Stanek Sunday funnies 6-9-13
Both liberal and conservative cartoonists piled on the IRS and invasion of privacy scandals this week, so it was hard to choose my top five favorites. But here they are. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Rick McKee at Cagle.com…
[polldaddy poll=7163994]
Jun.09, 2013 11:14 am |
Cartoons |
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.
Good article in The New Republic regarding how the obsession by the right over health care reform is really hurting the GOP – might play well okay in the next election (with lower turnouts), but sure isn’t helping them in 2016 and beyond. Good article to read – http://www.tnr.com
Some good ones in here on the phone spying:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
#5 made me legitimately LOL, so it gets my vote.
EGV,
Are you referring to the “train wreck”?
Wow, number 4 is sadly the truest. Even the last holdouts like ABCSnooze finally had to report on the scandals. But the press still acts like the abused member of a relationship, waiting for their once sparkly president to be the one they thought they knew during their courtship. No matter how much you make fun of conservatives, you’re still waking up in bed with a back-stabbing louse.
Mary – I’m referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Health Care Reform.
EGV,
Yes, the “train wreck”. Thank you.
Hi ninek,
Like I’ve said, the media will act like betrayed lovers. This just can’t be the man we’ve loved and trusted and sacrificed so much for. Even poor Chris Matthews will have to face the facts sooner or later, despite being lobotomized by all those tingles going up his leg and hitting him in the butt.
LOL, story as old as the human race.
I feel sorry for anyone who expects to get our salvation from Washington. At best, every election is about voting for the person who will hopefully do the least amount of damage.
At its core, the Healthcare Act is about more government in the private lives of more people. This was a mistake. America lost the last election, even before we learned about the intrustions on our privacy and abuse of our freedoms.
I voted for #4 by Eric Allie. Losers rarely recognize that they are losers.
Del – I think your statements are pure and sound good on the surface, but do you real believe that?
Do you really believe that government should just pull out of medicare, and that old people should either afford health care, or be left to their own means?
Do you really believe that medicaid is a mistake – that somebody who is disabled or elderly should be left to the mercy of charity, and if they don’t find care, they just are left out?
Do you really believe that we should simply deregulate further – leave banks, health care, insurance companies – just let them do whatever they want, and hope that the American people don’t get screwed in the end?
Health care reform is far from perfect, but this attitude of everybody for themselves in the world of healthcare is a naive view of a complication situation. At best, that view continues to lead to death, bankruptcies, and threatens American competitiveness.
I think it’s fine to not like health care reform – I think it is a distant second to the ultimate solution. But to simply say to get rid of it – that it was a mistake, and to not propose anything else – I think that’s simply reckless.
Here we go again…
I’m not engaging about the Train Wreck anymore. It’ll play out and tangle us in gory red tape. Till that day when even Ex-GOP will admit it’s a disastrous overrecach, just why is it that his compadres didn’t have the courage of their convictions?
Why all those exemptions doled out to campaign contributors? I’ll tell you why. They don’t believe it’s anymore than a cardboard cut-out of a solution. Millions will still be without coverage. Doctors will be leaving in droves. Prices will continue to skyrocket
You don’t engage because you can’t – your argument and your desires for the system aren’t workable. I’d bail if I were on your side. I would have bailed a long time ago…heck, I did.
So that’s you in cartoon four? You’ll eventually have to bail out of the Obama Titanic, too.
Hans – my point is, if you come and say that Health Care Reform doesn’t go far enough, I’ll agree with you.
If you come and say that you don’t like the law, but you support X reforms, I’ll listen to you.
But if a person simply says they don’t like the plan, but have no alternative (and thus support the status quo) – I find that position to be the worst one to hold.
I will never say that reform is the perfect plan. I think in many ways, it will fail. It will still be many times better than the system we had before it.
And that’s where you’re wrong. You’ll be yearning for that “status quo” before long. It would’ve helped to have actual expert imput into this, instead of leaving it to the pols like Pelosi and her cohorts.
