Debate on Health Care (Part 2): This Monstrosity of a Law Should be Repealed Quickly
Aug6
By John Feehery
John Feehery’s response to Debate on Health Care (Part 1): Should NOT be Repealed.
Obamacare is a disaster.
It is a mish-mash of different legislative impulses. It is overly bureaucratic. It has already driven up the costs of health care insurance and made it more difficult for people to get jobs.
Mr. Obama, when he ran first ran for President, campaigned against the individual mandate. In fact, he attacked Hillary Clinton harshly for supporting it. But like most things with this President, what he campaigned on and what he actually delivered are two completely different things.
There are two paths you can take in health care reform. You can have the government take over everything. Or you can apply marketplace principles to create greater competition, drive up quality and drive down costs.
When government becomes the middle-man, costs necessarily go up. The system stops focusing exclusively on delivering the best product at the best price and it spends more time figuring out how to rip off the government.
Obamacare tries to have it both ways. It tries to appear to use market principles, but the heavy hand of government intervention is omnipresent and distorting.
Republicans have a good track record on health care reform over the last fifteen years, and should they succeed in repealing Obamacare, they should build on that record to replace it with a more common-sense approach.
I worked for Republican leaders who led on health care. Denny Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, found a way to work with Ted Kennedy to get the first step in health care reform in 1996 two years before he became Speaker. Together, Hastert and Kennedy passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which made it easier to take your health care plan with you if you changed jobs.
Hastert fought Kennedy tooth and nail on the issue of Medical Savings Accounts, which put more power in the hands of consumers. Kennedy did not want to give consumers the power to negotiate health care prices, which is why he opposed Hastert’s MSA’s. But Hastert prevailed and the first inklings of real health care market competition was born in HIPPA.
I worked for Denny when he pushed through the Medicare Modernization Act, legislation that gave seniors greater access to prescription drugs. The MMA was another step in health care reform, because it gave seniors plenty of choices in what prescription drug plan they could choose and that choice allowed them to drive down the costs of the program. Medicare Part D, which was created by Hastert, is the most popular and most successful part of the Medicare program.
Republicans wanted Obama to fail on health care reform because they fundamentally disagreed with his approach to the issue. Jim DeMint wanted Obamacare to be Obama’s Waterloo because he believed that this issue would expose President Obama for what he has turned out to be, a left-wing ideologue.
DeMint was right. National revulsion to Obamacare led to the historic elections of 2010, where Republicans won more seats in the House than had ever won in one election. All because the President pushed through Obamacare.
Once Obamacare is repealed, Republicans should work on a plan that better reflects a marketplace philosophy.
- First, they should tear down the wall that gives health insurance companies state-sponsored monopolies. Allow small businesses to pool together across state line in small business associations. That will lead to great competition.
- Second, they should enact fundamental medical malpractice reform that eases the liability costs for doctors.
- Third, they should encourage, through tax incentives, a greater embrace of new medical technologies. They should closely look at HIPPA to make certain that an undue concern about privacy doesn’t lead to greater medical errors.
- Fourth, they have to find ways to encourage doctors to stay in general practice, either through tax incentives or through student loan forgiveness.
- Fifth, they should greater encourage the use of nurse practitioners, who can handle easier cases and take the load off of doctors. They should do that by eliminating regulations that make it harder for them to give out prescriptions and otherwise do their job.
That would be a very good start.
On the issue of the uninsured, there is no way to make everybody get insurance in a free society.
The very poor have access to Medicaid. Older Americans have access to Medicare.
Folks in the middle who currently don’t have insurance will have greater reason to get health insurance when the price of health insurance goes down. And that will only happen with government mandates are removed and when greater competition across state lines is allowed to flourish.
There are plenty of Americans who simply don’t want to pay for insurance, because they either can’t afford the high prices or because they think they are perfectly healthy and they don’t want to spend the money. In a free society, there isn’t much we can do to compel them. But we can create the right market conditions to drive down the price.
