Here was my favorite political cartoon this week, by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com.
It reminded me of the time Obama said the Born Alive Infants Protection Act would be found unconstitutional (page 86).
Then there’s Obama’s equally adept legal scholar wife who declared in 2004 that partial birth abortion was “clearly constitutional.” But I digress….
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
In honor of Reagan, I’ll just share a couple of recent quotes from Charles Fried, solicitor general under Reagan:
“I come here today not a partisan support of the Obama administration’s health care legislation. I am not an expert in health care economics or policy…I am an expert on constitutional law…I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.”
“Judge Vinson also said that those who threw the Tea into Boston harbor would be horrified at this. Let me remind you that the citizens of the early United States were well-acquainted with many taxes. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion. The reason they threw that tea in the harbor was taxation without representation. A parliament which they hadn’t elected did this to him. Well the people elected a Congress in 2010 and changed the Congress, and that is why we are not subjects, why we are citizens.”
Ex-GOP,
Up until this current president and Congress no tax has ever been forced upon an American just for being alive. Hail Obama. Heres to Obama. Have another shot of the Demoncraptic kool-aid.
And you don’t in this either – there’s income thresholds to hit. We do pay Medicare taxes though – not a choice there if you work. And if you drive, you pay insurance. If you make enough money here, you pay.
If you are really interested in some of the constitutional arguments, look up Fried.
And if you drive, you pay insurance.
That’s state law, which requires insurance if you choose to drive. If you don’t drive, you don’t have to buy insurance. And with auto insurance, the IRS doesn’t share household income data with employers. With auto insurance, you can get various kinds of policies and have some leverage determining your premium and deductible. With obamacare, you are forced to buy a cookie-cutter type of policy even when less coverage would be suitable, and you cannot negotiate your premium/deductible. Uncle Sam knows better than you do how much you should pay.
Driving is not being alive. The government requiring you to pay a fee to drive on the road is a wholly different concept than the government requiring you to pay a fee to be alive. Driving is not a necessity. It would be hideously inconvenient to live without a car, but you could do it. Required life insurance is a wholly different concept from required car insurance, and is different in as many ways as life is from a car.
ExGOP said:
‘And you don’t in this either – there’s income thresholds to hit.”
Ex-GOP. Any idea how much an Obamacare exchange health insurance policy costs annually? Can you pay more and get a better policy? Any idea how much a family making $80k a year would have to pay into Obmacare monthly and how much would be subsidized? Where is the actuary data on this? You’d think everybody would know this kind of information before they passed the bill. How can you have an intelligent conversation about it and/or tell people how much they will be forced to pay into the government exchange if you can’t show me a spreadsheet that shows the costs. And what is to keep the government from raising the mandated rates in the future? The Dumbocraptic Socialist party needs to be shown the door in 2012 so we can erase what they have done. They had a chance as a party to repeal this monstrosity and voted to walk the plank with their fearless leader. Well the second wave of the tsunami is coming in 2012 and I can hardly wait to ride that wave that is gonna wash the Dumbocraptic party out of power.
FedUp – the car insurance example probably wasn’t the greatest.
Simple put, the whole bill (and even Vinson admitted as much) revolves around the individual mandate – it is a necessary part of the regulation of commerce – which Congress has the power to do and has for years. Maybe it seems unfair to force people to do it – but the constitution really doesn’t care about that fairness – it just says if it is permissible or not, which Fried believes it is.
Alice – Sure – but where do you see it written that it isn’t within the power of Congress?
Justice Marshall: “It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others bested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extend and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.”
truth – good seeing you again…hope all is well!
I take it you don;t have that data Ex-GOP?????
You said:
‘And you don’t in this either – there’s income thresholds to hit.”
Show me these costs and break them down by income level please. Where are they? How can you tell me I don’t have to pay into the exchange when you can’t even show me the typical annual cost of a policy and how much of it is subsidized.
Or maybe we should just trust you on this huh? See ya in 2012.
I found it. It would be $9200 annually after subsidy.
And then I would have a $4000 family deductible. And by mandating people to buy health insurance they can raise premiums and you can’t drop the policy or the government will fine you and put you in prison. What a deal. This is unAmerican as it gets. Democratic control is a DISASTER. Could I see doctor’s outsde the exchange?
Fried? You mean the guy who says Congress can force you to buy healthy veggies but can’t force you to eat them? Who says Congress can force you to buy a gym membership, just can’t force you to use it? LOL. If the mandate is constitutional, I’ll let Congress fine me for noncompliance and choosing not to go with their product recommendations.
Truthseeker, please don’t look solely at the premiums. You also have to look at the percentage of expenses you are expected to pay out of pocket BEFORE your covered benefits kick in. Here’s an article on a liberal site (I wouldn’t want to show my conservative bias) that walks thru expenses for a middle class family.
…And to actually honor Reagan, not make some snarky, vicious, dishonest political comment, here was today’s Gospel at the Catholic Mass:
“Jesus said to his disciples:
“You are the salt of the earth.
But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned?
It is no longer good for anything
but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world.
A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket;
it is set on a lampstand,
where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others,
that they may see your good deeds
and glorify your heavenly Father.””
-Matthew 5:13-16
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.”
-Ronald Reagan
Wow. So a family making $80k per year will be forced to pay $800 a month into the Obamacare government health exchange. That is a huge tax increase. And if I were in between jobs and they used my previous years income to determine eligibility I might need that $800 a month for food or rent instead. And I’d still have deductibles and co-pays etc etc.. only now with government sanctioned limitations on care eligibilty and government oversight of my personal health decisions. Oh yah, but under Obamacare all existing health insurance plans must cover approved preventive care and checkups without co-payment. What a deal.
Truthseeker, here’s an article from a liberal site that walks thru the expenses for a middle class family. I believe the $4K limit on deductibles is for employer-sponsored plans. It’s not so simple for plans sold in the exchange. Doesn’t really matter what PPACA says though because the bureaucrats have the authority to increase the amount you pay. If the Dems stay in power, there’s no doubt in my mind they’ll keep raising your expenses with the hopes that they can further inflame sentiment against private insurance companies and get the support they want for single payer.