Yes Hans, because Dr. Jonathan Gruber is simply an idiot political hack.
Thanks for playing though!
Mary:
Cheers for your 12:39 comment. Ditto Hans @ 4:44.
As usual it did not take long for “ex” to try to change the subject. I would too if I were a fan of Obama and of Obamacare. Everyday new revelations emerge exposing the overreach of Obamacare and the utter fraudulence of the man and his presidency.
It also didn’t take long for the goddess of Obamacare to issue the first death ruling under Obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius is a conflicted soul who has lost her way. Three comments: First, it is the slippery slope that we prolifers have been warning about for decades. For Sebelius, a staunch proponent of killing the pre-born, it is not much of a leap to withholding potential lifesaving procedures for the already-born. Oh yes, a judge countermanded her order but the facts speak for themselves.
Secondly, who needs death panels now that we know how easily it will be done? For those who doubt that Obamacare’s death panels will have prescribed formulas in determining who receives treatment should take notice that the Secretary’s decision was based on a formula—in this case the prospective recipient of the potential life-saving procedure was too young to be eligible for that particular treatment.
And when it comes time to issue more decisions to withhold treatment, whether it is the death panel or the Secretary of HHS, it will become easier and less newsworthy. The compliant main stream media will fall right in line with the deathers on this. And once we get over the hurdle of issuing orders for what might be called the “extreme cases” what will happen next is it will become easier for even broader applications of the rule. A person should familiarize him or herself to the writings of Hannah Arendt and the “banality of evil” and how easily the acceptance of evil can morph into ignoring it altogether. To borrow from Wikipedia:
Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.
And third, the Roman Catholic Bishop in whose diocese she resides should immediately issue an excommunication of Kathleen Sebelius. For those who do not understand what an excommunication is I will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence.
Of course that will make her a folk hero for many leftists and renew cries of separation of church and state, but it should be done anyway for her own good and the good of the faithful.
I like #1, because it’s truthful, it’s funny, and I’m a Star Trek fan!
Jerry -
Change the subject from what? The train wreck comment? I’ve gone through Max’s statement.
You simply need to do a lot more research. Conservatives generally refer to IPAB as the “death panel” – and that has been delayed for a couple of years because Medicare spending growth has already slowed, and IPAB only triggers if medicare spending is outpacing the economy.
So quite frankly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The organ transplant case is being discussed in another thread, and is more complicated than you think.
If you think though that it has anything to do with health care reform, then you show such a lack of understanding of current events and the law, that you should simply withdraw from this board for a few weeks, do some research, and then come back to us.
I think the saddest thing is you got four ‘likes’. My hope is that those people simply like your thoughts on the organ transplant stuff, and that those people aren’t equally dumb regarding IPAB.
On the organ stuff, I would simply ask yourself if you would like a world in which organ transplants are given to the person with the biggest lawsuit, or who is most politically connected. What you are arguing for is, the government to step in and rewrite standing rules put in place to protect children in the process. So your hope now is that the government turn their head in the right situations, and move those people up in line?
Seriously though – figure out IPAB, and step in line with the conservative argument against it. You aren’t helping yourself by completely missing the false company line regarding death panels.
Ex-GOP says:
June 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Del – I think your statements are pure and sound good on the surface, but do you real believe that?
Since you asked me, personally: I do believe that the Affordable Healthcare Act was a giant leap in the wrong direction, and quite possibly a leap off the cliff.
But you seem to misunderstand the idea of smaller government: We need baby steps in the right direction, wherein our government is the size that we can afford, and we do not have to borrow $3000 per person per year to maintain it.
It is foolish to think that we should suddenly drop all programs, just as it is foolish to recklessly adopt new ones.
Del – in what specific regard is it a giant leap in the wrong direction? Do you think the insurance and health care industry shouldn’t be mandated, so there are too many mandates? Do you feel we should have more uninsured people in hopes of driving down costs? Or do you support a single payer system?
What, specifically, does less government look like in health care? Seems like what we’ve been dealing with for years, and we pay double what anybody else in the world pays for health care. What am I not seeing here?