Obamacare takes a heavy-handed approach to this problem. It creates needless bureaucracies. It imposes costly mandates. It kills jobs creation. And it will drive down health care quality, as more and more doctors decide to leave the profession to do something else with their lives.
That is why this monstrosity of a law should be repealed and repealed quickly.
And after it is repealed, Republicans replace it with a market-based approach that will lead to greater competition, greater choice, greater access and greater accountability.
Please see my first thank you note to John in the first comment on part 1. I again want to thank John for his being willing to engage in this very important dialogue! I will try to keep my comments at a reasonable length as I answer John but I will answer all of his points and provide any documentation if it is necessary.
Answering John’s points in this debate will be very easy for me to do because I have already agreed in part 1 of this debate (my argument) that health care (in its current form) is “imperfect,” “the messy process of how it (health care) was passed” and how that “Obama was intentionally sabotaged during the health care process.” John also made some very big assumptions about the future of health care that he cannot guarantee and he has not answered my bottom line questions that I asked at the end of part 1: “what is the Republican health care plan, guarantees, and safety nets for all poor people if health care is repealed and if millions of people lose their coverage? What will be done for them if they need expensive medicine and/or an operation that they cannot afford?” when he said above “Once Obamacare is repealed, Republicans should work on a plan that better reflects a marketplace philosophy.” If “Republicans should work on a plan,” then that means they do NOT already have a serious alternative plan right now which answers my questions about a guaranteed safety net for the poor if they cannot afford health care due to no fault of their own!
Here is where I am going to start answering John’s points in easy to follow outline form to explain in my opinion why he has NOT made his case on health care or answered my main points in part 1 of this debate:
1) As I said, John can criticize things about the health care law all he wants to and for the sake of argument, I will give him his first two points (and any others like them). That is what happens when the Republicans had a “just say no” attitude toward Obama and Democrats during the health care debate which mainstream Republican David Frum admitted:
http://www.frumforum.com/watch-frum-on-morning-joe
Watch: Frum on Morning Joe
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am by David Frum | Share
Today on Morning Joe, David argued that Republicans care about politics while Democrats care about government. Watch the video here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36147239#36147239 (13:21)
Frum: ‘All in’ against health reform became GOP’s Waterloo
April 2: Fmr. Bush speechwriter David Frum argues that the GOP should have only fought against specific parts of health care reform, instead of it all.
Please also see this article by David Frum on his website:
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm David Frum
“We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government…”
I have not even mentioned yet how that BOTH John Boehner and Mitch McConnell’s office reported to Rush Limbaugh during the health care debate! That will be documented later on. So what did Obama have to seriously work with as far as the Republicans were concerned during the health care debate when he wanted millions of people to have health care coverage? That is a main reason why Obama had to push an imperfect health care bill through Congress any way he could (again, I agree that it was a messy process):
“Obamacare is a disaster.
It is a mish-mash of different legislative impulses. It is overly bureaucratic. It has already driven up the costs of health care insurance and made it more difficult for people to get jobs.”
2) A history lesson and any criticisms of Obama (true or untrue) will NOT insure any people:
“Mr. Obama, when he ran first ran for President, campaigned against the individual mandate. In fact, he attacked Hillary Clinton harshly for supporting it. But like most things with this President, what he campaigned on and what he actually delivered are two completely different things.”
3) “There are two paths you can take in health care reform” in my opinion is kind of a false choice with no gray areas because we have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security right now which are government programs in our current system. This means to me that serious bipartisan negotiations could result in some form of compromise where people might be able to choose one path or the other OR where all poor people under a certain income would qualify for some form of Medicare as their safety net health care program in a free market system. These are just hypothetical suggestions on my part. John may be right about his other claims regarding what I agree is an imperfect health care law which is why I think that we desperately need truly serious and bipartisan negotiations in order to try and work out these kind of issues (fair enough?):
“There are two paths you can take in health care reform. You can have the government take over everything. Or you can apply marketplace principles to create greater competition, drive up quality and drive down costs.
