White House Switch is A Real Head-Scratcher
Greg Mankiw is understandably left scratching his head over this:
"Consider these two policies:
A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.
B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.
I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.
Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head."
93 Comments:
What's outrageous is that the legacy media will let this slide. Lots of people have been scratching their heads lots of times over what this White House says and does. It's kind of like people say, "Huh. Who'd a thunk people would buy this?"
C. An employer is required to pay a tax per employee. Government uses the revenue to pay for employee contraceptive.
Inconveniently for Obama, Larry Summers pointed out that policies A and B are equivalent to C. See AER 1989, ungated here http://www3.amherst.edu/~jwreyes/econ77reading/Summers.pdf
Obama's ego is so huge that he believes lesser mortals will believe anything he says, even if it is absurd.
It seems to me that Mankiw is not questioning the economic reasoning over which he has credibility but the political rationale behind a compromise designed to assuage deontological concerns. The religious concern is that the government was telling them to actively purchase something they felt they had a duty not to purchase. They now must purchase something which may or may not violate that duty, but in no case would their duty necessarily have been violated. There are many examples of religious decrees which implicitly acknowledge a common course of action but separate it from an individual's choice.
To Scott Grannis,
The lesser mortals who make up 35% of the populace and 95% of the media do believe anything Obama says, regardless of it being absurd.
For Obama, so far so good.
Obama calculus: people will choose Obama over their faith if he gives them free stuff. Already working for about 47% of the population.
What Mankiw and others don't want to say but know is that my fellow catholics who were dumb enough to vote for Obama in '08 (McCain of course wasn't much more of a choice either) and still claim they're 'pro-life' have been given yet another rationale to vote for the clown this year...
February PRRI Religion and Politics Tracking Poll: Survey | Majority of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required to Provide Health Care Plans that Cover Birth Control at No Cost
To Michael: Catholic employers are now given the choice to provide insurance which provides contraceptive or not providing health insurance or not. If the first policy violates their conscience so does the second.
The solution Obama could have offered is mandate Catholic employers withhold cash from the paycheck and give the cash to the employee to spend as they wished. Then the choice is in the employee's hands.
By the way, if you're going buy me a necktie how about just giving me the cash instead?
If everyone could take the compensation and buy their own health care - then the Church would be out of the health care business all together.
unless of course, the Church would then say... as an employee.. you can't use your compensation to buy health care that covers contraceptives.
If employers - all of them - got out of health insurance and anyone could buy it - the decision would be in the hands of people - not govt and not employers and not the church.
What all you people are missing is that under policy option "B", the tooth fairy is going to pick up the tab.
And the tooth fairy is an atheist.
I hope that clears it all up.
are any churches self-insured?
how would it work in that case?
"What all you people are missing is that under policy option "B", the tooth fairy is going to pick up the tab"...
Bingo!
Still the real question is, why is Uncle Sam in this business in the first place?
If the govt did not provide tax-free status to health insurance from employers in the first place....what would happen?
Yep, it's smoke and mirrors.
To bix1951:
Yes, many news reports have pointed this out -- that many if not most larger institutions are self insured.
Many of us think of the plan administrator is out insurer. We might say "I have Anthem Blue Cross." Nope -- our employer is self insured. Of course these self insurers purchase reinsurance.
Left drafting narrative that Mankiw is a racist and hater of women.
"If the govt did not provide tax-free status to health insurance from employers in the first place....what would happen?"...
Well larry g if there was no government interference in the market place then 'normal' market forces would be at work...
If nothing else it would mean the burden of filing paperwork would drop dramatically...
Consider that cost alone...
getting rid of the tax-free status of health insurance might be the first step to getting govt out of it, eh?
juandos: "Still the real question is, why is Uncle Sam in this business in the first place?"
Bingo.
People who believe health care is a right also believe in slavery.
It's like the right of a free haircut each month.
Well, good luck getting that free quality haircut each month.