It is reckless that the Democratic Socialist party of the United States of America passes laws like Obamacare; laws that mandate every living American to pay into health care exchanges that subsidize the health care of every illegal immigrant in our country. And the whole while fourty cents out of every dollar our government spends this year will be borrowed money. I don’t mind helping illegal immigrants out but I DON’T want our government mandating me to pay into health exchanges in order to take care of them. It is wrong from a liberty perspective and it is fiscally poison.
And if I were in between jobs …
Then the IRS would be talking to your spouse’s employer (if she’s working) in order to determine if her company is required to help pick up the tab. If your family now qualifies for a subsidy, her employer has to start paying a $3K per year tax. Hopefully they don’t find this prohibitive, otherwise they may find it too costly to continue to employ your wife.
Oh, btw, that $4K deductible limit is for employer-based plans. Plans sold on the exchange seem to have some different rules, but I don’t pretend to understand them all.
Simple put, the whole bill (and even Vinson admitted as much) revolves around the individual mandate – it is a necessary part of the regulation of commerce – which Congress has the power to do and has for years. Maybe it seems unfair to force people to do it – but the constitution really doesn’t care about that fairness – it just says if it is permissible or not, which Fried believes it is.
Sorry to interrupt a good conversation, but Ex-GOP, Fried is a professor at Harvard, our president’s old stomping ground as you’ll recall. Wondering where you found Fried’s reference to the regulation of commerce (same as the Commerce clause?) as it relates to Obamacare. I haven’t found that on Google yet, although I did find that Fried also believes the purchase of broccoli (yes, broccoli) and health club memberships by individuals could also be mandated under the Constitution in his opinion. Is this really the person you want to be quoting?
What I find interesting on some of these Christian blogs is the ammount of opposition ther is to improved healthcare for the poor. Yet the almost complete lack of opposition to the absoloutely huge American defence budget. But then that would be considered unpatriotic, i guess?
ryan,
No one is opposed to improved healthcare for the poor. Some of us are opposed to the implementation of a poorly designed, outrageously expensive Obamacare plan which wasn’t even read by Congress before it was passed. The defense budget is rarely a topic on this pro-life/anti-abortion blog. Hopefully Congress will get moving on creating a new, concise, less-expensive bill which will help us all.
Is this really the person you want to be quoting?
Hi Janet. Oh yes, the libs are lovin’ it because he worked for Pres Reagan. They don’t seem to mention that he voted for Obama yet insists his opinion isn’t a partisan one. Who knows, he does say that he doesn’t think the individual mandate is good policy even if he does think it’s constitutional. If it’s any comfort though, he doesn’t believe the feds can force you to eat that broccoli, just force you to buy it :-)
What the libs aren’t talking too much about is that Fried said he believes there may be a constitutional issue with the unfunded Medicaid mandates that Obamacare imposes on the states. That’s a pretty big issue because Obamacare dumps about half the uninsured into Medicaid.
I can’t seem to post any links tonight. If you go to judiciaryDOTsenateDOTgov and search for charles fried, you’ll find a transcript of some of his remarks. I think it’s the 3rd link on the page of search results.
the ammount of opposition ther is to improved healthcare for the poor
Who opposes improved health care for the poor? We know Medicaid is a failing program, and we know providers are increasingly refusing to accept Medicaid/Medicare patients, and yet Obamacare places half the uninsured into Medicaid. Some of us think the poor deserve better. Some of us think the uninsured shouldn’t have to wait until 2014 to get coverage. Some of us think the matter of unaffordable health insurance could have been handled without remaking the health care delivery system. Without disincentivizing care for certain kinds of illnesses and patient populations. Without politicizing health care for everyone. By putting more power into the hands of patients instead of bureaucrats. But hey, ryan, keep telling us that we oppose helping the poor if it makes you feel better.
truth – I’ve simply found it isn’t worth debating with you – you are just mad about things – reason doesn’t help…logic doesn’t help, and what is worst, you won’t do a dime of research on your own, even when led to it – so quite frankly, it isn’t worth it. We’ve been down these types of arguments twenty times before, and it just is a goose chase. Heck, I practically had to cut and paste half of Ryan’s plan in these darn posts because you wouldn’t find it yourself!
So have a great day! Hope all is splendid. Go Pack Go!
FedUp – I don’t worry about who he voted for – all judges/experts seem to have a lean these days – but he seemed to be speaking from his expertise above all – if he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have even talked about the Medicaid part. I might have seen the clip – a response to a question where he talked about funding on a North Dakota case, and how the amount might be an issue – that if it is a small amount, that is one thing – a bigger amount though might be an issue.
I’m guessing not…but your last rant seems best solved by a single payer system – I agree the poor the deserve better. I don’t see an easy, free market solution that would have resulted in millions getting insurance.
The Boston Tea Party was because of taxation without representation…and this is different, eh? I would argue that the people we elected to Congress are NOT representing us. The town hall meetings clearly conveyed that the will of the people did not include passage of this bill. And yet, they rammed it through despite the people.
but your last rant seems best solved by a single payer system
Of course I oppose single payer. Call my comment a rant if you wish, but I’m willing to bet I’ve spent more years working with the uninsured than you have and I bet I’ve spent more years of my life without health insurance than you have. There’s a reason I’m passionate about this topic, although I respect your right to an opinion.
I don’t see an easy, free market solution that would have resulted in millions getting insurance
Easy? What a peculiar comment when your side created a 2K+ page law as complex as PPACA. I never said reform was or should be easy. Perhaps that’s one of your criteria. It isn’t mine. My criteria is that it be less burdensome (for patients AND providers) than PPACA.
Also, let’s be clear: Nearly half the uninsured aren’t getting “insurance.” They’re being enrolled in a government entitlement program which fewer providers are willing to accept because of the financial losses incurred treating those patients. It makes no sense when the Dem rhetoric has been about the uninsured having to seek care in the ER. The fact is, more ER visits are made by Medicaid enrollees than by the insured or the uninsured. Obamacare actually exacerbates the ER issue. So please, before you insult Truthseeker’s logic, please be aware your own side has hardly shown they are mensa material.
End of rant :)
Ex-RINO said:
“truth – I’ve simply found it isn’t worth debating with you…… – so quite frankly, it isn’t worth it.”