When government becomes the middle-man, costs necessarily go up. The system stops focusing exclusively on delivering the best product at the best price and it spends more time figuring out how to rip off the government.
Obamacare tries to have it both ways. It tries to appear to use market principles, but the heavy hand of government intervention is omnipresent and distorting.”
4) “Republicans have a good track record on health care reform over the last fifteen years” is not a tangible fact, it is a subjective opinion that will vary from person to person and “should they succeed in repealing Obamacare, they should build on that record to replace it with a more common-sense approach” in my opinion gets an “A+” as far as John’s good intentions are concerned but that is NOT any kind of a definite guarantee to anybody!
5) I have no reason to contest anything that John below so I commend him, Denny Hastert, and Ted Kennedy for this act of bipartisanship in order to get something big done. I wish that we could do this today! But unfortunately this is not 1996 when Rush Limbaugh was not nearly as powerful as he is now, when there were no uncompromising “my way or the highway” Tea Party extremists who are hijacking the GOP now, when Rush was not calling Bush 41 and 1990s Republicans “RINOs,” and when Rush did not say that he is trying to make 1990s “RINOs” “an extinct species, and we are on the way:”
“I worked for Republican leaders who led on health care. Denny Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, found a way to work with Ted Kennedy to get the first step in health care reform in 1996 two years before he became Speaker. Together, Hastert and Kennedy passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which made it easier to take your health care plan with you if you changed jobs.
Hastert fought Kennedy tooth and nail on the issue of Medical Savings Accounts, which put more power in the hands of consumers. Kennedy did not want to give consumers the power to negotiate health care prices, which is why he opposed Hastert’s MSA’s. But Hastert prevailed and the first inklings of real health care market competition was born in HIPPA.
I worked for Denny when he pushed through the Medicare Modernization Act, legislation that gave seniors greater access to prescription drugs. The MMA was another step in health care reform, because it gave seniors plenty of choices in what prescription drug plan they could choose and that choice allowed them to drive down the costs of the program. Medicare Part D, which was created by Hastert, is the most popular and most successful part of the Medicare program.”
A) Here is credible documentation to back up every word I said claiming that Rush Limbaugh called Bush 41 and 1990s Republicans “RINOs” and said “The objective here is to make them an extinct species, and we are on the way” (unfortunately they really are after the nearly Rush lead Tea Party has primaried so many mainstream Republicans out):
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/04/27/barack_h_w_obama
Barack H.W. Obama?
April 27, 2011
RUSH: “And they point out that Obama, Joe Klein says Obama’s really a moderate Republican from the 1990s. If you look at Obama’s policies he’s exactly like George W. Bush in the early 1990s…
“Obama favored a cap-and-trade plan to limit carbon emissions; the first Bush Administration passed a (very successful) cap-and-trade plan for acid rain emissions.” So they’re going on and on, there’s no difference, those old Republicans in the nineties were good old moderate Republicans. What they were were RINOs. And of course Klein and his buddies would like to revisit those days. But then you get to the meat and potatoes of the piece. “How did the Republicans go so far astray? Why did it work, from time to time, electorally? Why weren’t the Democrats more effective in stopping them? Why didn’t the society’s major conservative economic stakeholders (outside the uber-reactionary Oil Patch) renounce the sideshow and demand a more reasonable brand of conservatism?” like we had from Bush 41 in the early nineties Republicans. “Two words immediately come to mind: Fox News. And two more words: Rush Limbaugh.” So the piece here at TIME Magazine by Joe Klein is all about how basically Roger Ailes and I have destroyed the Republican Party, the grand old days of moderate Republicans like Bush 41, the RINOs. And, gee, why can’t we revisit, why can’t we go back to those good old days? What happened to all the moderate Republicans? Joe, let me tell you something. The objective here is to make them an extinct species, and we are on the way…”
John, while I commend the good intentions what you and Denny Hastert tried to do in 1996, today is NOT even close to the same Republican Party as both you and I knew it in 1996:
B) Bipartisanship is very difficult today when BOTH Mitch McConnell’s office and John Boehner reported to Rush Limbaugh during the health care debate (this is not a joke, I am being totally serious):
http://img.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125114.guest.html
Just Say No to Obamacare, GOP!