What am I not seeing here?
Oh, if I only had the time for a complete answer…
I’m reminded of a column I read in from a London news source shortly after the re-election of The Deliberate Bumbler. It asked not if America could survive Obama, but if America could survive the kind of people who re-elected him.
Ninek -
I’ll wait – or at least bullet point a few thoughts out – what specifically don’t you like about the law. Issues with not enough people covered? Maybe we shouldn’t cover maternity or other services? Do you have an issue with people with pre-existing conditions getting coverage – maybe it’s better to weed out the weak?
Come on – put your money where your mouth is.
Ex-GOP says:
June 10, 2013 at 5:54 pm
What am I not seeing here?
1) You do not see that we are bored with debating a SNAFU that is unavoidable now.
2) You do not see why healthcare costs too much, and so you are looking in the wrong place for a solution. We do not need more insurance.
The problem is that there is already too much insurance. Nobody pays for anything out-of-pocket. Nobody knows that healthcare actually costs anymore:
“How much does a routine blood test screen with cholesterol count cost?”
– “I don’t know. My co-pay is $10”
Even doctors don’t know how much routine healthcare costs. There is no way to compare prices and shop for the best deal in healthcare. We can’t pick the cheapest doctor of the cheapest clinic. There are no market forces to control healthcare.
We can only shop for insurance. And there is already too much insurance.
ObamaCare’s solution is to force more people to buy insurance. And to support another level of bureaucracy to administrate it. There is nothing in ObamaCare that will encourage healthcare costs to come down to normal levels. There are only upward forces to the total costs.
There are solutions that we could take — but these require less government control and more emphasis on charitable alternatives, like Our Lady of Hope Clinic in Madison.
http://ourladyofhopeclinic.org/
Even doctors don’t know how much routine healthcare costs. There is no way to compare prices and shop for the best deal in healthcare.
This is unfortunately very true. If I want to know how much something will cost, I’ve found that I can’t ask my doctor. Or anyone in the doctor’s office. I have to call my insurance company. Ridiculous. Why should insurance companies be the arbiter of all medical costs?
Well said, Del. I would like to retype your whole comment in bold font! Too bad we cast our pearls before ostriches.
Keep that head firmly planted in the sand, Ex, because that posture is one that you liberals will be getting used to for the next couple years.
“ There are solutions that we could take — but these require less government control and more emphasis on charitable alternatives, like Our Lady of Hope Clinic in Madison.
http://ourladyofhopeclinic.org/”
See, the problem with charitable alternatives is that there aren’t enough of them and they are limited. I’ve gone to the free clinics and such around here. One of them I had to get there at 6 am to line up for even a hope of getting in, they didn’t even open until 8 am, and I wasn’t even seen until the afternoon. That was a whole day that I had to take off of work, and they weren’t available on weekends, or by appointment where it could be worked around someone’s work schedule and there was no guarantee that you would be seen, you might have to come back the next week! I don’t know about you but I can’t really afford even one full day off work, much less two in as many weeks. I’m not saying that it’s completely not workable to have more charitable alternatives, but it’s limited.
There’s also the funding issue. If you have millions of people who need help getting healthcare, especially for things like cancer or surgery that are very expensive, how can churches and non-profits be expected to eat thousands upon thousands of dollars? Where is that money coming from? There aren’t enough financially stable people to support that alternative, I don’t think, not if everyone was getting the healthcare they needed and Medicare and affordable state insurances didn’t exist or were cut back significantly.
Del –
If you are bored with it – great, move on. But don’t say stupid things and not expect to be called on the carpet for it. That’s just sloppy arguments. Say what you want and don’t back it up – come on man.
You do realize that charity care is made possible, in part, by people paying higher prices elsewhere. Don’t think that these doctors are living on the street – they need to make money, so they are billing high amounts at one place, and then donating time at another.