"If the govt did not provide tax-free status to health insurance from employers in the first place....what would happen?"
That income would then be taxed, as it should be, but would have violated government wage controls in place during WWII.
the current system might have made sense in WWII.
does it make sense now?
if each person had to seek insurance on the open market instead of employers providing it as a tax-free benefit....
would we allow all money for health insurance and health care to be deducted from taxes?
Bonus Question: why is the tax rule that you can only itemize expenses than exceed 7.5% of your AGI? where did the 7.5% come from?
"the current system might have made sense in WWII."
It was a "workaround" during WWII to allow employers to pay favored employees more without paying them more, so to speak, and to offer more total compensation to prospective employees, as the available labor pool was very small.
Whether or not it made sense is hard to say, but the IRS agreed not to tax it, so it need not be called compensation, so the wage limits weren't violated.
"does it make sense now?"
No, it doesn't. But, like most government programs and regulations it lives on after everyone has forgotten why it ever existed.
"if each person had to seek insurance on the open market instead of employers providing it as a tax-free benefit...."
That would be a big step in the right direction.
"would we allow all money for health insurance and health care to be deducted from taxes?"
Would or should? Would, probably. Should, No.
"Bonus Question: why is the tax rule that you can only itemize expenses than exceed 7.5% of your AGI? where did the 7.5% come from?"
Some government bureaucrat pulled that number out of their ass, as representing the border between normal and expected expenditures for medical care, and unusual and excessive expenditures.
Apparently we should all chip in to help you pay your medical bills if they are over 7.5% of your AGI.
That makes as little sense as a tax break for excessive spending for food, clothing, rent, transportation, or anything else.
It's easier to switch health insurance providers than it is to switch employers in this bad of economy.
That said, I'm not in favor of the idea that it should require religious entities to go against their beliefs to provide it.
If the option is to be provided to do such, there should be some way to provide scale without providing an undue burden on religion.
why not get religious orgs out of the employer-provided insurance business all together?
then the religious orgs would have no conflicts and their employees could choose what suits them?
Head-Scratcher only if you are not a socialist.
"...if each person had to seek insurance on the open market instead of employers providing it as a tax-free benefit....
McCain's health plan was along those lines. The majority went with the socialist.
re: taxing health insurance as ordinary compensation....
seems to me that could form the basis of a principled Republican alternative to ObamaCare.
It's easy to blame "the socialist" but when the other side seems to have no alternative legislation and their strategy is to rail against ObamaCare without any solid alternative of their own....
well.. it looks like they are trying to win by running against what they don't like rather than running on a better agenda.
that's going to be the challenge of any GOP challenger to Obama.
It's not going to be good enough to just talk about what you don't like.
They're going to have to demonstrate a better way.
IMHO of course.
The insureds of these "Church" employers have been indirectly provided BCPs using such instruments as the "Flex plan" anyway. My question is...why make yourself sound so ridiculous by making a huge announcement??? Oh...is it an election year???
You know where they lacked adequate access to contraceptives? Hawaii, 1961.
By the way, people need to stop leaving out details about this. Plan B is an abortifacient. As in, AFTER fertilization, it will lead to the death of the embryo, nascent human life. It also calls for vasectomies and tubal ligations. This IS NOT ONLY ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL.
I don't want to pay for any of those, and this "compromise" means that my premiums will HAVE to pay for them, because the insurance companies have no money that they didn't ultimately get from their customers. There is no free lunch.
I don't mind paying for them.....for me and my dependents if we choose to use them.
"You know where they lacked adequate access to contraceptives? Hawaii, 1961."...
Outstanding che!
Yes sir, a very righteously called factoid!
"People who believe health care is a right also believe in slavery"...
Yeah pt that reminds me of Sen Rand Paul's comments...
"It's easy to blame "the socialist" but when the other side seems to have no alternative legislation and their strategy is to rail against ObamaCare without any solid alternative of their own...."