December 8, 2009
RUSH: “Well, the way that she said it. They are up there adding amendments. There’s no question they’re adding amendments to it. McConnell’s office did call here and say that they are opposing this, so I don’t know if adding amendments is a strategery to bollix it up and slow it down…”
C) Here is where Rush said “Now, I gotta call from Speaker Boehner last Friday… he called me first.” Rush also claims that John Boehner told him “He made it clear that “repeal” and not “repeal and replace” but “repeal” was gonna be the focal point for the House Republicans.” IF “replace” is not there, then there cannot be a serious Republican alternative to health care if it is ever repealed:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/27/what_s_your_obamacare_prediction
What’s Your Obamacare Prediction?
June 27, 2012
RUSH: “When you get down to the bare bones personal of this, ideology goes out the window, big government goes out the window ’cause we’re talking about “my children, my son, my daughter, who can’t find work, and I need my child to stay on my policy.” So all the big government stuff, all the limited government goes out the window with these people. If nothing else is kept, keeping the kid on the policy is a big deal. I’m just mentioning this, because what were the Republicans gonna do? Now, I gotta call from Speaker Boehner last Friday. I mean, he’s calling a lot of people. Yeah, he called me first, Snerdley, yes, yes, but he’s calling a lot of people, and he was telling us what the Republican plan is. And it was repeal, repeal, repeal, regardless what happens. The mandate’s thrown out, repeal the rest of it. If the whole thing is upheld, repeal it. If the whole thing’s deemed unconstitutional, repeal that. (laughing)
He made it clear that “repeal” and not “repeal and replace” but “repeal” was gonna be the focal point for the House Republicans. So a lot here on the line. And then you realize the election is in four-and-a-half months. So if the mandate’s thrown out, if the whole thing’s torpedoed — and the mandate being thrown out, being the primary funding mechanism, there really isn’t a whole lot of left. If that happens, then it becomes a campaign issue for the next four months and Obama is running around out there saying four white guys and an Uncle Tom, four rich white guys, Uncle Tom, just took your health care away. I was the first one to give it to you in a hundred years, they just took it away, they still have theirs. These four white guys and an Uncle Tom took your health care. That will become a campaign platform plank for them.
If it’s upheld, then it becomes a campaign thing for the Republicans and for Romney. And then the election in November will have further ramifications on the future of this particular piece of legislation, Obamacare. So tomorrow is really just the first day of a big mess. But it’s the kind of mess that we want. It’s the kind of mess that we asked for. It’s the kind of mess that has to happen if we are gonna get rid of this and try to bring some common-sense reforms…”
D) On a side note to prove how powerful that Rush is, he knew about Paul Ryan’s budget BEFORE the White House did:
Rush talked with Paul Ryan in the morning on April 4, 2011 about his budget:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/04/04/rep_paul_ryan_to_launch_a_great_gop_budget_blueprint_tomorrow
Rep. Paul Ryan to Launch a Great GOP Budget Blueprint Tomorrow
April 04, 2011
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: “I talked to Congressman Paul Ryan on the phone this morning. He is going to announce a major budget blueprint, a ten-year budget blueprint tomorrow, and, folks, it’s wonderful…”
The White House did not know about Paul Ryan’s budget later on that same day:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/04/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-442011
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 04, 2011 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/4/2011
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:25 P.M. EDT
Q “Thanks. Tomorrow Paul Ryan will be unveiling the House Republican budget. I’m wondering what your reaction is to his plans for Medicare, which is to turn it from a basically government-run program into one where individuals would get support to pay premiums to private companies?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I haven’t seen his proposal. I don’t think any of us have yet because it hasn’t arrived. And obviously I, but most importantly others, will examine it with interest…”
