69e416) — 9/10/2009 @ 5:16 amThe GOP response was given by a “Birther.”
Typical.
Meanwhile, will somebody please tell me what’s in the water in South Carolina?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 9/10/2009 @ 5:54 amI’m not sure medical liability reform would make much of a difference
Oh, no doubt you’re correct – just ask your local obstetrician about it, if you can actually find one anymore. John Edwards made a fortune suing doctors years after a baby was delivered, because some alleged sort of malpractice occurred. Never mind that no evidence existed for such charges, but channeling a dead baby in front of a hand – picked jury will always triumph over those pesky facts. You must know that most obstetricans have been completely driven out of many states entirely, due to liability premiums costing upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? But your comment indicates that you have no idea what I’m talking about, so I guess my question is rhetorical.
Howard Dean was honest for once in his life when he admitted that the Dems are in the pocket of the trial lawyers, and will never give up that enormous gravy train. Our society and health care system has been severely damaged as a result.
Dmac (a93b13) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:01 amdaleyrocks: This blog is “one of the places (I) get information.”
So, if you guys here aren’t accurately representing the GOP’s positions, that’s not my fault.
Myron (6a93dd) — 9/10/2009 @ 8:01 amhttp://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/across_state_lines_explained
“Allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines would not work as advertised. While it may help the young and healthy, it will have a devastating impact on the insurance market for everyone else”
—
Illegals pay taxes. The put money into the economy, but they compete for low paying jobs.
“Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy.1 The widespread belief is that “illegal aliens” cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false.”
http://www.abanet.org/tax/pubs/ttl/593sp06/immigrants.html
—
Tort reform will not do the trick.
“medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending.”
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
“The TMLT, Teuscher speaks of is Texas Medical Liability Trust — the largest insurer of doctors in Texas. TMLT holds nearly 40 percent of the market. TMLT did lower their rates since the passage of Prop 12, but in the three years leading up to the proposition, they increased their rates by 147 percent. Consumer advocates agree that 22 percent makes only a small dent to the increase insurance companies made just before Prop 12.”
http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_288.shtml
And on and on. The Republicans don’t even have a plan, they have some buzzwords. Where’s the real proposal, the budgeting, the numbers etc. They haven’t done a thing.
JW Democrat (105b91) — 9/10/2009 @ 8:04 amHey, Myron, Obama tried out one of your cancelled insurance anecdotes, and misrepresented what happened about as brazenly as you do.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 8:08 amYou guys are just racists who will oppose anything that Barcky proposes.
JD (7739c6) — 9/10/2009 @ 8:10 amMyron, I agree with you that we should carefully balance tort reform with patient rights. I think a great compromise is available. If you lost your bar card when you place X number of frivolous suits against doctors, and if damages against doctors were limited to a low level but left higher for drug companies, I think we would see a significant decline.
Believe it or not, but it drastically cut insurance premiums for doctors. Now, perhaps a lot of that money actually went into better medical treatment instead of reduced rates, and perhaps the drop in medical costs isn’t huge, but it’s there. Also note that doctors might not take the best medical steps simply in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit.
I haven’t seen a downside to tort reform in Texas. So I think the patient rights concern can be balanced.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:04 am#43 – JVW. You clearly understand the problem. If you have no-preexisting-exclusions w/o a mandate, it becomes a tontine pretty rapidly.
#44 – Stashiu3 — and your other comments. My understanding is that service members cannot sue a military medical facility, but dependents (and survivors) can. But the quality of care provided appears to me to be independent of the legal situation, completely uncorrelated (I’ve had good and bad experiences with it); what I think that means is that the malpractice tort system does not have an effect on quality of care, although it certainly does on cost. Most tort lawyers like to suggest that doctors, nurses, etc. would not do quality work if they were not afraid of the lawyers. The relative regard the public holds for lawyers on the one hand and doctors and nurses on the other indicate how well they’ve closed the sale. (Which tells me tort reform could sell politically).
The economic problem is that no one is responsible for opportunity costs of excess tests, these are external to the decision makers (doc and pt both).