They had a solid alternative for some time. They never had had the House, Presidency, and Senate with 60 Senators in the majority. Obama wanted nothing to do with any of the GOP's proposals. He wanted the trojan horse for single-payer.
" They never had had the House, Presidency, and Senate with 60 Senators in the majority."
Really? How did they pass Medicare Part D?
Larry, as Paul notes, McCain did propose having people buy insurance themselves (skip down to the section called "Health Care Hyperbole"), rather than giving the employer a tax break on health insurance. Obama then demagogued it as the "end of employer-provided health insurance as we know it," as though any change to our wonderful system would be a horrible, horrible thing. That was one of the first times you got to see what was really behind Obama's "hope and change" smokescreen, the worst kind of cynical Chicago politics, devoid of substance and all about silly attacks. I clearly remember watching him say that in the debate and getting very pissed of with this ridiculous attack. What's hilarious is that the above factcheck link takes McCain to task for overstating Obama's plan at the time, only when Barack got into office, that's exactly the kind of overreaching medical plan he did push through in Obamacare, so I guess McCain did see it coming. ;)
Craig, Plan B is not an abortifacient, as a Catholic health journal itself found. As the doctor in the linked article notes,
"Reznik wrote that since it takes about a week from an egg’s fertilization to its implantation, the scientific evidence that Plan B treatment is completely ineffective after five days is overwhelming: It works only by preventing fertilization, not by preventing implantation.
Otherwise, she said, the drug would also be found effective from five to 12 days after coitus, because that is the time frame between the last chance for a sperm to fertilize an egg and the time a fertilized egg would implant. The declining effectiveness of Plan B between 48 and 120 hours after coitus adds to the argument that preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted is not one of its effects, she said."
I think I have heard it said by another doctor many years ago that there is a theoretical possibility that Plan B might prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in an extremely tiny number of cases, but this doctor's newer statements seem to gainsay even that small possibility. All this doesn't change the fact that the govt has no right to make people pay for stuff they morally object to, whether abortions or stem cell research, but let's no go overboard and throw the facts out to overstate your case.
On health care - the Republicans hae had opportunities prior to Obama to put in place what they support and they also have the opportunity to tell folks now what their vision of "replace" should be.
My point is that they have not even when they had enough votes to pass Medicare Part D - that's all they passed - nothing more.
and even now, they hate ObamaCare and they voted symbolically against it but they have not proposed a real alternative to it.
and that alternative - supported by the GOP candidates would form a core part of their agenda and put forth a positive vision of their own as opposed to pure opposition to what they do not want.
In order to win - the GOP has to do more than just oppose Obama - they have to convince people that they have a better way on health care and other issues.
The GOP will have to convince all the people who currently have health care (or will soon) as a result of ObamaCare that ObamaCare is not only bad BUT they have a better way.
Just about everyone knows someone who does not have health insurance.
Just about everyone has gone into a 7-11 and seen the jars for some guy who has a treatable condition but no health care.
and right now - women are watching this issue.
it may feel justified to those concerned about the religious aspect of it - and without justification - but women are watching to see if the alternative proposals will harm them.
It's up to the GOP to articulate their vision of how health care should work - better - than ObamaCare.
The vast majority of Americans are not libertarians when it comes to health care.
My view of the Republican strategy is for them to do what they can do get into office without actually presenting an alternate system and then do what they've done in the past ... basically not agree on what should be done and just let it fester.
so the question is - do enough people in the US hate ObamaCare enough to vote for people who say they will repeal it but offer no real alternative - just repeal?
Bonus Question - If Romney gets into office what will he do about health care? nothing?
"and even now, they hate ObamaCare and they voted symbolically against it but they have not proposed a real alternative to it."
One alternative was to do nothing. It was a much better alternative.
"My point is that they have not even when they had enough votes to pass Medicare Part D - that's all they passed - nothing more."