E) This is what Rush thinks of bipartisanship:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021709/content/01125100.guest.html
Tuesday Quotes: Never Give In
February 17, 2009
“Bipartisanship only happens when one side gives in. That’s why we despise bipartisanship here at the Limbaugh Institute. We never quit.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021309/content/01125107.guest.html
Seminar Caller: Don’t Be Negative
February 13, 2009
RUSH: “Bipartisanship, yes, we’re supposed to sit around and compromise what we believe in just to get along. Let me ask you a question. Should Jesus have sat down with Satan and said, “Let’s come to an understanding, let’s make a deal”?”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021709/content/01125108.guest.html
John Adams Prophecy on the Constitution and Morality
February 17, 2009
RUSH: “Everybody said, “We ought to compromise, Rush, bipartisanship, we gotta all get along.” How do you do that? How do you compromise good versus evil? How do you compromise victory with defeat? As I said last week, should Jesus have made a deal with Lucifer? Should Jesus have made a deal with Satan? How would that deal have come out? What would the compromise there be? So it’s a great illustration.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7018083
Building Bipartisanship? Not Limbaugh’s Problem
by David Folkenflik, January 25, 2007
Listen Now + add to playlist
F) Look at how much that most elected Republicans fear Rush (because they know all he has to do is give the word and his many millions Tea Party can primary them out of office the next time they are on the ballot:
Colin Powell:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/28/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Interview with Colin Powell
Aired July 28, 2009 – 21:00 ET
LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR: “Do you think they are afraid to take him on?
COLIN POWELL, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I know a number of instances where sitting members in Congress or elsewhere in positions of responsibility in the party made light criticism of Rush, and within 24 hours they were backing away because there is —
KING: Why?
POWELL: — a strong base of support for Mr. Limbaugh.
KING: So what? There is a strong base of support for everybody.
POWELL: Yes, but I do not have to worry about winning elections or having people who are supporting me or not supporting me. I am free and independent and can make any statements I want, and Mr. Limbaugh is free to criticize me all he chooses to, but he cannot tell me that I cannot be in the Party…”
Fox News article: Limbaugh Cracks the Whip, and Republicans (lawmakers) Get in Line:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/limbaugh-cracks-whip-republicans-line/
Limbaugh Cracks the Whip, and Republicans Get in Line
First 100 Days / Published January 29, 2009 / FoxNews.com
The minority whip appears to be someone who has never won an election.
“Republican lawmakers who were having a difficult time becoming the “loyal opposition” in the first week of the Obama administration got a swift kick in the pants earlier this week from the “voice” of their constituents: Rush Limbaugh…”
George Will:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/george-will-republican-leaders-are-afraid-of-rush-limbaugh/
Mar 4, 2012 10:41am
George Will: Republican Leaders Are Afraid of Rush Limbaugh
I already proved that Bush 41 is a “RINO” by Rush and Tea Pary standards. Reagan economist Bruce Bartlett explained how that even Ronald Reagan “Would Not Lead Today’s GOP” (I could not agree more with him):
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/15/Why-Ronald-Reagan-Would-Not-Lead-Todays-GOP.aspx#page1
Why Ronald Reagan Would Not Lead Today’s GOP
By BRUCE BARTLETT, The Fiscal Times
June 15, 2012
This is just the tip of the iceberg of material I have to prove how powerful that Rush is, how much most Republicans fear him, how GOP leaders report to him, how the GOP today is not even close to the GOP of 1996, and more!
My question still remains John is how can truly serious bipartisan health care negotiations take place under these circumstances (top GOP leaders reporting to Rush, elected Republicans fearing Rush, and with the uncompromising Tea Party taking over the GOP while I see very little being done about it)?
While I think you are personally sincere John, can you answer that question and my points?