I agree with you – prices are too high. Too much insurance though? Everyone paying out of pocket only works if you are willing to let people go without services, which as a society, we don’t. If somebody without insurance and without money gets into a car wreck, your plan of no insurance doesn’t work too well unless you’re willing to let said person die. Free market works well with BMWs – if you can’t afford it, the person simply goes without. What about if somebody needs a heart transplant. Are you willing to let the free market sort that out Del?
Health care reform has a lot of stuff that works on costs, so in that point you are dead wrong – insurance companies can’t raise rates above certain percentages without a waiver – medicare changes have already brought spending down massively (to the point of IPAB being delayed) – pay for services is being replaced by pay for performance – but I don’t think it goes far enough.
Other countries have single payer with firm price controls, and they pay half of what we do and have similar to better outcomes. So Del, when you say we pay too much, are you willing to go that step? Seems to be the most reasonable, and those free market solutions you hope for, which were in play for a solid 40 years before health care reform, was a massive failure in doing what you want.
Ninek – again, I mean, thanks for wasting some time with a post, but something of substance would be helpful.
If you support Del’s post so much, maybe you can talk about how the free market failed in health care before reform, and say what you would do different.
There was a good article recently with all the ways health care doesn’t work in the free market – would you like me to find it and post?
Any chance you read the Time magazine article – A Bitter Pill – on health care costs?
Please offer us something for our time here…
Jack -
Agreed. Part of the solution, but definitely not the whole solution. I found an article on that clinic, and in 2010, they were seeing about two dozen uninsured people a week, paid for by others paying more for their care (they opt to, to cover others).
” Agreed. Part of the solution, but definitely not the whole solution. I found an article on that clinic, and in 2010, they were seeing about two dozen uninsured people a week, paid for by others paying more for their care (they opt to, to cover others).:
Yeah, charity might be a workable solution in small communities, I think, but not in cities and other areas where you have a large, under or unemployed population without insurance, or even just people who don’t get health insurance through their jobs but can’t get their healthcare needs met through their own funds (that’s the spot I’m in). That’s thousands of people, even millions country-wide, I don’t see how it’s preferable to give this population substandard care, eventually costing everyone else much more than setting a single payer system in place would.
And that’s not getting into how near impossible it is for charity to provide maintenance care for things like mental healthcare (which generally isn’t just an office visit every once and a while, depending on your diagnosis it may require weekly or monthly visits), or chronic physical health conditions that require a lot of meds and doctor’s visits. I haven’t seen any non-governmental type of set up that answers this need. And dental is another big one, the dental clinics here mostly can only do routine fillings and such, have a huge long waiting list, and can’t do things like oral surgery and root canals.
Good points Jack – Del can correct me I’m wrong as well, but I believe the place he posted just does primary care as well – so if somebody needs speciality care, they are back in the ‘normal’ health care world.
Well, I agree with Del’s comment that we have too much insurance. I mean that in the way of “insurance companies are too involved in health care costs”, not that too many people have insurance. Our medical system is all screwed up, much of it is because of insurance companies involvement, IMO. Insurance should be how something is paid for, not a factor in determining how much something costs or how much doctors or other health care providers get paid. I think it’s completely and totally wrong that someone without insurance (or with poor insurance) would be charged $500 for blood tests that are charged out at $79 for someone with my insurance plan. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Provider prices/reimbursement should not be determined by insurance companies. That system completely screws the little guy (someone w/o insurance, a small biz owner or sole proprietor w/o large scale negotiating power, etc.) and, quite frankly, screws the providers. So they have to charge more for people with crappy insurance or no insurance because they are getting screwed by the people with big insurance. The whole system is massively messed up. Again, why should insurance companies be the arbiter of all medical costs?
Lrning – Completely agree with you. Imagine going to a restaurant, and the same burger costs $3 for somebody on Medicare/Medicaid, $8 for somebody with private insurance, $10 for somebody with employer insurance, and $15 for somebody uninsured. It’s insane.
Now, I can’t think of another way than to have the government regulate it, which seems to be the very thing I would think you’d be against. No? Yes?