Ex-RINO,
Show me all the parts of Ryan’s plan you posted for me. All I remember is you making undocumented assertions and your tired rebuttals about looking things up myself. A wonderful exhibition of the liberal deflection; when logic and reason and fact are not on your side, insult and refuse to answer.
You were the one who posted “‘And you don’t in this either – there’s income thresholds to hit.” All I did is ask you for a link. When you didn’t respond I researched it and found the information myself. When the information proved your argument patently false ( I would be required to pay $800 a month to the government under Obamacare) your tactic is to attack, insult and go hide in a corner. You need help. Of course honest dialogue isn’t “worth it” to you. The facts and rational thinking are against your positions. Your response shows a deranged ‘Ex-GOP’ mindset incapacitates you to the point where you are unable to even dialogue about it honestly.
Ryan,
Do you equate opposition to Obamacare with opposition to health care for the poor or did I miss some posts? I just don;t want to insurance the poor by putting the government in charge of everybodys health care.
FedUp said:
“Plans sold on the exchange seem to have some different rules, but I don’t pretend to understand them all.”
FedUp,
From what I can see Ex-RINO is the only one who understands all the intricasies of Obamacare and he is not telling the rest of the American people because he is tired of doing all our research for us.
@truthseeker
In England we have universal health care, funded from taxes, free at the point use. There is private provision if you wish and can afford it. But the majority of people use the state provision. This system has been inplace for 60 years. I do realise there are limits to the level of care that can be provided. But isn’t a certain level of healthcare provision, regardless of income, a characteristic of a truly civilised country? I understand there are 60 million Americans without adequate healthcare. Obviously I disagree with abortion, that’s why i’m here on this blog. But will voting against Obamacare end abortion in America? I suppose with the wars going on its difficult to talk out against Defence spending, but isn’t that a more legitimate target than health budgets etc.?
Just getting an education in the prolife arguments.
Ryan,
You’ve obviously fallen for the claptrap concerning American medical care. Limits to the level of care that can be provided? What are these limits Ryan? I thought universal gov’t sponsored health care was a panacea. OK, so Castro imports doctors to provide his care and Canada has to contract with American hospitals to provide their citizens with adequate care…but I digress.
Ryan, poor people get health care here. Show me the poor people dying on the streets because no hospital or clinic will care for them. 60 million Americans without adequate health care? Puleeze.
I argue that our biggest problem, and I work as a medical professional, is people not taking responsiblity for their own health. A doctor offered prenatal care services for free to a low income area and not one woman came in. These same women had no trouble finding the nearest McDonald’s, drug dealers, liquor stores or cigarette vendors. These are not my words but the doctor’s concerns. Morbid obesity, junk food, cigarettes, drug and alcohol abuse, ignorance, and just plain indifference lead to a myriad of health problem. Also, gov’t intervention has only led to more corruption, red tape, and wasted billions, not to mention exploding costs.
Also, gov’t intervention has only led to more corruption, red tape, and wasted billions, not to mention exploding costs.
Preach it, Mary! Entitlements like Medicaid also discourage responsible use of benefits. Wish I had a nickel for every time someone came to ER to get a script for an OTC medication because they want to avoid out of pocket charges. Medicaid will pay for the patient to see the ER doc to get a script for a med that would cost $8 out of pocket. The patient could have phoned their PCP to request that a script be called in. They could schedule an appointment with their PCP. But no, we force taxpayers to fund their convenience visit to ER. That’s the type of “efficiency” we get from Uncle Sam.
Hi Fed Up
Amen sister! Thank you for the backup. I see little has changed since my old ER days. And do I have the stories about abuse of medicare and medicaid as well!
Bring all 5 kids into the ER for head colds when you could just call the pharmacist to recommend an OTC treatment. We’ll get them “free” here.
The only thing “free” means is someone else is footing the bill.
Always good to see you FedUp.
Thank you Mary and Fed-Up saw the same thing working in healthcare for years. At our hospital we NEVER turn away anyone for inability to pay even before Medicare required we post the signs to say so and the phone number to report us. Plenty of healthcare providers take Medicaid, sliding fee scale and free services and we don’t need Obamacare but some more options for pre-existing conditions, unemployed and low income working people. We can fix this we don’t need the takeover of healthcare, the payback scheme for PP and socialized medicine. The only thing that PP does that other providers don’t do is abortion on demand at $400-500 per pop, guaranteeing every woman that darkens their door a DBOA dead baby on arrival or killing the baby if it survives a botched abortion.
This mom of four children has never been asked, “Can you pay for this?” before getting the medical attention my kiddoes needed.
Also in my area they just started offering a FREE clinic.
Oh, and a hospital near me started a food shelf.
:)
Back atcha, Mary. I have no problem with Medicaid enrollees accessing their benefits. I don’t imagine you do either. I have a problem with there being no personal accountability attached to use of benefits. Someone who can afford to smoke 3 packs a day can afford to contribute SOMETHING to his health care. When there is no personal investment, there is often no incentive to control costs or use benefits judiciously as those without free care must do.
I know you know this, I’m just stating it for the Obamacare apologists. And it’s not that I’m against individual enrollees. There are groups and charitable organizations that send people to hospitals inappropriately to avoid spending their own resources. When the govt is in the busines of handing out freebies, organizations will always find a way to push some of their costs onto the feds.
At our hospital we NEVER turn away anyone for inability to pay even before Medicare required we post the signs to say so and the phone number to report us.
Hi proliferL. Same here.
We can fix this we don’t need the takeover
Agreed. I do think it’ll turn out to be a huge blessing that so many of our hospitals have developed safety net programs. PPACA is designed to strain the system and those programs will become more needed than ever if we don’t succeed in stopping PPACA’s rollout.
Just jumping in here after seeing Carla’s comment: Two good friends of mine who were in tough financial situations had to have surgeries that were QUITE expensive. Both applied for and received assistance from the hospitals and doctors for their procedures, to the tune of wiping out over 60% of their remaining bills after insurance had paid their part. The hospitals also helped them set up affordable monthly payments (as in 2 years worth of payments). There IS help available for those who need it.
Kel,
I had friends in the same boat and they were so thankful that the hospital worked with them to come up with a payment plan. I KNOW!!