#65 – Aw, you caught us. Honest, my white sheet and cone hat are at the cleaners.
General comment: for most people the system works, however imperfectly. Most of the plans on the table would screw it up for them in hope of magical improvements caused by mysterious mechanisms.
Many of those who are not currently covered by some kind of insurance could be covered but are not. I suspect, although I can’t prove, that a centrally-planned system will find a similar fraction of its would-be clients intractable. The people engaging in this debate are almost all smarter than average. The people who are stumbling from one health crisis to another are often dumber than average.
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (b310ed) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:06 amCan they not get an insurance policy that excludes coverage of treatment of that particular pre-existing condition while covering treatment of other illnesses and injuries that may happen?
For example, could someone with a congenital heart defect obtain medical insurance that would cover treatment of cancer or diabetes?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:13 amIf it is so easy to save hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare, like Barcky claims, why is it that he has not instituted the policies necessary to do so?
JD (a045b6) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:18 am“Can they not get an insurance policy that excludes coverage of treatment of that particular pre-existing condition …” Not in my experience. But if anybody knows an insurer that will do that, _please_ post their name.
gp (72be5d) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:20 amThe GOP response should be “Barcky lied” and then list every last one of them, starting with the abject BS that this will not add one dime to the deficit, followed by the aggressive lie about Raddatz being killed by an insurance company, and on and on and on …
I have often stated that if this were such a good and popular idea, the Dems would not have to flat out lie about it. We should actually be concerned if they ever start being honest.
JD (4ca6eb) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:24 amYou know, when you’re working on something that matters, like the rigging on an airplane, or a scientific experiment, you generally proceed by changing one thing (variable) at a time, and observing the results.
A lot of the problem with Washington is its unwillingness to do that. Change one thing, measure. Change another thing, measure. Change back or reverse as needed. But that doesn’t let pols (1) appear as the messiah on the white unicorn who will save us with their “comprehensive” solutions, and (2) pad the back pages of an enormous bill with handouts to selves, friends and family.
Consider: every member of Congress is paid an upper-middle class salary, but has to maintain two homes (district and DC area). Yet every member of congress leaves incredibly wealthy, a multi-, deka- or centimillionaire. How do they manage that?
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (b310ed) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:25 amSo, how many uninsured people DOES tort reform cover?
JEA (3fc310) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:27 amKevin – I forgot to turn off my /sarc tag earlier, in case you were wondering.
To follow your point in #72, they could start be demonstrating with Medicare/Medicaid/VA/Indian healthcare all of the cost savings that can be realized, how much more efficient the govt can do it, and how much better care they can deliver, with the same access, and not adding a penny to the deficit. If they can do that, taking over the rest will be an easy sale.
JD (9d17e7) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:28 amIf covering uninsured people was the point of this, JEA, then Barcky could do it exponentially cheaper. He could just buy them all an insurance policy. This has nothing to do with covering the uninsured. But thanks for again proving your mendoucheity.
JD (070a63) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:30 amTort ‘reform’ is the insurance companies’ way to make more money at your expense, stooge.
JEA (3fc310) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:33 amThis JEA is the one that is tired of the partisanship, yet predictibaly spews Leftist pablum at every turn. Now, run on back to your trial lawyer, and see what kind of healthcare they provide for you.
JD (49fac5) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:41 amWhy is Congress attacking the insurance companies?
When oil prices rose, Congress did not attack the auto insurance companies; they went after the oil companies.
In the end, it is hospitals and doctors who choose to engage in price gouging. Why is the same Congress so vocal about price gouging by oil companies silent about price gouging by doctors and hospitals, choosing to attack the health insurance industry instead?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:42 amIt is my understanding that Mass.Care (or whatever they call it in Taxachusetts) mandates that all individuals have coverage, provides subsidies for those who “claim” they can’t afford it, and requires insurance companies to cover all who apply (no pre-conditions – community pricing), and the system is going belly-up.
AD - RtR/OS! (5b5739) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:43 amIf it can’t be done in a relatively homogenous community such as MA, how is it going to be done country-wide?