Hi Lrning,
Instead, the IRS will have a role in implementing Obamacare, a collection of nitwits who act out Star Trek fantasies about flying around Uranus and knocking of Klingons.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/taxes-and-health-care-law-the-irs-s-role-in-implementing-obamacare
Mary – I’ve been criticized for not engaging in conversations and answering things correctly – so before I get to yours, can you please clarify what you mean by ‘the irs is enforcing reform’ – what do you mean by that? What aspects are they ‘enforcing’?
EGV,
Read the link. Its not there for decoration. I bet you even think records were computerized to save trees, right?
I can think of three possible scenarios: government regulation, free market, or a combination of the two. ACA seems to me to be none of the above.
Geez EGV,
I hope you weren’t one of the 10 million Americans who got their medical records seized by the IRS, AKA Obama’s Brownshirts.
These folks make the insurance companies look like Little Bo Peep.
Mary – I read the article by Heritage, one of the original supporters of the individual mandate.
So by ‘enforcers’, you mean, they monitor taxes paid by people for those whose taxes are affected. I think that’s a pretty weak tie to ‘enforce’ health care reform, but whatever.
Lrning –
You are right that health care reform doesn’t put in price controls – but I fail to see any plausible scenario in which the free market would lead to stablized prices for all services. Too much free market has gotten us into this mix – are you talking about price collusion or something? I mean, I give you credit for throwing out solutions and actually understanding a component of the problem – I really do. I just don’t see how in the world the free market would get rid of the issue of these price differences. I’m not aware of any country that has accomplished this control without government regulating costs.
EGV,
Read the article and draw your own conclusions, it pretty straightforward. In the meantime EGV, remember my advise and don’t stand too close to that dangerously high stack of rules and regulations for Obamacare. Last I heard they added 800 more pages but that was a few months ago. I’m sure its a couple thousand by now.
Hi Lrning,
Leave gov’t involvement out of the equation. You only get bureaucracy, waste, corruption, and mismanagement.
Hard to tell Mary – that story seemed to run it’s course about a month ago, waiting to see if there is any credibility to the suit, and waiting to see what is actually involved. Seems silly to jump so quickly without knowing much information.
Mary – I read the article. ‘Enforcement’ means that they check people’s tax records. Very weak.
EGV,
Absolutely, people file suits all the time against the IRS for stealing millions of Americans’ medical records. Again EGV, just hope yours wasn’t one of them.
EGV, I’m not going over that article bit by bit for you. It doesn’t surprise me at all that is the conclusion you have drawn.
“What, specifically, does less government look like in health care?”
Ex-RINO, These things are painfully obvious but I will list a few for you one-by-one till you show an understanding of each.
#1) Less government means no IRS coming after people who don’t buy health insurance? Would you agree?
Mary – I read the article. I can list dozens of key components of the law that the IRS has nothing to do with. If the IRS fails completely, the law continues forward, simply without some of the funding. This is a spin job that really isn’t going anywhere or making headway with anybody except the diehard conservatives that don’t like anything Obama’s done.
Again, I hope it wasn’t one of mine either, but it is pretty hard to tell when it is a month old story without much other information because it is only based on a court finding (mostly anonymous if I remember right). I mean, I don’t know if you are a birther, or a 9/11 denier, but this seems a bit old – this habit of jumping on things when no real facts are known.
Truth – yes, that would be true.
Now, you could ask somebody without insurance if it is less threatening to have their house foreclosed on because they can chose to pay medical bills – but that doesn’t seem to be a concern of yours.
Next question.
Hi ts,
Don’t you mean no one from the Starship Enterprise landing on our front lawns?
“Obamacare alternatives”. 779,000 hits. I’d bet throwing a dart at almost any one would be better.
https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+alternatives&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Yeah right EGV,
Obamacare will march on should we be lucky enough to have the IRS fall off the planet. Is that why secretary Lew wants to triple the number or IRS people to implement Obamacare? You’d think the 700 people they already have is enough.