Still paying on my son’s cast from almost 2 years ago. :)
Jen – going back to your “taxation without representation” statement – who did you vote for?
FedUp – I’m thankful of your passion and your experience. I have a few years involved with the health care side – but probably not as much as yours. I hope they continue to tweak the law and make changes – and hopefully passionate folks such as yourself can contribute to that process.
truth – you and I both know that our conversations are pretty much the same – you say you love or hate something – I point you to a resource – you don’t read it – you make the same argument over and over. When you something new, just let me know.
Ryan – thanks for the thoughts. Your system surely isn’t perfect…ours is far from it as well. I’m tired of the benefits to raise funds to pay off medical debt. Also have had friends denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Just nasty stuff. Pretty frustrating – but a lot of people are making money off the current system, and need to protect their income sources.
EGV 8:45PM
Much of what you mention in your post can be managed with insurance reform, which I wholeheartedly support. I also support HSAs. You’re tired of fundraisers to pay medical debts? How about fundraisers to help victims of housefires, and legal debt? I’ve contributed to a few of those, as well as fundraisers for the families of people paralyzed in car accidents so they can keep their homes. A homeless shelter in our city ran a huge fundraising campaign and built a new shelter.
I saw on TV where a single mother who wanted to fight for custody of her child had to give the lawyer a 3 thousand dollar down payment and $200.00 an hour. That pretty much put the kabosh to her getting the best custody lawyer in her city. So when does the gov’t take on legal reform?
Mary – quite frankly, it does nothing for me to say “well, look at this injustice – it exists as well!”.
All I know is this. I have years of medical deductible and insurance rate information – years of increased rates and higher deductibles. The GOP has a President in office all those years, and the only eye he turned to health care was the massive medicare expansion. Now, somebody does something, and the GOP has a cow because they have “other” ideas that should be the rule.
Well, from 80-92, 00-08, we had GOP leaders in the white house. If they would have instituted these things, that would be one thing – but it was never a goal. If the GOP wants to put forth a reasonable alternative – have it scored out by the CBO and run by the experts – so be it. Wish they would havce done it 10 years ago.
This plan is far from perfect – but it is the start.
Fed-up and Mary – My daughter just fell and hit her head on our driveway (mild concussion). One of the medications was tylenol. If we had the prescription filled via insurance – those pills (15) would have cost $12.50. I bought a whole box – 24 pills over the counter for $1.50. Is health care cost -effective? No. And government run health insurance would be even more wasteful. Anyone remember the $700 toilet seats?
We should clean up the system now and get $ into local clinic providers that provide real health care (asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, screening for mental illness…etc.), not pour money into a system that does not work – and definitely not pour money to ‘clinics’ only interested in their bottom line and getting people sexually promiscuous (PP). They have had financial irregularities in PP over-billing states and the federal government too.
And should the GOP done more while they weer in office? You bet! But the fat cats in Washington do not have the same plan they want for others and are living a life far-removed from an average person. This goes for our congress-people of BOTH parties.
But the way the legislation was written – that was not it.
So when does the gov’t take on legal reform?
I was just thinking the SAME thing! Let’s make all lawyers get paid by the outcome so if clients don’t take their advice or take it but lose in court anyway, the lawyer has to continue representation pro bono. Let’s force them to take cases that increase their practice overhead and drain money from the firm. Let’s force them to forego their own expertise and dole out advice the govt tells them to based on protocols, not the clients actual circumstances. Let’s decide which firms are allowed to remain in practice, limit the percentage of profit the firm can make, and throw in a bunch of other financial penalities for good measure. While we’re at it, we’ll also come up with a list of required services that the firm must provide to the client, and ones that are preventive must be provided pro bono. Oh, and even though we don’t know our butt from our elbow when it comes to the practice of law, let’s demonize all attorneys anyway, calling them opportunists “making money off the current system, and need[ing] to protect their income sources” without any real concern for the little guy who can’t enforce his legal rights because he can’t afford to hire an attorney.
JOY- sorry about your daughter! I hope she feels better soon. I agree with you that the Repubs dropped the ball. That’s no reason, though, to remake health care delivery under the guise of helping the uninsured. I agree with you 100% about the average congressman/woman being pretty far removed from the average person and our lifestyles. The elitism exists in both parties and its disgusting.
Ex-RINO,
You like to say over and over that Obamacare isn’t perfect (RollingOnTheFloorLaughingHopeIDon’tDie) it’s a start. It added a HUGE government tax on US citizens and raised the cost of our health insurance and is forcing bankruptcy upon the states and stole five hundred billion dollars from Medicaid. It won’t really destroy our country for a while cause it gets phased in over time but at least it’s a start. And 2012 will be the finish unless the SCOTUS gets rid of it sooner.
The people want smaller sized government and less government involvement in our lives. I hear that the Obama is going to make the TSA a member of the public employee services union. More people sucking the government teet. You liberals have traded in your Obama kool-aid for Obama milk. Keep sucking as fast as you can cause come 2012 you are gonna have to pay for your milk your own damned selves.
Ryan, cheers. God bless you for joining the fight for life. I am against Obamacare cause it is a fiscal trainwreck. And because America was built on people who cherish our freedom a heckuva lot more then our health insurance.
And because it does not include language to prevent tax-payer funding of abortion.
Truth
– In what area has your taxes increased so far?
– Numerous studies showed the effect of Obamacare on insurance rates this year was less than a couple percent – if you had higher increases, your company/plan had other issues going on. We’ve been over this already – I’ve cited the studies.
– What states have declared bankruptcy since it went into play?
– 2012 will come when it does. If you are looking for salvation in Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, I have a feeling you will be deeply disappointed. The GOP talks a good game on cuts – but at the end of the day, they tinker with a few domestic programs and ignore anything of substance.
I realize though I’m not giving you guys (truth, FedUp, Mary) the benefit of presenting the alternative. We can start small – if Obamacare is repealed, all the new pre-existing coverage legislation goes away. Would you simply allow that to be gone, or do you have other thoughts how to handle pre-existing conditions?
EGV,
I’ve said time and again insurance reform and HSAs would address many of your concerns. I would love to see health insurance companies competing like Geico and Allstate do. Do you think car insurance companies pick and choose clients? Gee there’s “accident forgiveness”. Make no insurance claims and you get a refund, etc.