Accuse your doctor of price gouging and then ask him to give you a check-up…
Because we all know how benevolent the insurance companies are. I know their commercials always bring a tear to my eye…
JEA (3fc310) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:44 amSo you have no problem with doctors engaging in price gouging?
That is the source of the problem, and the solution is to make price gouging a capital crime.
What would be the side effects?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:47 amThe trolls and sycophants like JEA have been out, in force, at all of the websites I routinely read, ever since Teh One got up and lied lied lied last night.
JD (9d8cb8) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:48 amWhat proof do you have of this?
Does this not also prove that states are perfectly capable of enacting health care plans, making a national plan unnecessary?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:50 am“So you have no problem with doctors engaging in price gouging?”
Of course I do, don’t be insipid. But people here are staggeringly naive if they think insurance companies give one rat’s ass about the state of their health. Their sole motivation is their profit, not your health. They want to maximize their profits and they really don’t care how it’s done. Government’s job should be to make sure they don’t screw the public. I’m fine with profit, but not at the expense of peoples’ health.
JEA (3fc310) — 9/10/2009 @ 9:53 amExcuse me, has Obama read HR3200?
Has Obama published a plan IN DETAIL?
Are the Politicians and Government unions required to be in the public option?
Have the Democrats stopped lying?
Since the answer to all these questions is, “No”, that should be the vote on Obama’s Kervorkiancare.
PCD (02f8c1) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:04 amPre-existing conditions: This is really only a problem if you are buying individual insurance, that is you are not covered by an employer’s group plan (as most Americans are).
If you join a group plan at work, federal law says you can’t be excluded if you have a pre-existing condition although you may not be covered for it for 12 months (you’re covered for everything else). California, where I am, limits the non-coverage period in a group plan to six months.
For individual insurance, however, a pre-existing condition is a big problem and heaven help you if you’re laid off and over 50. Many folks have a pre-existing condition then and I’ve seen numbers that 75% of these people who apply for individual insurance are denied coverage.
It can also be a problem for small employers where hiring someone who has a pre-existing condition or who develops an expensive illness can cause the renewal rates to jump to unaffordable levels.
Peccator Dubius (a6ceff) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:05 amGOP response to Obama’s health care plan? “YOU LIE!!!”
The Emperor who is trying to be more understanding (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:12 amLovie – To paraphrase Treacher, is it worse to tell the truth for a second, or to lie for an hour? How would you describe the claims that this will not add one dime to the deficit, or that Raddatz was killed by an insurance company as anything other than lies?
JD (1e04df) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:21 amGOP response to Obama’s health care plan? “YOU LIE!!!”
pretty accurate, in a nutshell.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:25 amWhy can’t people keep their story straight. First they claimed that doctors gouged tonsils, now they say doctors gouge prices. Please, make up your mind…
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:26 amDon’t forget about how you folks like to amuptate feet instead of treating diabetes.
JD (1e04df) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:32 amThe fact that so many on the left are very permissive towards, or far less bothered by ambulance-chasing trial lawyers instead of, for example, a Congressman shouting “You lie!” speaks volumes.
The hilarious and pathetic, if not disgusting, thing about “leftys” is they believe their supposed compassion and supposed wonderful humaneness offset their tendency of being guilty of traveling down — time and time again — that road to hell paved with good intentions.
Mark (411533) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:35 amJD- I must have not gone to class that day, I missed that lesson.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:44 amJD, so you think it is right to insult your President openly when he is giving a policy speech? It is okay to behave like that? Is that your view? Think very well before responding.
The Emperor who is trying to be more understanding (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:47 amSince The Emperor keeps claiming that there is no GOP alternative, all the while ignoring at least three GOP sponsored bills, I think we know where the lack of integrity is.
Oh, wait, we already saw that in The Emperor’s habit of making baseless accusations that he can’t back up.
SPQR (5811e9) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:47 amEmperor, of course it’s OK to insult the president openly if he crosses a certain threshold.
If Bush had been lying, and calling truth tellers liars, then it would have made sense to call him out.