7) Your opinion is very subjective and while David Frum agrees with you on the health care issue itself, he disagrees in the way how Republicans went about it (which you are embracing). I also stand behind my previous comments that Republicans refusing to compromise left Obama no other choice but to pass health care any way he could to insure millions of people (he would be crazy to let himself be held hostage by the GOP on it when he could get the votes that he needed in Congress to pass it one way or another):
“DeMint was right. National revulsion to Obamacare led to the historic elections of 2010, where Republicans won more seats in the House than had ever won in one election. All because the President pushed through Obamacare.”
Here is where David Frum disagrees with you and with how Republicans went about the health care debate which shows to me that respectable Republicans can have honest differences of opinion. I also have MUCH more documentation that Obama was intentionally sabotaged regarding the health care debate which again left him with no choice but to pass what he could any way that he could which was VERY unfortunate in my opinion:
http://www.frumforum.com/watch-frum-on-morning-joe
Watch: Frum on Morning Joe
April 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am by David Frum | Share
Today on Morning Joe, David argued that Republicans care about politics while Democrats care about government. Watch the video here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36147239#36147239 (13:21)
Frum: ‘All in’ against health reform became GOP’s Waterloo
April 2: Fmr. Bush speechwriter David Frum argues that the GOP should have only fought against specific parts of health care reform, instead of it all.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm David Frum
“A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves… At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994… When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests…”
The very fact that you said “Republicans should work on a plan” and “That would be a very good start” in my opinion is very clear and tangible proof that Republicans do NOT have a serious alternative to health care IF it is ever repealed. That is my main premise of this debate in part 1 when I said “My first point is that I have not seen a serious Republican health care alternative with guarantees to insure millions of people, including people with preexisting conditions, if health care is repealed.” I think that you proved my main premise to be true but that is up to every reader of this dialogue to decide for themselves!
As for your other ideas, I think it would be great to discuss them in truly serious bipartisan negotiations where everything is on the table and everyone is at the table! That means Republicans cannot fear Rush, cannot worry about being primaried if they compromise, and that Democrats have to compromise as well even if it means putting their reelection at risk:
“Once Obamacare is repealed, Republicans should work on a plan that better reflects a marketplace philosophy.
1. First, they should tear down the wall that gives health insurance companies state-sponsored monopolies. Allow small businesses to pool together across state line in small business associations. That will lead to great competition.
2. Second, they should enact fundamental medical malpractice reform that eases the liability costs for doctors.
3. Third, they should encourage, through tax incentives, a greater embrace of new medical technologies. They should closely look at HIPPA to make certain that an undue concern about privacy doesn’t lead to greater medical errors.
4. Fourth, they have to find ways to encourage doctors to stay in general practice, either through tax incentives or through student loan forgiveness.
5. Fifth, they should greater encourage the use of nurse practitioners, who can handle easier cases and take the load off of doctors. They should do that by eliminating regulations that make it harder for them to give out prescriptions and otherwise do their job.
That would be a very good start.”
8) I am NOT saying “make everybody get insurance in a free society.” What I am saying is providing some kind of a guaranteed safety net for the poor who cannot afford health care due to no fault of their own (such as medicine, seeing a doctor, or necessary operations). Wage garnishment and other things can be on the table as how to pay for it IF we can have serious bipartisan negotiations to discuss it (fair enough)?
“On the issue of the uninsured, there is no way to make everybody get insurance in a free society.”
9) John, I cringed when I saw this because these are in VERY serious danger IF the Tea Party were to ever get its way with the Paul Ryan budget! This could be possible if there is a clean GOP sweep in November and if the GOP Senate uses budget reconciliation to repeal parts (if not all) of health care:
“The very poor have access to Medicaid. Older Americans have access to Medicare.”
The same Catholic Bishops who opposed contraception also strongly opposed the Paul Ryan budget because of what it would do to the poor if it is ever implemented (Medicaid and Medicare which you mentioned are also mentioned in this article):
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201597.htm
Catholic News Service
BISHOPS-BUDGET Apr-19-2012 (930 words)
Letters to Congress: USCCB opposes proposed cuts in services to poor
By Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) — “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has expressed its concerns over proposed cuts in federal programs serving the country’s poorest and most vulnerable people in a series of letters to congressional leaders since April 4 as debate over the fiscal year 2013 budget begins.
