Charlie Daniels - Democrats
"He was in a bind, coz' he was way behind: he was willing to make a deal."
This devil ... Beelzebama ... bet your soul that he could ram through health care. And since he cannot get 60 Senate votes and the House only passed their version 220-215, he is going to punt with reconciliation, and make a simple majority move. Johnny C, sits rosin'in up his bow.... "So if you'll sit down in that chair, right there ... I'll show you how its done."
The band of demons joining in making an evil hiss sound something like Pelosi and Reid. The real sticking point -- apart from "extending" coverage to everyone, including those who do not pay taxes, work or even belong in this country -- is the "pre-existing condition" problem. If insurance companies are forced to cover people that they know are going to cost a fortune to support and at a price no different than that which a healthy person might pay, they are going to: (a) have to expand the pool of paying healthy people; or (b) raise premiums. Or both. Or go broke.
Take note that when the Canadian premier needed heart surgery last month ... he came to the United States to get his procedure done. And Obama and the Dems want us to look more like Canada. "This was my heart, my choice and my health." And this was a Canadian politician.
Back to the plot: Since insurance companies don't want to go broke (although that might be a long-term Beelzebama plan to institute government single plan health care), they are going to go with plan (a). Why? Well, plan (b) is the Wellpoint Death Spiral (google "California Wellpoint death spiral" -- written by leftie economist Paul Krugman) wherein raised premiums cause more healthy participants to drop out, further shrinking the pool necessary to support the costly pre-existing crowd, creating a need for further premium hikes.... And Beelzebama's and his demons have already told us in no uncertain terms that they will limit the amount anyone has to pay for coverage. Game over.
So Plan (a) it is. So insurance companies, when faced with government action to force coverage will logically welcome laws forcing people to become their clients.
Isn't immoral to exclude people with pre-existing conditions? Yes. Without doubt. But we need to clarify something here. Conservatives are focused the prevention of excluding persons with prior coverage: as in, if the insurance company finds out you are sick, it cannot then deny you and drop coverage or prevent renewal of coverage. Weirdly, that is exactly what the Demon-crat plan will do. By definition this pre-existing condition debate is about seniors. The number of people with disease under the age of 55 (to pick an AARP-based number) that the pre-existing condition issue applies to and which would pose crippling costs, is small enough to be ignored by the insurance companies. Something crazy like 80%+ of your lifetime medical costs come in the final 5 years of life.
So, the Demon-crats plan to cut Medicare by $505 billion over the next 10 years, $150 billion to come from Medicare Advantage -- leading "many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise premiums or withdraw from the program." -- Congressional Budget Office. Ironically, Medicare Advantage is the one spot in the entire scheme that actually works to provide affordable healthcare for seniors. So, in some bizarre twist to provide "universal coverage," coverage will be stripped from the persons they seek to cover? And precisely the people that cost the most to insure?
But this poses the question ... what about coverage for those who decide they want it, don't already have any, but are already sick? Sticky question, ethically. It is also somewhat like the grasshopper and ant parable. The Demon-crats say the solution is to force everybody to have coverage -- so this question does not come up, eliminating free choice and the right of young healthy people to determine their budgetary needs. The GOPutzes really don't address this at all, preferring to hide behind "keep it as it is." I'd prefer to see coverage available to those that want it at an affordable price, and let those that don't want it take the risks that they become sick later on. But if healthy people are forced to pay premium designed to subsidize the sick... it is no longer affordable.
That is, you can't smoke, drink and eat Cheetohs until you are 60, have a heart attack and suddenly decide that the people of the United States owe you coverage. Winter has arrived and there is nothing in the grasshopper larder. That is freedom and a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: liberals want to remove choice and self-responsibility and conservatives will let you do what you want with your life.