Obama once again broke a promise by not elevating discourse. He started calling everyone with concerns a bunch of bickering liars, and this is the result. He’s not ready to lead, and he doesn’t take his promises seriously because he’s a liar.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:50 amThe Emperor, the Democrats could have considered the issue of civility when they catcalled and booed George W. Bush.
But they didn’t. Democrats are the paragon of tu quoque.
SPQR (5811e9) — 9/10/2009 @ 10:50 amof course it’s OK to insult the president openly if he crosses a certain threshold.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 11:39 amVery sad that you would say that. But not surprised at all. Just be ready to reap what you sow. You are teaching kids that it’s ok to insult your President. So they grow up insulting you. This kind of thinking is the reason why America is such a messed up country, morally. No respect for authority. Our kids watch us insulting our President, they grow to do worse. No matter what you think of Obama, he is your president. He deserves some respect. I think it is disgusting and pathetic that folks here have not made one shred of comment condemning the behavior of Joe Wilson. But I am not surprised. I would have lost hope in the GOP as the party for the future, if not for right thinking people like John McCain. A real american. He was the first to step up and condemn it. Even the man in question has apologized for his behavior. But folks here? Not so much. Your hatred for Obama has blinded your sense of right and wrong. I am sorry for you. You have lost your souls!
Why is it that the Democrats are not reaping what they sow, The Emperor? Your platitudes seem to have only one-way effect.
SPQR (5811e9) — 9/10/2009 @ 11:40 am“Very sad that you would say that. ”
Why? I wasn’t specifically referring to Joe Wilson, but obviously there is no fundamental moral wrong with calling the president a liar. It’s not violent, and we’re outraged at Obama. What’s the problem?
If Joe Wilson had been wrong, it would have really helped Obama politically. But the general principle that, at a certain point, it’s OK to call people liars, is sound.
After all, Obama called Palin, and I quote, a “liar”. Harry Reid called the 43rd president, in front of schoolchildren, a “loser”.
This is Obama’s fault, anyway. He keeps demonizing the opposition, and lying about their proposals, and telling them to shut up. He keeps pretending his proposal doesn’t do the things it does, such as give health care to illegals. If it’s sad, you should direct your concern to Obama, who as you note, is reaping what you and he have sown. You, emperor, keep on attacking and distorting and being completely one sides in your analysis. You and your leader deserve the awful tone that we have today.
You have let Joe Wilson down, and he’s letting you know.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/10/2009 @ 11:58 amTell that to your kids and grand kids. Tell that to your conscience. If you still have one. You are a big disappointment to yourself and to your country. But you know what? This is good for the President. You have again been put in a defensive position. Watch out for the aftermath.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:11 pmLovie – It is really quite simple. If you do not lie to people’s faces, they are not likely to call you a liar.
Let’s turn your little BS scenario around. Barcky lied about multiple issues, but for brevity’s sake, let’s use the Raddatz anecdote and deficit neutral claims. Why are you teaching children that it is okay to be dishonest to get what they want? I do not expect any serious response from you, since the premise for your inanity is so flawed. It is like history began for you on Tuesday.
JD (332142) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:13 pmEmpress of the demented, seek help. You are both projecting and acting like a spoiled child. If the GOP had some spine, they’d do like the Democrats did with Code Pink and filled the audience with hecklers. Think you and your fellow dishonest soulless aparatchiks can handle your own medicine?
PCD (02f8c1) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:26 pm“folks here have not made one shred of comment condemning” Many comment shreds here have focused on the details of health care policy. I bet Patterico could open a different thread for you and other folks to declare umbrage, register alarm, express outrage, vent spleen, etc.
gp (72be5d) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:36 pm@104
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:38 pmI don’t talk to shit heads.
JD, Too late for you. The man has seen the error of his ways and has promptly apologized. You are a dishonest person to not see it as an error. But thats not surprising.
Talking to shit heads would be a step up in social status for you, The Emperor.
