The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

Depends on how you define the political spectrum, and I actually didn't get this from Beck. The idea that Facism and Socialism are on the same end of the political spectrum has to do with the fact that both involve government controlling the economy and attempting to regulate everything in people's lives. They just go about it differently, however both involve big government.

I think this might be of some interest to you guys.



Nolan Chart

RIP Dave Nolan btw.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/27/usdomesticpolicy-clarence-thomas-what?reddit2

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan20 ... -j27.shtml

Anyone find this of interest?

EDIT: Also how many people who claimed tea partier status are there in the house? I can't seem to find a list that focus' on that detail.

Obviously those charges were completely fabricated by the known far-left (and probably Soros-backed) Common Cause at Obama's request to remove Thomas from the SCOTUS and replace him with a liberal justice who will let him keep all his sinister unconstitutional policies. He would have just had Thomas killed, but Rahm Emmanuel is out of town and Bill Ayers is retired.

Opening real cross borders competition between states, as well as caps on malpractice suits. (these examples where provided earlier in the thread)

The reason why you can't buy insurance plans across state lines is because of our decentralized federal system. The national government does not directly regulate health insurance companies (at least not up until the recent bill). It has been left largely as a "states' rights" issue, which means we have 50 different sets of laws and regulations for health insurance. A health plan which conforms to Wyoming's laws may not conform to California's laws, and vice versa. Thus, health insurance companies cannot sell the same plan across state lines. Now, the obvious solution to this would be to have the federal government responsible for regulating the insurance industry, and we would have one consistent set of laws, and sitting down here in Florida I could quite easily purchase a health plan from some company in Massachussetts or Texas.

The Republicans rejected this proposal. They wannted a system where every state would still have its own laws, but a company based in one state could sell plans conforming to that state's laws all across the country. This means that insurance companies would huddle in whatever state had the least patient-friendly laws (and would buy that state government to ensure it stayed that way) and sell the same crap to everyone else all across the country. If you were unhappy with the laws and regulations concerning health insurance, you would not be able to petition your representatives (or elect new ones) to fix it, because in all probability you do not live in the state that gets to decide what the health care laws are. The result would be massive disenfranchisement accompanied by a signficant reduction in the quality of medical care, as insurance companies would simply not pay for anything.

The PPACA did include a provision allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, pursuant to agreements established between state governments to set up health insurance exchanges where plans would conform to the laws of both states. Unwieldy compared to the simple federal solution, but it's still an improvement.

They might also try giving a discount(a tax cut?) to poorer families looking to pay for insurance, although this isn't really what they usually go for.

Malpractice suits are only a small portion of the problem responsible for the high costs, maybe 5-10% at most. In any case placing unconditional caps on malpractice suits is a simplistic and draconian measure that would infringe on patients rights. What's needed are laws that make it very clear exactly what doctors can and cannot be held responsible for. Don't leave it for the lawyers to decide.

I think Orwell already explained the problem with the Republican plan for allowing people to buy across-state without federal regulations. Insurance companies would simply take advantage of it to screw more people.

Malpractice suits are only a small portion of the problem responsible for the high costs, maybe 5-10% at most. In any case placing unconditional caps on malpractice suits is a simplistic and draconian measure that would infringe on patients rights. What's needed are laws that make it very clear exactly what doctors can and cannot be held responsible for. Don't leave it for the lawyers to decide.

The "Obamacare" bill that the Republicans are trying to repeal actually does just this.

Why wouldn't they have federal regulations?(and forcing insurances that wish to trade across stateliness too behave according to new regulations is perfectly acceptable) It would be explicitly in federal jurisdiction and restrictions can and should be put in place.