No EGV, I’m not a birther or a 9/11 denier. I’m not the one denying anything, you are.
Hans – feel free to read up and present something of actual content – would be a welcome change.
Look, we had Regan, Bush, and Bush in office – 20 of 28 years the Republicans controlled the Presidency. And health care rates went up and up and up and up. So now somebody does something, and you folks just whine and complain.
Look – the system was broken. Downward death spiral of rising numbers of uninsured driving up the costs for everyone one. Broken. Say it with me – broken.
You folks had your chance – your guys got us into this mess. Don’t set a house on fire and then complain that the fire department isn’t putting it out like you’d like. Again, lots of years to do something. Lots of years.
That ship has sailed though my friend, and now we’re trying something else. Again, you’re either part of the problem, or part of the solution. We know who was in charge of the office of the Presidency as this problem continued to grow and grow.
So yes – you’ve thrown your hat in the ring now when you could have just stayed away – so offer up something more than you’d find on a bumper sticker. Add something smart Hans. Make us proud. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I sure as heck have a lot more answers than the waste of internet space your last post was.
Mary
Yawn.
Please, let me know if you want to actually debate health care or offer something of substance to the conversation. I’m heading to bed – not much interest in your continued posting of Drudge report conspiracy articles and half truths.
A public thanks to both Jack and Lrning for actually offering something of substance tonight. I appreciate you both.
EGV,
Have a good night’s sleep. You sound like you need it.
As bad as costs were, healthcare was not the number one issue of concern in 2008. Thanks to Obama, it now will be for some time to come. And not in a good way, if you haven’t already guessed.
“What, specifically, does less government look like in health care?”
Ex-RINO, These things are painfully obvious but I will list a few for you one-by-one till you show an understanding of each.
#1) Less government means no IRS coming after people who don’t buy health insurance? Would you agree?
You agreed. Wonderful.
Ex-RINO, lets go for #2 and see if we can get on a roll.
#2) Less government in health care means Catholic health care would not be forced to offer family reduction services and abortaficients as a part of their employee health plans. Would you agree?
Mary, how many pages of government regulation has this train wreck spawned so far? Is Ex-RINO serious when he asks what less-government in health care means? How can he ask us this when we have been over these things so many times?
Hi ts,
No clue. I posted the stack of regulations on another thread some time ago and I can only advise no one stand near it, it might tip over and that could prove fatal. Eight hundred pages more had just been added at that time which I’m sure has become thousands more by now. The gov’t can always find just one more regulation.
Hans -
You are right – because in the end of the days of Bush in office, the economy was crashing into a near depression – so you are 100% right – the economy had become an even bigger mess than health care.
truth – on question number 2, yes.
It also means that if they wanted to say to maternity care, they could do that – which would probably lead to higher abortion rates.
Next question though.
“Mary, how many pages of government regulation has this train wreck spawned so far? Is Ex-RINO serious when he asks what less-government in health care means? How can he ask us this when we have been over these things so many times?”
Yes Truth – I’m serious. I wonder what specific things you don’t like about health care reform – and people are really struggling with that. Read through the post. Jerry and Ninek were besides themselves regarding how awful it was…but not a thing.
Maybe it’s too many people being covered. Maybe you hate that young adults can stay on plans. I’ll ask you specifically truth – do you hate that little kids with a pre-existing condition get coverage now and can’t get bounced off of insurance? Do you hate that there are lifetime caps so that there parents have less of a chance of going bankrupt? Is that what drives you crazy about this? I’ve answered two of your questions – step up. Sure, there’s fringe regulations that we can debate – they aren’t vital to the law. But the big stuff – the heart of the law – let’s get to that, shall we?
I have a problem with the mentality that an overbloated gov’t deeply in debt has created yet another mindless government bureaucracy and program that it can’t even figure out how to implement, is running our healthcare. More IRS agents, aka Obama’s Brownshirts, will need to be recruited, even though they supposedly won’t be involved in Obamacare. We can all sleep better knowing that people who dress up like Trekkies and fantasize about flying around Uranus and picking off Klingons will have access to our medical records at the touch of a button, which in case no one has figured out, weren’t computerized so as to save trees. There’s presently a lawsuit against the IRS for stealing the medical records of 10 million Americans but since this is something that happens every day, no need to read too much into it. In the meantime, the stack of regulations grows to the size of a skyscraper with no signs of stopping.