So how does Pelosi's Bill take care of the costs that will flow from coverage for all -- bearing in mind that the "big bills" are in the final few years of life? The Dems propose to create a "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission" -- government employees who will decide which treatments are most effective ... and allowing the denial of treatment based on cost. The newly to be created "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" will decide on the categories of covered treatments and services with benefit classes. Net of this garbage? Obama's folks get to decide what and how much treatment a patient will receive: "everyone will be covered, but we will decide how much coverage you will get." That does not sound like a very good deal to me, particularly if I was older or seriously sick.
Since when has the Government EVER done anything more efficiently at a lower cost than the private sector? Or at all. Name one thing. I dare you. Imagine a larger version of your Division of Motor Vehicles ... or IRS ... and you are applying to them for treatment coverage.... 'Nuff said.
Since they want "the rich" to pay for all this, taxes will have to increase. In fact, it starts to look like an entire economy run to support a health system. Much in the way GM was a pension fund that sold cars to pay for itself. But taxes and premiums will certainly go through the roof -- as they have in every instance where the government has artificially shaped the market. Tried to insure cars in New Jersey or New York. Or get health insurance in Mass.? The people to tax are the unorganized, the small business people, individual and self-employed: they do not have a voice.
If individual people could band together to form large user groups, as do big business and unions, our rates would go down -- making healthcare more affordable. But the Democrats prevent this. If we could go across state lines to buy insurance in, say, Idaho, we could have real competition ... but Democrats prevent this. If we could stop insane malpractice lawsuits creating CYA medicine -- we could dramatically lower treatment costs -- but Democrats are in bed with the tort lawyers. If we allowed unfettered access to global pharmaceutical markets (and eliminate the BigPharma gold mine of U.S. prescriptions), we could dramatically lower costs -- particularly for the seniors, but Democrats have BigPharma well in hand (or is that other way around)?
Lastly, I am unaware of anything in the Constitution of the United States that gives the Federal Government power to mandate that the citizens of the United States purchase anything. Tax and provide, yes ... but that is really limited to defense and infrastructure for interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have been tortured beyond belief -- but I cannot see how this proposal passes Constitutional muster. At the very least it should be a right reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is the word of law.
This devil ... Beelzebama ... bet your soul that he could ram through health care. And since he cannot get 60 Senate votes and the House only passed their version 220-215, he is going to punt with reconciliation, and make a simple majority move. Johnny C, sits rosin'in up his bow.... "So if you'll sit down in that chair, right there ... I'll show you how its done."
The band of demons joining in making an evil hiss sound something like Pelosi and Reid. The real sticking point -- apart from "extending" coverage to everyone, including those who do not pay taxes, work or even belong in this country -- is the "pre-existing condition" problem. If insurance companies are forced to cover people that they know are going to cost a fortune to support and at a price no different than that which a healthy person might pay, they are going to: (a) have to expand the pool of paying healthy people; or (b) raise premiums. Or both. Or go broke.
Take note that when the Canadian premier needed heart surgery last month ... he came to the United States to get his procedure done. And Obama and the Dems want us to look more like Canada. "This was my heart, my choice and my health." And this was a Canadian politician.
Back to the plot: Since insurance companies don't want to go broke (although that might be a long-term Beelzebama plan to institute government single plan health care), they are going to go with plan (a). Why? Well, plan (b) is the Wellpoint Death Spiral (google "California Wellpoint death spiral" -- written by leftie economist Paul Krugman) wherein raised premiums cause more healthy participants to drop out, further shrinking the pool necessary to support the costly pre-existing crowd, creating a need for further premium hikes.... And Beelzebama's and his demons have already told us in no uncertain terms that they will limit the amount anyone has to pay for coverage. Game over.
So Plan (a) it is. So insurance companies, when faced with government action to force coverage will logically welcome laws forcing people to become their clients.
Isn't immoral to exclude people with pre-existing conditions? Yes. Without doubt. But we need to clarify something here. Conservatives are focused the prevention of excluding persons with prior coverage: as in, if the insurance company finds out you are sick, it cannot then deny you and drop coverage or prevent renewal of coverage. Weirdly, that is exactly what the Demon-crat plan will do. By definition this pre-existing condition debate is about seniors. The number of people with disease under the age of 55 (to pick an AARP-based number) that the pre-existing condition issue applies to and which would pose crippling costs, is small enough to be ignored by the insurance companies. Something crazy like 80%+ of your lifetime medical costs come in the final 5 years of life.
