Article

2010-09-12 Home Front: Politix

Republicans promise to defund Obamacare if they control House

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2010-09-12 00:47|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 The Republicans are moving from "the party of No" to "the party of Hell No!"

Nice to see that the GOP has located their spine. Let's hope they don't misplace it (again) after the election.

Posted by DMFD 2010-09-12 05:17|| 2010-09-12 05:17|| Front Page Top

#2 This is an excellent strategy.

With at least 70% of Americans opposed to this bill and its various components (many of which have literally nothing to do with health care or health insurance), an Obama veto will start pushing even more disengaged voters towards voting against him in 2012.

A government shutdown this time around will not have nearly the same result politically that it did in the nineties, when the internet as a means of getting out "the rest of the story" was in its infancy and did not reach very many people. Then, the MSM was able to craft a ridiculous narrative that the GOP wanted old people and kids to starve to death, and there were limited means of combating the propaganda. It won't be something they can do this time around with any real success.

Posted by no mo uro 2010-09-12 06:06|| 2010-09-12 06:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Now let us discuss the.... "DEFUNDING" of the foreign giveaway programs to Hamas and the rest of these muslim vermin. DEFUNDING of the feckless UN. DEFUNDING of Fannie and Freddie. DEFUNDING of welfare and unemployment benefits for those who refuse to work. DEFUNDING of free college education for so-called protected classes. DEFUNDING of the INS, US Depart of Agriculture, and US Department of Education.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-09-12 08:44|| 2010-09-12 08:44|| Front Page Top

#4 The Republicans need to remember 1995. In winning control of Congress this fall, the victory will not be a mandate for change but a repudiation of Obama. Non-funding of Socialized Medicine will be popular, but little else at this point. The Democrats will be looking for a way to shut down the government and blame it on the Trunks. If they give the Asses the chance, they open the door to Barry being re-elected in 12. Stop Health Care, gridlock on everything else, wait for the mandate from a Tea Party approved presidential candidate in 12. Then remember what happened to Barry when he thought he had a mandate.

The American people do not like radical change. That is where much of the opposition to Health Care comes from. So just as all the noxious programs and policies were added over the last 80 years, they must be starved, phased out, sold, and reformed into oblivion over the next 80 years, not the next 80 days.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-09-12 09:36|| 2010-09-12 09:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Not so fast. The health insurance system is still broken, and driving us into bankruptcy. The GOP has to offer a credible alternative, not just "shut it down!"

At a minimum, this means retaining the ban on denial for preexisting conditions, plus some subsidies for low-income people whose employers don't provide insurance-- see Mitch Daniels' fiscally responsible but generous and inclusive approach. Wouldn't hurt to have more GOPpers in Washington who share Daniels' expertise (he used to be CEO of Eli Lilly) in health care-- as opposed to clueless culture warriors decrying a "sOciALiST!!!!" straw man even as they collect their medicare payments.

Broke, please fix.

Posted by lex 2010-09-12 10:11|| 2010-09-12 10:11|| Front Page Top

#6 I had an interesting discussion about this over, of all things, a comedian's line on Blue Collar Comedy (XM 148--Git R Done!).

The guy was talking about car insurance and how "your car is more protected than you are" because of mandatory car insurance. Now we didn't get into what the car insurance protects against (e.g. my liability), but we started to talk about what health insurance protects: your finances.

Yes, sez my wife (who holds a Master's in Public Health), but you aren't locked out of car maintenance if you don't have insurance. No, you aren't.

And I asked: how much malpractice insurance does the auto mechanic or the car dealership have to carry vs. the doctor? (next to 0, was our guess, at least in comparison.)

So why is a doctor's costs of doing business so high?

She didn't have a ready answer, and we were at our destination so we didn't get into that part.

But that part--the jackpot justice system--is what I'd like to see fixed.

Posted by Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2010-09-12 10:37|| 2010-09-12 10:37|| Front Page Top

#7 You can greatly reduce the overall, society-wide liability that car insurance protects against. There's not much we can do at this point to reduce the overall, society-wide liability for catastrophic illness. Cancer happens.

And when it, or some other life-threatening (and very expensive to treat) illness happens, if you do not have insurance, you go bankrupt, period.

In an advanced society with advanced and very expensive medical technologies, there is no alternative to heavy state intervention in health insurance and health care. Either you expand the risk pool with government insurance, or you have state-dictated rationing.

Or both.

Posted by lex 2010-09-12 10:54|| 2010-09-12 10:54|| Front Page Top

#8 But that part--the jackpot justice system--is what I'd like to see fixed

I agree completely. And the solution is simple - change the law so that in a lawsuit - the loser pays. Don't expect the Democrats to do this, cause the trial lawyers are their biggest source of campaign cash. And don't expect the GOP to do this cause ... frankly, they're not very bright.

Posted by DMFD 2010-09-12 10:55|| 2010-09-12 10:55|| Front Page Top

#9 This approach has become more popular among GOP candidates given the likelihood that a full repeal of the law would not be able to overcome Democratic opposition in the Senate or Obama's veto.

Lest we forget, this bill is unconstitutional. It needs to be crumpled, burned, the ashes stomped on, and any remains shot into the sun for final disposition.

The federal government does not need this kind of example to base further power-grabbing legislation on.

If necessary, transfer it to the individual states for them to fix the numerous broken parts and make something of it.

Posted by gorb 2010-09-12 12:00|| 2010-09-12 12:00|| Front Page Top

#10 I think a bill that compelled gun ownership for citizens and permanent residents would have had more of a Constitutional chance than this bill.

Defunding can only be a first step. Total repeal must be the goal.

Posted by eLarson 2010-09-12 13:06|| 2010-09-12 13:06|| Front Page Top

#11 Every future nominee to the Supreme Court should be asked "Do you think the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to require American citizens to purchase health care?". Any answer other than a confident "no" should bring instant disqualification.