SPQR (5811e9) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:45 pmYou are right to some extent. While my conscience is clear, I am very disapponted that I did not do all I could to get Mccain elected or, much more important I guess, nominate a real Republican. I also laughed off the corruption of Tom Delay.
And you’re right that Obama has put me on the defensive. I am legitimately scared of what Obama has done, and am trying to stop him by attending protests and all that crap. I’m on the defensive. Against a crushing deficit that Obama created and insists on increasing while lying about it.
I think you’re wrong about Obama being helped by this. I expect to see the ‘You Lie!’ chant to become very common and undermine Obama. We’ll see.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:52 pmI love how the Leftists conflate disagreement with dishonesty. Lovie, that was some sweet unintentional irony there. Why do you teach children that it is okay to lie?
JD (191455) — 9/10/2009 @ 12:59 pm#99- Your hatred for Obama has blinded your sense of right and wrong. I am sorry for you. You have lost your souls! Kantor was caught texting on his blackberry during the speech as well. Let’s give our passionate friends on the reactionary right a ‘mulligan’ on this one. Amongst the muttering masses in the conservative crowd, huddled in the House chamber, yearning to breathe free, one right-wing knucklehead embarrassed himself and the Republican Party on global television by interrupting the President of the United States in mid-sentence by hurling a heckle. At least Joe Wilson, [(R), South Carolina,] fought the urge to ‘strike a blow for liberty’ and refrained from removing his shoe and wing a wingtip, Iraqi-style. Then he truly would have lost his patent-leather sole. The man apologized, albeit pressured by party leaders to do so, and our president accepted. Besides, they can’t unring the bell.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:00 pmA village is missing its idiot, again.
JD (191455) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:06 pmDCSCA, you’re right. He owned his mistake. I am sure Joe Wilson was under pressure to both apologize and to ramp up the anger. More people seem to have told him not to apologize.
He decided he made a mistake and owned it. He know OBama ‘started it’ by calling the entire movement against him bickering liars, but Joe Wilson is better than Obama, and owned it. He was rude, and while he made a great point and the country trusts Obama less, and that’s a great thing, it was rude. Can’t unring the bell.
Of course, Obama can’t unring the bell where his party stripped out the verification of citizenship in HR 3200. Obama is a liar, then.
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:11 pmhere is the apology I would have written for Wilson (had he asked):
steve sturm (369bc6) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:20 pm“I am sorry, but I just wasn’t able to sit and listen politely while our country’s President made one false claim after another. America deserves to have a President who doesn’t lie in order to advance his partisan agenda“.
To paraphrase Treacher, which is worse, lying for an hour, or blurting out the truth for a second?
JD (191455) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:22 pmSteve, I think it would have been better to have Wilson paraphrase some of the comments made by Democrats about GW Bush over the past eight years or so. Word for word.
I’m thinking of some of Pelosi and Reid’s wonderfully civil comments.
Many of my Leftish friends are outraged by the incivility that Wilson showed. Yeah, unlike the great respect showed GW Bush!
That’s different™!
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:36 pmEric: but that turns the subject to whether the Dems were likewise rude and away from Obama’s (at best) misleading rhetoric.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:50 pm“I don’t talk to shit heads.”
How do you communicate with liberals?
Sign language?
Dave Surls (d45e49) — 9/10/2009 @ 1:59 pmHow do you communicate with liberals?
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 2:25 pmI don’t know. Maybe you should ask them.
‘Interview with Senator Harry Reid, NBC’s Meet the Press, December 5, 2004’
‘MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation’s nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, “President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”‘
‘Is that rhetoric appropriate?’
‘SEN. REID: I don’t know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That’s how I feel, and that’s how I felt.’
What goes around, comes around, I reckon.
Civilty, courtesy and respect to the Dems?
Not while I have a breath in my body.