They passed an expansion of government with 54 votes. The Democrats who voted against wanted a program that spent twice as much. There's not a chance the GOP could have gotten real reform the Democrats would have supported.
"The GOP will have to convince all the people who currently have health care (or will soon) as a result of ObamaCare that ObamaCare is not only bad BUT they have a better way."
Yes, that's always the case with expansions of the welfare state. Everybody loves a free lunch, and they form coalitions to lobby for their handout when some stingy Republican tries to roll it back.
Contraception is cheaper to health insurance companies than covering pregnancy and birth.
Insurance companies should provide it as it saves them money.
98% of Catholics in the US have used contraception and the majority support this choice...both from recent polls.
I guess the Church and opposition still want to control a woman's body and how we have sex.
This helps increase insurance company's EPS and give people choice they did not have before...yeah, that is a real problem.
Contraception is cheaper to health insurance companies than covering pregnancy and birth.
Insurance companies should provide it as it saves them money.
98% of Catholics in the US have used contraception and the majority support this choice...both from recent polls.
I guess the Church and opposition still want to control a woman's body and how we have sex.
This helps increase insurance company's EPS and give people choice they did not have before...yeah, that is a real problem.
" There's not a chance the GOP could have gotten real reform the Democrats would have supported. "
I had assumed if they had the votes for Medicare Part D, they also had enough votes for health care reform.
re: "do nothing"
yes..but that NOT what the GOP is saying ... and they did.. I suspect that answer would not be acceptable to most as we have a serious problem with access and costs that most GOP themselves say is not acceptable.
434AT3M3: "This helps increase insurance company's EPS and give people choice they did not have before...yeah, that is a real problem."
What are you talking about? are you suggesting that people can't use contraceptives if their medical plan doesn't cover it?
Being pregnant, or not, is a choice, not a medical problem. Why should my premiums be higher to help pay for your birth control?
You cannot complain about high medical insurance costs and at the same time advocate coverage for contraception, or for any other elective expense.
Larry,
"I had assumed if they had the votes for Medicare Part D, they also had enough votes for health care reform."
Ever hear of the term "filibuster?"
I agree the GOP didn't work hard enough at reform, but look at the other side: it took all 60 Democrats to ram through Obamacare.
"I suspect that answer would not be acceptable to most as we have a serious problem with access and costs that most GOP themselves say is not acceptable."
And Obamcare makes the cost issue, and probably access issue worse. Much worse. OTOH, some of the runaway costs will be addressed by death panels and the enormous tax increases built into Obamacare. not exactly selling points.
Paul - I do not see a GOP alternative. They supported individual mandate in 1993 but abandoned that.
They DID pass Medicare Part D after Tom Delayed threatened other Republicans at 3am after the initial vote failed.
We don't need to see a passed bill to see a GOP proposal and a GOP proposal would directly challenge ObamaCare with an alternative instead of blathering about death panels and other demagoguery.
People without insurance face "death panels" as well as those who have insurance but exceed their coverage.
the whole thing is a disingenuous wedge strategy.
we can talk all we want about the good, bad and ugly of ObamaCare but without a competitive alternative - ultimately voters are going o realize that the proposal is to kill ObamaCare and do nothing.
Will they vote for that?
I'm betting they won't.
everyone who has almost lost their insurance or lost their insurance and knows the have no chance to get it is not going to vote for "do nothing".
My view is that the GOP has opportunity here - to gain votes but instead they are relying on negativism and ultimately that loses most of the time.
"We don't need to see a passed bill to see a GOP proposal and a GOP proposal.."
Are you kidding? There have been scores of proposals from the GOP. Bush's 2007 health plan would have replaced incentives for employers to provide insurance for their workers with a tax deduction for individuals. As I said before, McCain had a similiar plan. Most of the GOP plans fall along the lines of greater accountablity and freedom for the individual. Obama stomped that out.
"..instead of blathering about death panels and other demagoguery."
It's not demaguguery. IPAB is exactly the equivalent of death panels.