Sounds like great incentives for people to be more responsible drivers.
Maybe the same tactics by health insurance companies would encourage more responsible health care consumers as well.
Substantial tax deductions for buying insurance and paying out of pocket. HSAs protected from the gov’t, not something else they can get their slimey mitts on. Allowing parents to pass on HSAs to their children. Common sense on the part of the consumer, like joyfromillinois buying her own meds.
EGV, experience has taught us, especially those of us in the medical area, that gov’t involvement solves nothing. It only creates corruption, red tape, paperwork, and irresponsible consumers.
Hi joyfromillinois,
Like FedUp I am sorry to hear what happened to your daughter and wish her a speedy recovery.
Hi FedUp 10:47PM
An outstanding post.
Absolutely, fair is fair. Legal expenses are getting out of control and gov’t mandated “reform” is needed. Is it right the single mother can’t afford the same lawyer a CEO could easily afford? Absolutely not.
Come to think of it, is it fair the CEOs wife can shop in the most exlusive stores in town and the single mother can’t? How about retail reform that follows the same guidelines you mention in your post?
I share your sentiments concerning our congresspeople and senators. I refuse to belong to or support any political party and have always been a staunch Independent.
Already I have had to write my congressman and senator expressing my dismay at what I view as their schmoozing, making it plain I did not send them to Washington to “get along”. There’s an informed and angry public out there that they ignore at their own risk.
1)- In what area has your taxes increased so far?
The mandatory payments into Obamacare are increased taxes. The reduction in the CAP you can put into tax-sheltered HSA’s are a tax increase. The fact that you need a prescription now to use HSA funds to pay for medicine is a tax increase etc.
2) – What states have declared bankruptcy since it went into play?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/07/obamacare-faces-new-challenge-states/
3)- Numerous studies showed the effect of Obamacare on insurance rates this year was less than a couple percent
And when the waivers given to unions expire. And what about the millions of other comapnies (I think 380 so far) who would have lost their insurance completely if they had not received a waiver from compliance with this years Obamcare mandates? I remember when Max Baucus, the Democrat in charge of the CBO budget scoring’ was going to bring these people up in front of a congressional hearing and calling them liars. But now instead Ibama gave them waivers for a year. I don’t suppose you count these people as having their health care costs go up because they got waivers huh? And if they had lost their coverage you still wouldn’t count them as having their health care costs go up cause they would have lost coverage completely right? And what about when the Cadillac plan 40% tax takes effect etc. etc. Just sayin.
4)- 2012 will come when it does.
Hallelujah!
Thanks everyone – my daughter is doing great and does not seem to have any lasting effects from the concussion – praise God! Those black-ice driveways can be pretty hazardous, for sure.
I guess it’s something to remind us to count our blessings, even the ones we take for granted! ;)
Personally I think pre-existing conditions should be covered – and like any insurance the ones who are well end up subsidizing the ones who are ill. No problem. Everyone should have access to insurance – everyone should have access to health care – and we should have options on how to do that and where to do that.
To start with the federal mandating of payments for abortion was not health care. That should have not even come up.
First should have come the pre-existing conditions, adult students on their parent’s policies if they are in school or recently out of school, and incentives for local, low cost clinics to be supported in communities to help those get into the system. Also – an over-seer of care would have been good. I work with women who are accepted into the local clinics, but they still run to the ER when there is a problem, instead of the low-cost health providers in town. Education on the system still needs to happen.
Compassionate, good care – preventive care done on the local level. That is the most cost-effective and direct.
Great post Joy and I am so glad your daughter is ok. God bless. Like I said we can solve our problems we don’t need a government take over and abortion on demand via PP which is mainly what this bill is about payback for PP, NARAL, Emily’s List, unions and those who put President Obama in office. Have the Repubs screwed up ? YES! But as Sen. Boehner said “The American people are giving us a second chance, we know we’re on probabion.” And one thing they have going for them they are NOT the “Party of Death”and their party’s POTUS is NOT someone who has never seen an abortion law he didn’t love.
Mary – I’m not concerned about you expressing “many of my concerns” – I’m concerned about you expressing your feelings on pre-existing conditions – posted again – “if Obamacare is repealed, all the new pre-existing coverage legislation goes away. Would you simply allow that to be gone, or do you have other thoughts how to handle pre-existing conditions?”
truth
1) I thought you were on an employer plan…you also are in an HSA?
2) So the answer to number two is “none”
I enjoyed your “millions of companies” (I think 380 so far).
Just 1,999,620 to go to “millions”!
Do you think car insurance companies pick and choose clients
Hi Mary. That’s a good point. We also don’t force auto insurance companies to cover damage to your car from last year’s fender bender as part of your collision policy you took out yesterday. We don’t expect your home owner’s policy to cover last month’s storm damage if you just bought the policy last week. Insurance is designed to assume some of the risk of a possible future occurrence. It was never designed to absorb the costs of all occurrences. Yet that’s what PPACA has done to health insurance companies. It’s turned them from insurance companies who insure against certain future risks into payout organizations that dole out what the feds decide they should dole out.
I don’t believe that insurance companies should be allowed to discriminate and refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions on that basis alone. I also don’t believe they should be forced to cover all expenses related to those conditions. If the company chooses to issue that type of policy, that’s great. There’s undoubtedly a market for that. But when they’re forced to, they may be called health insurance companies but the product is no longer insurance per se.
It’s really a shame that reform didn’t take a multi-prong approach to prior onset conditions and chose to zero in on insurance companies and jacked up premiums for everyone.
EGV,
I have said I support insurance reform and more competition among companies.
We don’t need Obamacare to handle pre-existing conditions. That could be part of insurance reform. With more competition insurance companies are in less of a position to pick and choose. Also allow people choices. Does the diabetic for instance want to pay his/her doctor visits, lab tests, diabetic supplies,etc. and pay only for hospitalization? What they save on insurance they can pay for themselves. Let’s make it so people who pay some of their own expenses get a very generous tax break. I know doctors who give breaks to patients who pay up front. Its worth it to them to avoid paperwork.
So Mary – you believe that some companies, out of the goodness of their heart, wouldn’t object to people coming on their plan with pre-existing conditions?