Now I ask you, what can go wrong??
I don’t have much time, gotta go to work, but I’ll tell you what I don’t like about ACA. It addresses the symptom of the problem (lack of insurance and resulting lack of access to care) instead of the problem. IMO the problem is that healthcare is unaffordable and/or unavailable to anyone w/o insurance. It doesn’t need to be that way. We have some great healthcare in this country, but the system of delivery is broken and it seems to me that ACA simply forces everyone into the broken system. Then it takes the worst parts of the broken system (bureaucratic layers interfering in patient/doctor territory) and multiplies it times, what, 1000%?
Ex-RINO, you have shown understanding of my first two examples of answers to your question “what does ‘less government’ in health care mean”. Wonderful. Let’s go on to number 3.
#3) Less government in health care means that the government not passing regulations that prohibit the citizens from purchasing what ever kinds of insurance they deem suitable for themselves. Would you agree?
“Maybe it’s too many people being covered. Maybe you hate that young adults can stay on plans.”
Ex-RINO, What I hate is young adults that are struggling to make ends meet and working their way through college are not fortunate enough to be on someone else’s plan (parents abusive or unemployed) are no longer able to afford to buy insurance for themselves because they must buy policies with no lifetime cap and purchase maternity coverage and free contraceptives for everybody else even though they would choose a policy that does not include it. And if they can;t afford it then they become outlaws…the IRS archives their ‘malfeasance’ and comes after them seven years later for their paychecks (with penalties and interest). Oh, did I mention the lawyers fees?
Lrning – I largely agree with you. I believe that there were/are three general paths:
1) Status quo of pre-healthcare reform. The slide would continue, in which the ranks of those insured continue to decrease, and while more care never is paid for, rates would continue to rise, causing a quicker spiral. The system would ultimately crash, and we’d end up with single payer.
2) Health care reform – I think this is the best, last ditch effort to have health care in the free market. Essentially, the only way to get rid of pre-existing conditions and put in caps is to get more people into the market. The only way to get more people into the market is a mandate. Don’t believe me – I can find the heritage foundations push, along with countless others push over the years. Unfortunately, to keep it in the free market, you need a ton of regulation to protect people, thus what we have. And as Lrning pointed out, the cost part isn’t dealt with much (some, but not a ton).
3) Single payer – government sets prices, pays for care. Medicare for all.
I think, regardless, we’ll be at three at some point. I think reform delays it, but we can’t, as a nation, continue to pay double the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is killing US competition to have employers paying for healthcare (on top of their products).
So to Lrning – again, thanks for the thoughts.
For truth/Mary – if you don’t like regulations, write to insurance companies to behave. All these things we’ve needed – lack of lifetime caps, the end to pre-existing conditions – those were all written to make profits and protect business.
Eh EGV,
Its Obamacare that has the stack of regulations you can’t stand near without risking your life. Typical government bureaucracy. Who should we call about those?
truth – go study the law more – catastrophic plans aren’t completely eliminated. You are talking about things you don’t know again.
mary – some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them. There are a lot of complicated things in life, and you shouldn’t be scared of things just because they have complications to them.
EGV,
Say what?
“truth – catastrophic plans aren’t completely eliminated.”
Ex-RINO, what plans are you referring to. I know some college aid kids that need less expensive coverage?
Last week the WSJ had an article that says the cost of health care for college students is going up as much as 1,112%. Before Obamacare they could offer students limited benefit plans with premiums as little as $150-$500 per year. According to the WSJ article the mandatory Obamacare regulations your are touting are causing colleges to drop their student health plans for the new academic year.
truth – go study the law more – catastrophic plans aren’t completely eliminated. You are talking about things you don’t know again.