Dave Surls (d45e49) — 9/10/2009 @ 2:29 pmWith the Democrats organizing boos at Bush’s SOTU speech, the fact that one Republican outburst at Obama’s ridiculous speech is the basis for such faux outrage just reinforces Democrats as the party of hypocrisy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 2:41 pmSee, emperor, you say it’s just so sad that anyone could ever talk to Obama that way, under any conditions at all, and then turn around and call someone an asshole. That makes sense to me, since I realize it’s not the incivility you’re sad about. Like Friedman, you want a dictatorship where Joe the Plumber can be investigated, Palin can be called a liar, and Joe Wilson is thrown out of congress. One Party!
Juan (bd4b30) — 9/10/2009 @ 2:58 pmThe Emperor troll gives us this crap: “Your hatred for Obama has blinded your sense of right and wrong. I am sorry for you. You have lost your souls!”
Hatred? The overwhelming majority of the violence regarding Obama’s healthcare “reform” during August was by Obama supporters aimed against opponents or on false flag ops like “Ariel Attack’s” vandalism against a DNC office in Denver.
Typical of The Emperor to get things exactly reversed.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 3:05 pmThe issue is not that people don’t have the right to call the President names. We all are guilty of that and it is part of democracy. Free speech. The problem is calling your president a liar. To his face. While he is giving a policy speech in the congress. Aired on live tv. Watched not only by Americans but viewers around the world. That is the issue. That you can’t or refuse to see it tells more about your integrity.Or the lack thereof. Just know that by endorsing this behavior, you set a dangerous precedence for future leaders. This has never happened before to any US president. Republican or Democrat. Be careful what you laugh at. One day it will come back to bite you in the ass. Honesty means supporting what is right and condemning evil. It takes courage.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 3:50 pmJD Democrat said, ““medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending.”
That CBO report contains some rather glaring flaws. It’s timeline starts in the mid- 80’s but the “Malpractice Insurance Crisis” started in the early 70’s. The report ignores the high cost of “defensive medicine” to keep the sharks at bay.
See:
http://overlawyered.com/2004/01/the-last-rung/
for a short article on the cost of liability insurance at a ladder manufacturing company. Tort reform will make everything cheaper, not just health insurance, and give us fewer politicians like John Edwards. What’s not to like?
tyree (b24e28) — 9/10/2009 @ 3:53 pmJoe Wilson has apologised for his outburst, Emperor, now when it President Obama going to apologise for his lies, distortions and half-truths?
tyree (b24e28) — 9/10/2009 @ 3:57 pmThe Emperor, false. It has happened before. The Democrats did it to George Bush.
You continue to ignore this.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:15 pmThe problem is calling your president a liar. To his face. While he is giving a policy speech in the congress. Aired on live tv. Watched not only by Americans but viewers around the world.
When you put it that way I feel a great love in my heart for Joe Wilson to where I think I might could cry.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:20 pmSPQR.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:37 pmWhen did Bush get heckled while giving a policy speech in the congress? Please refresh my memory. When did a member of the opposition call a sitting President a liar to his face. While speaking in congress. Maybe that will help establish how you are such a man of impeccable integrity.
The Emperor, you can’t remember? Sheesh, you really are pathetic.
Several of his State of the Union addresses were booed by Democrats.
You remain despicable and without honor.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:39 pmNow the next thing you should do, The Emperor, with all your calling of “hatred” is admit that Democrats are the ones who are committing most of the violence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:41 pmIf the government took on the doctors who are actually doing the price gouging , then health insurance would not be so expensive.
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:47 pmWhen has any major media news outlet used forged documents in a hit piece on President Obama?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 6:51 pmThe brazenness of the Obama cultists is astonishing, isn’t it Michael?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 7:00 pmI remember the Usenet discussions about the 60 Minutes hit piece.
The Usenet lefties initially denied that there were forgeries, and when that was undeniable, some of them defended the use of forgeries.
Has any President ever been a target of a hit piece that relied on forged documents?
Michael Ejercito (833607) — 9/10/2009 @ 7:07 pmI’m still astonished, Michael, that Mary Mapes is not in jail.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/10/2009 @ 7:10 pmSPQR
The Emperor (1b037c) — 9/10/2009 @ 7:12 pmIn other words, you can’t prove anything. And you are supposed to be “Mr Integrity”. You are pathetic. Just listen to yourself.