I mean, that would be marvelous – a person could stay off insurance, and then when they come down with cancer, call a company and jump onto the plan and reap the benefits!
That’s why the whole plan hinges on the individual mandate – if that goes away, so goes the pre-existing condition clause.
One other question – if somebody doesn’t have insurance and gets into a massive car wreck and has, let’s say $750K in injuries. Who should pay? I’m assuming you believe the hospital should treat them, right?
FedUp – maybe to solve your issue (Insurance companies being forced to cover all types of occurances), hospitals should simply be able to deny more care. That would keep rates down, and seems to be a bit of what you are arguing for.
I also agree with you that the reform shouldn’t have only focused on insurance companies – it should have introduced a public option as well.
EGV 8:06PM
For heaven’s sake how often do I have to repeat this? With more competition health insurance companies would have lesser ability to pick and choose. Less option to pick and choose may mean accepting more pre conditions but offering the options I mentioned. Give very generous tax breaks for paying out of pocket and for buying insurance.
EGV I don’t understand your point about cancer and the individual mandate.
\My husband is diabetic. We pay his supplies, doctor visits, and lab tests rather than pay the insurance to cover this. We take the tax write off. Also we use alternative and natural health medicine which I am convinced has been very beneficial. Patients can look at options. Rather than have major back surgery I had chiropractic care that makes my back condition tolerable, a vast improvement from back injections and prescription pain meds and over the long run less expensive
EGV if the patient shows up in our ER after an accident, he/she will be treated first and questions asked later. The hospital will take a loss most likely. Not the first or last time it has.
Now suppose that person in the car wreck was driving an uninsured car while intoxicated and is responsible for putting several other people on long term disability or in a nursing home. Who pays for the damaged car and the impending law suit and long term care?
Mary – you can repeat it over and over again – but I don’t see how it makes sense. Suppose there’s a company that says that pre-existing conditions don’t matter in regards to cancer. Anybody could then stay off of coverage all-together, and then go to that company after diagnosis. The company would essentially end up with only cancer patients on that plan, because they’d have to jack rates up so high, everyone else but those patients would get off that plan – and who knows if they could even afford it.
In regards to your husband – that is great. But when folks even mention the thought of covering some treatments but not all, the “rationing” flags come up. Imagine if I came on the board and said people should be denied major back surgery until they went through other steps. My behind would be roasted by folks on the board!
When hospitals take a loss – who ultimately pays?
In the last case – the damaged cars goes unpaid for. The people – if they had insurance, have their medical care covered by the insurance. If they aren’t covered, you and I pay for it.
Which, is precisely the reason that during Clinton’s years, when he proposed a single payer system, the GOP response was an individual mandate, argued under the banner of personal responsibility. In fact, if we were having this argument during that time, you’d be arguing in favor of the individual mandate. Pretty ironic huh?
EGV,
I must be extremely dense but I don’t understand your point concerning cancer. Go to a company after diagnosis and expect treatment? You’re first paragraph isn’t making a lot of sense either.
I mean to give patients the option of paying out of pocket or covering treatment. If its financially feasible and the consumer gets a generous tax break this is a viable option. If they have a doctor who is willing to give them a break since it saves him/her paperwork, even better. If they are able to pay for and want complete coverage, fine. If they want to check out homeopathic and save money that way,, fine.
Uh no EGV, concerning the back care, you would be well within reason to insist patients check out alternatives, if it is not an emergency situation. I work with an outstanding back surgeon who insists patients, when feasible, exhaust every alternative before even considering surgery. He refers patients for chiropractic care and couldn’t be happier chiropractic care made my condition bearable. If standing on your head in a telephone booth works for you then you’ll get no argument from him.
The car goes unpaid for? What if it was stolen and the owner had no insurance?
Bingo on the injured people. I’ve seen it happen many times over the decades. The state takes over payment if there is no insurance. Or the family declares they are indigent or puts possessions under someone else’s name so medicaid will cover expenses.
A little research has shown that those who do not purchase minimal insurance as required by the individual mandate under Obamacare and don’t pay the resulting fine will not face any penalties. So you might well end up footing the bill either way EGV.
I would argue what I have argued all along. Insurance reform as I have posted time and again. Yes personal responsiblity which like it or not we all have to take but unfortunately many do not. Seems like we will forever pick up the bill for these folks.
maybe to solve your issue (Insurance companies being forced to cover all types of occurances), hospitals should simply be able to deny more care.
Are you being a wiseacre tonight or do you really not understand the concepts being discussed?
That would keep rates down, and seems to be a bit of what you are arguing for.
I’m thinking you really don’t get it, EGV.
I also agree with you that the reform shouldn’t have only focused on insurance companies – it should have introduced a public option as well.
The government’s micromanagement of insurance companies under Obamacare has essentially turned them into a public option en route to single payer. The only difference is that they aren’t extended versions of Medicare or Medicaid, which is what I understood some progressives wanted. FORCING private companies to conduct nearly all their business according to government dictate is really no different than a public option. Doing it this way also gives you the added benefit of continuing the campaign to demonize private companies in a way you would never do if it were a public option proceeding directly from the feds instead of the private sector.
But when folks even mention the thought of covering some treatments but not all, the “rationing” flags come up. Imagine if I came on the board and said people should be denied major back surgery until they went through other steps.
What a load of hooey, EGV. Some of us believe we, as health care consumers, should be permitted to SELECT what our insurance doesn’t cover, with the understanding that what we choose to leave uncovered will be our responsibility to fund by our own means, thereby lowering our premiums. We believe we should have the CHOICE to tailor coverage to our our individual needs.
For example, I believe that Mary and her husband have the right to decide for themselves what insurance coverage is best for them. If they choose to pay for diabetic meds/supplies out of pocket in exchange for lower monthly premiums, I believe they should be permitted to do this instead of paying higher premiums by mandate. And no one sincerely interested in looking at the issues objectively could possibly consider that rationing.
Mary – not being dense at all – let me try from a different angle.
Plain and simple, there’s really no way that insurance companies will get rid of pre-existing condition exemptions without an individual mandate. A system without a mandate, but banning insurance companies denying on the basis of a pre-existing condition wouldn’t work.