EGV wrote, “Some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them.”
Quite the contrary. As F.A. Hayek argued, modern societies are much too complex to be centrally planned by government. Socialism doesn’t work.
some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them. – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/stanek-sunday-funnies-6-9-13/#sthash.k82ydciT.dpuf
some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them. – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/stanek-sunday-funnies-6-9-13/#sthash.k82ydciT.dpuf
some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them. – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/stanek-sunday-funnies-6-9-13/#sthash.k82ydciT.dpuf
some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them. – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/stanek-sunday-funnies-6-9-13/#sthash.k82ydciT.dpuf
some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them. – See more at: http://www.jillstanek.com/2013/06/stanek-sunday-funnies-6-9-13/#sthash.k82ydciT.dpuf
Go study the law some more? What a lame rebuttal…..
EGV wrote, “Some economic activities are pretty complicated, and thus require a lot of rules to govern them.”
Quite the contrary. As F.A. Hayek argued, modern societies are much too complex to be centrally planned by government. Socialism doesn’t work.
truth -
A few things related to that article.
First off, even before health care reform, only a few percent of kids were on those plans (most were on parent plans).
With the change in the law allowing kids to stay on plans longer, that percentage will even be smaller.
Top end price of plans mean nothing because government subsidies will bring down the price of plans.
Are you a big fan of these mini-med plans though? I’ve always though of them as a bit of a scam – do you really want to defend them?
“Top end price of plans mean nothing because government subsidies will bring down the price of plans.”
Who needs a budget and the cost of health insurance is no longer important to you because the government will subsidize it for you. Spoken like a true liberal Ex-RINO.
Top end price of plans mean nothing because government subsidies will bring down the price of plans. And what I am a fan of is people being able to choose any health care they think is best for them.
Ex-RINO, this reminded me of you.
“I heard a story about a guy who was in a hot air balloon. He was lost and he lowered his altitude. He spotted a man down below and descended a bit more and then called out to him. He said, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I’d meet him an hour ago, and I don’t know where I am.” The man on the ground consulted his GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above ground elevation at 2,346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14 minutes north latitude; 100 degrees, 49 minutes west longitude,” and the guy in the balloon said, “You must be a conservative,” and he said, “I am. How did you know that?” He said, well, “Everything you told me is technically correct but I have no idea what to make of your information. The fact is I’m still lost — and frankly, you haven’t been very much help so far.” The guy on the ground yelled up: “You must be a liberal.” He said, “I am. How did you know that?” He said, “Well, you don’t know where you’re going or where you’ve been, you’ve risen to where you are on hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep. You expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you’re in the same place you were before we met and now it’s my fault!”
Cute story truth – why can’t you answer the question presented to you though?
You’re sticking up for mini-med plans – do you think they have a rightful place in health care?
Specifically, health care reform targets and says an insurance plan must spend a minimum percentage of the money they get in on actual health care (as compared to marketing, admin, boat parties, etc…) – are you against that provision?
Jon -
I’m quite sure you believe in some aspects of society being socialistic.
If you support the status quo of health care, that’s more socialistic than health care reform. Those who are uninsured go and get care when they have emergencies, and those costs get rolled to the rest of us. Health Care Reform tries to get people to have skin in the game – and you want to go back to a socialistic plan of letting the insured spread their money around and pay for everyone.
Interesting.
Why is this so hard for you Ex-RINO. Take a deep breath…. Exhale…. People should be able to choose to use their their money to purchase ANY health care plan they want.
I really hope you liked your own comment, and there’s not two people on this board with that viewpoint.
I mean, it really is the new conservative way – who cares if many have argued many mini-med plans should be illegal – who cares if they target the poor – who cares that most economics/health experts say that you are better off having no insurance than a mini-med plan. Who cares that they leave people massively exposed, and if they end up with a major health care incident, the public is on the hook for it.
I mean, heck, if somebody can exploit somebody for a buck, let it fly? The new wave of conservatives…lovely.