Posted by Iblis 2010-09-12 13:32|| 2010-09-12 13:32|| Front Page Top

#12 The government does not have the Constitutional authority to require you to purchase health insurance, but it does have the authority to tax you and to administer the providing of your health care (though you would still be free to purchase additional or different health care on your own.)
That - Single Payer National Health Care - was the goal all along; the insurance thing was and is just a red herring.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-09-12 15:54|| 2010-09-12 15:54|| Front Page Top

#13 Glenmore:

If ObamaCare is a tax, then it is an unconstitutional "Direct Tax". See here.

Also, for those of us who think that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided, there is no role for the Federal Government in health care at all. It is not one of the 17 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, and it has nothing to do with interstate commerce as that term is correctly understood (what happens at interstate borders).

Posted by Iblis 2010-09-12 16:39|| 2010-09-12 16:39|| Front Page Top

#14 In an advanced society with advanced and very expensive medical technologies, there is no alternative to heavy state intervention in health insurance and health care.

Yes there is. It's called DEATH. I'm sorry to say but death is a fact of life. People get sick and die. You can't stop it. Maybe you can slow it down but you cannot stop it. Government needs to get out of the picture. If you can afford insurance, fine. If you can't, tough. I'd rather live that way than with an oppressive nanny state that tells me how to spend my own money. And when I get sick, let me go.

And do not try to confuse me with car insurance. You want to drive on public roads? Just by doing so you put yourself and others at risk. It's not you that I'm worried about, it's the others. Get car insurance so they don't have to jail you after you kill their loved ones. You don't want to drive? No worries. It is not anything at all like government mandated health insurance. Do not even go there.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2010-09-12 18:11|| 2010-09-12 18:11|| Front Page Top

#15 The lesson of car insurance is deductibles.

When I was young and stupid, I had a $50 deductible. One day, I asked my agent what it'd cost for a $100 deductible, and if I didn't have a claim every year, I saved money.

Now my auto deductible is $1,000. Insurance is for catastrophes, not headaches.

I wonder how much could I save with a $500 deductible for health insurance?

Posted by Bobby 2010-09-12 18:23|| 2010-09-12 18:23|| Front Page Top

#16 and it has nothing to do with interstate commerce as that term is correctly understood

Also, the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce, not hijack it.

I want to focus on the meaning of the word regulate.

These days, it means to control. In the days the Constitution was written, it meant to make regular, in other words to eliminate gross discontinuities between the states to keep the playing field level.

Now where does that leave the federal government? Basically, they are supposed to be a referee. That's all.

Posted by gorb 2010-09-12 18:45|| 2010-09-12 18:45|| Front Page Top

#17 The lawsuit that the State of Virginia has brought against the Federal Government may decide the fate of Obamacare. My lay understanding is that the suit takes aim at the Commerce clause. It has passed the first hurdle, i.e. getting past summary judgement. Many other states also have lawsuits in the works. Many of these lawsuits take aim at the constitutionality of ObamaCare--challenges based on the 10th amendment. These are going to most likely keep the DOJ attorneys very busy for at least the next two years. ObamaCare is going to be under assault on at least a couple of fronts--the legal front and the defunding front. A readable discussion is here .

Posted by JohnQC 2010-09-12 18:55|| 2010-09-12 18:55|| Front Page Top

#18 Insurance is for catastrophes, not headaches.

Spot on, Bobby. But does anyone know what the going rate is for a physical exam if you were to just pay cash?

Posted by eLarson 2010-09-12 20:00|| 2010-09-12 20:00|| Front Page Top

#19 But does anyone know what the going rate is for a physical exam if you were to just pay cash?

No. Because no one pays cash. Excpet Rush. He recently had some medical procedure and he paid cash up front and paid about 20% of (not off, of) the list retail price used to charge insurers.

The solution? Return to fee for service. And if you want to buy insurance, you may. With after the service reimbursement when you file a claim.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-09-12 20:51|| 2010-09-12 20:51|| Front Page Top

#20 "But does anyone know what the going rate is for a physical exam if you were to just pay cash?

No. Because no one pays cash."

Actually, people do, NS. I do. I have a medical savings account, which I could tap to be reimbursed for my medical costs (of course, I put the money there to begin with, so even if I'm "reimbursed" I'm paying cash), but I rarely do; I'd rather save the money for if I ever have a bad accident or serious illness (so I've got money to meet my very high insurance deductible).

The only time I've hit the account for reimbursement so far is the year I got new glasses (mine are very expensive and I can't get them from Lenscrafters); got a shingles vaccine shot (around $250); and had a couple of doctor's visits, for a total of a little under $1000 in one year.

I put aside money every month for medical expenses that might come up; when I do go to a doctor for a checkup or something, it costs under $200 and I write them a check. I do have insurance through my employer, with a $5000 deductible, so you can see why I pay the doctor. The insurance is for castastrophies, not a hangnail.

Of course, most people won't put that money aside each month come hell or high water; they'd rather spend it on fun things and pretend their health care is free.

And as for those who truly can't pay, or who come down with expensive diseases, we used to have a thing call charity (not taxes confiscated by the gummint) that would take care of those people.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-09-12 22:59|| 2010-09-12 22:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:58 trailing wife
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 Anonymoose
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:19 Eric Jablow
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:07 Mike Ramsey
23:03 CrazyFool
22:59 Barbara Skolaut
21:59 Skidmark
21:39 Anonymoose
21:30 Shieldwolf
20:52 Angie Schultz
20:51 Nimble Spemble
20:40 Black Charlie Chinemble5313
20:39 Cyber Sarge
20:35 Angie Schultz
20:19 Pappy