Why? Because people simply would wait until they got really sick, and then add coverage. And if the healthy people weren’t paying into the system, then it doesn’t spread the costs out.
I’m actually going to believe you on your last statement that maybe you wouldn’t be fighting on the side of the GOP 15 years ago – because your argument saying you would deny coverage until over options are exhausted – I’ve never seen that from the lips of a right winger.
Because people simply would wait until they got really sick
Umm, EGV, a mandate doesn’t solve that problem. The fine is much cheaper than paying premiums. It will still be in a lot of people’s best interest to pay the fine and go without coverage until they need it.
FedUp
It simply is forcing some bottom line coverage. Let me explain more, and why I think your whole idea of a “tailored” plan is a terribly dangerous idea.
My wife and I had a baby this last year. Out of pocket, we paid a few thousand bucks at the end of the day. I don’t have all the bills in front of me, but my guess is, without insurance, we would have paid around $10K.
Now, the reason it was just a couple thousand is my company has a lot of people on health insurance – and a lot of those people don’t get sick often – so the general pool of people pay in, and it pays for things like cancer, babies, and bigger issues for the rest of people.
Now, let’s say that there were 2 plans out there with no minimum coverage requirements from the government – so one covered pregnancy and one didn’t (everything else on the plans were equal). Naturally, the plan that covered pregnancy would be much more expensive, as the only people on it would be those planning on having kids. The other plan would be much cheaper – all other potential losses are equal between the plans – but those folks aren’t going to have kids.
So now you’ve got a financial disincentive to having children, and those who have an unplanned pregnancy aren’t covered on the other plan (so guess what is more likely to happen?).
Same for Cancer, Diabetes, and a host of other issues. The reason insurance “works” (sort of) is that a huge pool of people cover those who have issues. Without that pool, then costs fly. That is a huge part of why insurance rates have gone up so much over the past ten years – as insurance gets more expensive, the healthy drop it, so rates up go up, so more people drop…it is an ugly cycle.
Furthermore, the GOP has revered their previous thinking and now seem fine with free-loaders – if you don’t want to be insured, that is fine – they support those folks, yet still pay for care (unless I’ve missed something that says that we should stop treating people in emergency situations).
Sorry for the rambling – I just don’t see (and have read it many places) how having plans without minimum standards would work.
Plus – if you don’t have cancer coverage, and get cancer and can’t work for a year – who should pay? Taxpayers?
FedUp – on your comment on the fine – sure, but two thoughts:
1) increase the fine then
2) at least if they are fined, they are paying into the overall system – if 1000 people get fined, and 10 of them get cancer, you’re much better covered cost wise than if nobody paid in.
It simply is forcing some bottom line coverage. Let me explain more, and why I think your whole idea of a “tailored” plan is a terribly dangerous idea.
ROFL. You are a hoot. I negotiated my last plan, excluding what I didn’t need, and it worked fine.
So now you’ve got a financial disincentive to having children,
Or are you forcing women of nonchildbearing age to pay more? There’s two sides to that coin, EGV.
Same for Cancer, Diabetes, and a host of other issues.
You don’t negotiate a cancer or diabetes exclusion. You negotiate what aspects of your care you will assume the responsibility to pay privately, not which diagnoses you will or won’t pay. For example, you may decide not to have coverage for prescriptions or certain types of medical supplies because unless you have a lot of very expensive medications, it may still be cheaper to pay for them out of pocket than pay higher premiums to have them covered. You may decide that you are willing to pay the entire cost of a routine office visit (instead of a preset copay) in exchange for lower premiums. Or maybe you want a $25 copay after you’ve had a set number of office visits.
Furthermore, the GOP has revered their previous thinking and now seem fine with free-loaders – if you don’t want to be insured, that is fine – they support those folks, yet still pay for care (unless I’ve missed something that says that we should stop treating people in emergency situations).
Your stereotypes of uninsured people are pretty goofy, EGV. Many people WANT insurance but want a choice about the type of coverage they have. That’s hardly freeloading. A lot of people are going to find obamacare’s costs prohibitive, and these people aren’t freeloaders either. I”m not sure what you mean by “pay for care.” Are you saying that none of the uninsured pay for their own care? I know plenty who finance care privately, and in fact end up paying higher fees for service than insurance reimburses the provider for the same service because the individual private pay patient doesn’t have negotiated group rate buying power. These people aren’t freeloaders. Unless you consider people who pay their bills freeloaders.
What’s dangerous IMHO isn’t individually tailored coverage. It’s people who clearly don’t understand the uninsured but are willing to use them as political pawns in order to remake the health care system.
Sorry for the rambling – I just don’t see (and have read it many places) how having plans without minimum standards would work.
I know you don’t get it. I have experienced it and it does provide acceptable levels of coverage at a significant savings.
Plus – if you don’t have cancer coverage, and get cancer …
I am not suggesting exclusions based on diagnosis, EGV. I’m saying I want the right to decide (before I get a major illness such as cancer) when I purchase my policy, that I may finance certain pre-agreed upon aspects of my care instead of having the government dictate to me what is affordable to me. I want to determine my medication copay, deductible, etc instead of the feds doing it for me. I’m not saying everyone would want this. I’m saying a lot of us do. Don’t go that route if you don’t want it, but I object to that route being taken away from me.
and can’t work for a year – who should pay? Taxpayers?
Pay for what? Not sure why you’re asking the question. Does obamacare pay me for a year if I can’t work because of cancer?
1) increase the fine then
Careful, raising taxes during an election cycle is tricky.
FedUp – This is scary – I actually agree with a lot of your last post.
I’m not arguing that NOTHING is negotiable, especially deductible limits, copays, and even some parts of care. What gets difficult is when we don’t have certain basic standards of what needs to be covered.
What is unique about healthcare is that you could wake up in the morning, have something terrible happen, and end up with a million dollar bill that has to be paid by somebody – an insurance company, yourself (which few can afford), or taxpayers. While we talk about people simply wanting to pay on their own and not be in a plan at all – there is still that aspect of it. If a person can truly pay any bill, that is one thing. Again, it is why the GOP argued for the individual mandate for over a decade – it is a personal responsibility issue.