The letters from Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, urge Congress to draw a “circle of protection” around programs that serve “the least among us.”
The letters were sent after the House of Representatives adopted on March 27 a $3.5 trillion budget resolution — with a $600 billion deficit — written by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. The plan calls for massive spending cuts in nonmilitary programs, turning Medicaid into a block grant program administered by the states, reshaping Medicare over the next decade…”
Look at what the Tea Party is out to cut IF it ever gets its way:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-13/politics/tea.party.cuts_1_medicare-and-medicaid-bush-era-tax-cuts-current-medicare-program?_s=PM:POLITICS
What would the Tea Party cut?
April 13, 2011 | By Shannon Travis, CNN Political Producer
“Should familiar yet costly “essentials” — entitlements like Medicare, the nation’s health insurance program for seniors, and Medicaid, which provides health insurance for the nation’s poor — be phased out or dramatically overhauled?
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan laid out the Republican plan last week. It would radically overhaul Medicare and Medicaid while lowering top tax rates…”
John, I really hope that you fear a Tea Party takeover of the GOP and that you are rooting for the so-called “GOP Elite” to win their “War” on Rush and the Tea Party like how I am:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/13/gop_elite_declares_war_on_tea_party
GOP Elite Declares War on Tea Party
October 13, 2011
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: “Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a big piece in the New York Times Magazine coming this weekend. It is entitled: “Does Anyone Have a Grip on the GOP?” The subhead: “The Republican Elite Tries to Take Its Party Back.” This article prints like 24 pages. It is a major, major New York Times Magazine piece. It confirms everything that I have thought, everything I have speculated, everything I have said about the battle between the Republican elite and the Tea Party…”
I have MUCH more documentation dealing with “The very poor have access to Medicaid. Older Americans have access to Medicare” if you want to see it or if you want me to post it (that is a main reason why I am helping as many anti-Tea Party GOP primary and Democratic campaigns as I can)!
I think you have a valid point of view and that this is a legitimate issue BUT it still does offer a guaranteed safety net to the poor who cannot afford health care due to no fault of their own:
“Folks in the middle who currently don’t have insurance will have greater reason to get health insurance when the price of health insurance goes down. And that will only happen with government mandates are removed and when greater competition across state lines is allowed to flourish.”
I do not disagree with this as the general rule BUT it brings up the VERY important question that Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul in a Presidential debate (Ron Paul offered no guarantee or safety net to a dying and uninsured person, please see right below):
“There are plenty of Americans who simply don’t want to pay for insurance, because they either can’t afford the high prices or because they think they are perfectly healthy and they don’t want to spend the money. In a free society, there isn’t much we can do to compel them. But we can create the right market conditions to drive down the price.”
What about this VERY important question that Wolf Blitzer asked to Ron Paul in a Presidential debate (I think that this question needs to be asked ALL the time now and the 1:57 video is right after the transcript):
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/12/se.06.html
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Full Transcript of CNN-Tea Party Republican Debate, 20:00- 22:00
Aired September 12, 2011 – 20:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN LEAD POLITICAL ANCHOR: “Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just — you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
REP. RON PAUL, (R-TX.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —
BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high.
The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.
PAUL: There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.
(APPLAUSE)…”
Here is the 1:57 video link of this CNN transcript:
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/tea-party-audience-cheers-letting-the-uninsured-die/
Tea party audience cheers letting the uninsured die
Posted on 09.12.11
By David Edwards
This is a basically a repeat of the beginning of this post. Reality is that there is a stalemate in Washington because Republicans do not have the votes to repeal it in the Senate or to override an Obama veto right now. After the election, Republicans may be able to use the Senate budget reconciliation process to try and repeal as much of it as they can if there is a clean GOP sweep but Democrats in the Senate would retaliate using every stall tactic in the book to try and stop it and make life as difficult as possible for Republicans. If there is divided government after the election, then the votes will not be there to repeal health care. That is just reality. What is needed is a VERY strong dose of serious, adult, and bipartisan negotiations to deal with these issues that John brought up and issues that Democrats have:
“Obamacare takes a heavy-handed approach to this problem. It creates needless bureaucracies. It imposes costly mandates. It kills jobs creation. And it will drive down health care quality, as more and more doctors decide to leave the profession to do something else with their lives.