So, the Demon-crats plan to cut Medicare by $505 billion over the next 10 years, $150 billion to come from Medicare Advantage -- leading "many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise premiums or withdraw from the program." -- Congressional Budget Office. Ironically, Medicare Advantage is the one spot in the entire scheme that actually works to provide affordable healthcare for seniors. So, in some bizarre twist to provide "universal coverage," coverage will be stripped from the persons they seek to cover? And precisely the people that cost the most to insure?
But this poses the question ... what about coverage for those who decide they want it, don't already have any, but are already sick? Sticky question, ethically. It is also somewhat like the grasshopper and ant parable. The Demon-crats say the solution is to force everybody to have coverage -- so this question does not come up, eliminating free choice and the right of young healthy people to determine their budgetary needs. The GOPutzes really don't address this at all, preferring to hide behind "keep it as it is." I'd prefer to see coverage available to those that want it at an affordable price, and let those that don't want it take the risks that they become sick later on. But if healthy people are forced to pay premium designed to subsidize the sick... it is no longer affordable.
That is, you can't smoke, drink and eat Cheetohs until you are 60, have a heart attack and suddenly decide that the people of the United States owe you coverage. Winter has arrived and there is nothing in the grasshopper larder. That is freedom and a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: liberals want to remove choice and self-responsibility and conservatives will let you do what you want with your life.
So how does Pelosi's Bill take care of the costs that will flow from coverage for all -- bearing in mind that the "big bills" are in the final few years of life? The Dems propose to create a "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission" -- government employees who will decide which treatments are most effective ... and allowing the denial of treatment based on cost. The newly to be created "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" will decide on the categories of covered treatments and services with benefit classes. Net of this garbage? Obama's folks get to decide what and how much treatment a patient will receive: "everyone will be covered, but we will decide how much coverage you will get." That does not sound like a very good deal to me, particularly if I was older or seriously sick.
Since when has the Government EVER done anything more efficiently at a lower cost than the private sector? Or at all. Name one thing. I dare you. Imagine a larger version of your Division of Motor Vehicles ... or IRS ... and you are applying to them for treatment coverage.... 'Nuff said.
Since they want "the rich" to pay for all this, taxes will have to increase. In fact, it starts to look like an entire economy run to support a health system. Much in the way GM was a pension fund that sold cars to pay for itself. But taxes and premiums will certainly go through the roof -- as they have in every instance where the government has artificially shaped the market. Tried to insure cars in New Jersey or New York. Or get health insurance in Mass.? The people to tax are the unorganized, the small business people, individual and self-employed: they do not have a voice.
If individual people could band together to form large user groups, as do big business and unions, our rates would go down -- making healthcare more affordable. But the Democrats prevent this. If we could go across state lines to buy insurance in, say, Idaho, we could have real competition ... but Democrats prevent this. If we could stop insane malpractice lawsuits creating CYA medicine -- we could dramatically lower treatment costs -- but Democrats are in bed with the tort lawyers. If we allowed unfettered access to global pharmaceutical markets (and eliminate the BigPharma gold mine of U.S. prescriptions), we could dramatically lower costs -- particularly for the seniors, but Democrats have BigPharma well in hand (or is that other way around)?
Lastly, I am unaware of anything in the Constitution of the United States that gives the Federal Government power to mandate that the citizens of the United States purchase anything. Tax and provide, yes ... but that is really limited to defense and infrastructure for interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have been tortured beyond belief -- but I cannot see how this proposal passes Constitutional muster. At the very least it should be a right reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is the word of law.
Labels: Obama healthcare Pelosi tax
posted by Zaphod at Wednesday, February 24, 2010
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home