My last question is a moot point if you don’t believe that people should be able to pick and choose items they are covered for – for instance, that there would be a plan you could have that wouldn’t cover cancer at all. If you believe a person could opt out of cancer, then my question would be valid and I’d love for you to answer – who would pay if a person chose to opt out of that care, and then got cancer.
Thanks – again, sorry for the cross-up – I agree on negotiating finer points of the plan.
EGV 10:14PM
No EGV. Do car companied pick and choose clients? Why do we constantly see Allstate, Geico, and Progressive spending thousands on TV commercials? I don’t think its because any of them have a monopoly on potential clients and are in a position to pick and choose. Its because they have to compete and they have to outbest the other and this includes having to accept higher risk clients.
I say turn the health insurance companies loose the same way, encourage the establishment of more of them, and let them go at each other for clients.
Do you think they would be in a position to exclude high risk patients?
Also there’s a little personal responsibility here as well. You avoid reckless driving or getting tickets to keep your car insurance premiums down. Health insurance clients can also take steps like quitting smoking, lifestyle changes, etc. to keep their premiums down.
Generous tax breaks for those of us who pay out of pocket as much as possible with the insurance company only covering catastrophic illness or hospitalization. At one time that is all health insurance did cover EGV.
These are some of the free market methods and incentives that could work and do not involve gov’t interference.
There are just any number of free market options that would enable higher risk people to get coverage.
Because your argument saying you would deny coverage until other options are exhausted
Please clarify that EGV.
truth
1) I thought you were on an employer plan…you also are in an HSA?
2) So the answer to number two is “none”
I enjoyed your “millions of companies” (I think 380 so far).
Just 1,999,620 to go to “millions”!
1) Yes
2) Maybe you didn’t read the article or you didn’t see that the number is “21”. It hasn’t bankrupted them yet but if implemented it would. Don’t take my word for it, it’s the states themselves that are saying this. Remember the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana Purchase where certains states were absolved from thes Obamacare mandates in order to get their votes to pass Obamacare?
My typo, that should have read millions of people:
And when the waivers given to unions expire. And what about the millions of other people (and 380 companies so far) who would have lost their insurance completely if they had not received a waiver from compliance with this years Obamcare mandates? I remember when Max Baucus, the Democrat in charge of the CBO budget scoring’ was going to bring these people up in front of a congressional hearing and calling them liars. But now instead Ibama gave them waivers for a year. I don’t suppose you count these people as having their health care costs go up because they got waivers huh? And if they had lost their coverage you still wouldn’t count them as having their health care costs go up cause they would have lost coverage completely right? And what about when the Cadillac plan 40% tax takes effect etc. etc. Just sayin.
truthseeker said:
“And what about the millions of other people (and 380 companies so far) who would have lost their insurance completely if they had not received a waiver from compliance with this years Obamcare mandates?”
Wow Ex-RINO, the number of companies given waivers because they would have had to drop insurance all together due to the extras costs imposed on them by Obamacare has now more then doubled in the last week. According to HHS website the number is now at 788. I would give you the link but you never seem to do any research yourself B<} Obamacare, the gift that keeps on taking.
truthseeker,
I wonder if there’s a waiver application available on line. I want one. Will I have to form a union? :(
Just kidding.
Janet,
I think the waiver form will come in the form a voting ballot in 2012 unless the SCOTUS fills it out for you before then. B<}
I have a prayer for our President. Dear Lord please help our President to see that true greatness is not measured by the accolades of the strong but the unheard voices of our weak. Help him to see past himself something everyone has to do if there going to ever achieve any lasting work. Let him feel your love and give him the courage to be his very best self. A goal we all should all strive for. Thank you that love is stronger than hate and always triumphs over evil. And for the good he has done, Lord please be mindful.
Myrtle, what good has he done?
Truth – The 700 plus companies are those who had mini-med plans and are getting waivers to keep those plans.
This isn’t terrible news though – in the status quo system before, from 2000 to 2008, the number of Americans covered by employer based plans went down 6% (64.2% to 58.5%), and the number of uninsured Americans rose over the time.
Also, do you think a President shouldn’t be prayed for if you don’t agree with him?
Mary – I apologize – I just noticed I had not responded to your last points – and I’m actually enjoying our conversation – so I hope you are still on this thread.
There’s a huge difference between insurance companies fighting for high risk drivers and health insurance companies, by their own goodwill, putting away pre-existing condition clauses. With the first, it’s all a numbers game. Sure people have gotten into accidents, but they charge them more, and there’s no guarantee they will get in more accidents. With no mandate, a plan without a pre-existing exemption would essentially see people who have care needed for large things come onto their plan when convenient.
What I’m saying is, imagine a car insurance company that said “if you get in a wreck, come down and we’ll cover you for those past claims”. Would never happen, right?
On my last statement – what I’m saying is, I’ve never seen a ring winger say that a person couldn’t come in and demand whatever care they wanted – that the doctor could ration care and make them do other things first and exhaust those measures.
Ex-RINO,
1) The millions of people with waivers would have lost a lot more then mini-med plans due to Obamacare. They would have lost there insurance coverage completely! Maybe you just aren’t too concerned cause to you these other families losing their insurance is just a “mini” price they must pay for Obama and the Democratic party to retain power.
2)I have seen Obama fight for the right to commit abortion on woman and minors and his passion in promoting the right to kill the unborn (he and his wife Michelle held fundraisers to keep partial-birth abortion legal). My prayers for him can only be that he is brought down and humbled before God and brought to repentance cause that will be his only salvation.
1) I’m just saying you are making a pretty odd argument – before HC Reform, millions were losing their insurance – now, millions are gaining it. Some folks will have plans shifted – sure – but to say that some folks will have their plans change, and therefore reform is bad…well, look at the millions that finally gain insurance!
2) I think if you are without sin, keep casting stones. I think one of the lamest things in life are Christians giving public prayers of other people’s downfalls. Reminds me of a certain group of people who fought with Jesus a lot because they thought they were high and mighty about everything. Just sayin’
I know I am NOT without sin and will keep praying anyway for an end to abortion. For just as John the Baptist was worthy to baptize Jesus; so also am I, a lowly sinner, worthy to pray for the downfall of all who support abortion. And if in prayer righteousness is fulfilled and Barack Obama is brought to humility before God; then there will be one less in support of the killing of God’s children.