That is why this monstrosity of a law should be repealed and repealed quickly.”
Again, I think that John is admitting to my point in part 1 “that I have not seen a serious Republican health care alternative with guarantees to insure millions of people, including people with preexisting conditions, if health care is repealed” when he said “after it is repealed, Republicans replace it with a market-based approach…” That means it is NOT already replaced with a serious Republican alternative! Why can’t we all sit at the table and discuss these very important issues telling Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and any partisan Democrats to go jump in a lake & come back when you can act like an adult? I look forward to when that day will happen (if it ever can):
“And after it is repealed, Republicans replace it with a market-based approach that will lead to greater competition, greater choice, greater access and greater accountability.”
I would also like for John to deal with the issue of preexisting conditions that I brought up in part 1 if he is willing to. Right now insurance companies cannot discriminate against preexisting conditions. They will be able to IF health care is repealed and the high risk pools that I hear many Republicans talk about are very expensive in many states:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=609&cat=7
statehealthfacts.org
State High Risk Pool Costs, December 2009
Also, what if there are vouchers and they run out? What happens then if a poor person cannot afford health care due to no fault of their own and need it to live?
Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul about an uninsured dying person in the comment right above “are you saying that society should just let him die?” My answer to that question is a very strong and moral “No!”
I again want to thank John for his willingness to discuss this very important issue and I hope that all readers will carefully review everything that was written in both parts 1 and 2 and come to your own conclusions as to who you agree with. I am glad to answer any questions or provide any further documentation. Please feel free to contact me on Facebook, by e mail at mtdwrkn02@aol.com, or by phone at 469-556-7026.
“There are plenty of Americans who simply don’t want to pay for insurance, because they either can’t afford the high prices or because they think they are perfectly healthy and they don’t want to spend the money. ”
I have been in the health care business for 31 years and the statement above is 100% true. There are many middle class folks making between $50000 and $100,000 per year that have the disposable income to pay for health care but choose noto. I see it every day!
Ed: Thanks for your comment! I think that what you said brings up the very important question that Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul in a Presidential debate (Ron Paul offered no guarantee or safety net to a dying and uninsured person). I think that this question needs to be asked all the time now and the 1:57 video is right after the transcript:
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/12/se.06.html
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Full Transcript of CNN-Tea Party Republican Debate, 20:00- 22:00
Aired September 12, 2011 – 20:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN LEAD POLITICAL ANCHOR: “Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just — you’re a physician, Ron Paul, so you’re a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
REP. RON PAUL, (R-TX.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —
BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high.
The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.
PAUL: There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.
(APPLAUSE)…”
Here is the 1:57 video link of this CNN transcript:
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/tea-party-audience-cheers-letting-the-uninsured-die/
Tea party audience cheers letting the uninsured die
Posted on 09.12.11
By David Edwards
When Wolf Blitzer asked should “society should just let him die?” My answer to that question is a very strong and moral “No!”
I think that things such as wage garnishment, the individual mandate, and other ideas should be on the table to seriously discuss in real bipartisan negotiations so that nobody gets a free ride who will eventually be able to pay. But I think it is immoral to just let an uninsured dying person die because of a mistake that they made to not be insured when their life can be saved and some kind of payment arrangements can be set up to make him pay for his mistake once he recovers (or if his family or friends can help him out financially)!
I am against free rides for people who are able to pay but I think it is outright immoral to just let an uninsured person die for a mistake that they made when their life can be saved and they can pay for their mistake one way or another later on!