"People without insurance face "death panels" as well as those who have insurance but exceed their coverage."
No they don't. The treatment is there, the ability to pay may not be. That's entirely different from a death panel. Socialist health care, where Obamacare will eventually take us, will lead to more death on net than the pre-Obamacre system. That much is guaranteed.
"everyone who has almost lost their insurance or lost their insurance and knows the have no chance to get it is not going to vote for "do nothing"."
Duh, we can't go back in time. My statement was it would have been better to do nothing than pass Obamacre.* Yeah, some individuals are better off now, but the majority of industrious people were screwed royally by the stealth socialist in the White House and his parasite constituency.
*when i say doing nothing is preferable to Obamacare, I'm not saying it's the ideal. not at all.
" There have been scores of proposals from the GOP."
indeed.. which ones coalesced into actual legislation?
Right now, for instance, the GOP could pass in the House their REPLACE after REPEAL and make a clear statement as to what their alternative is.
re: death panels.
this is foolish. the premise is that a panel will decide if you can get treatment.
well.. that happens RIGHT NOW guy.
it happens with private insurance and it happens with Medicare and MedicAid.
you can call it a "death panel" but when there is a jar at a 7-11 for a guy that is going to die if he does not get treatment - THAT is a death panel also.
I want to see a GOP alternative proposal that the GOP will support as a group - not a flock of different ideas of which none have the full support of the GOP.
that's not a real alternative.
If they had such an alternative - folks like Romney and Gingrich could say that not only would they kill ObamaCare but they would replace it with..... a better plan.
where is that better plan?
the problem with the "let them die" ... "plan" is that we lack the collective guts to actually implement it especially when it comes to kids, the elderly and the defenseless.
No GOP candidate has the guts to say that they would get rid of MedicAid and EMTALA.
If you don't get rid of them, then what you are saying is that you WILL pay for these folks care.
the question at that point is how.
what is that plan?
the only one so far is the individual mandate where we require everyone to have insurance just like we require everyone to pay into social security and Medicare Part A - ahead of time - instead of them paying nothing and then getting free care.
what is the alternative to that?
Larry: "We don't need to see a passed bill to see a GOP proposal..."
Paul: " There have been scores of proposals from the GOP.""
Larry: "indeed.. which ones coalesced into actual legislation?"
You cannot argue both sides. Please try to focus, before Paul decides he is wasting his time with you.
"Right now, for instance, the GOP could pass in the House their REPLACE after REPEAL and make a clear statement as to what their alternative is"...
The Republicans in the House in theory could bring ObamaCare to a grinding halt by refusing to finance any part of it (all spending suppose to originate in the House) but it won't happen because they don't have testicular fortitude to follow through on it...
In fact larry g since Harry Reid and his fellow travelers in the Senate haven't done their part in passing a budget bill for something like a thousand days now it doesn't really matter...
BTW the same lack of testicular fortitude in running rampant with the R.I.N.O.s in the Senate...
Have any of them made an effort to filibuster?
re: proposals vs legislation
the Republican Congress has the ability to pass legislation even if it is largely symbolic with the Dem Congress.
but it does make a statement and it in theory shows the commitment of the Republicans for a certain path forward.
they have passed several pieces of legislation to demonstrate what they actually support - beyond mere proposals.
anyone can make a proposal.
legislation shows that a group of people are willing to support a particular proposal as opposed to everyone having their own and no one having one that a majority will support.
is that more clear, Ron?
If the GOP can do a symbolic vote for REPEAL....
then why can't they similarly vote for REPLACE?
" The Republicans in the House in theory could bring ObamaCare to a grinding halt by refusing to finance any part of it (all spending suppose to originate in the House) but it won't happen because they don't have testicular fortitude to follow through on it..."
I think you are correct.
"In fact larry g since Harry Reid and his fellow travelers in the Senate haven't done their part in passing a budget bill for something like a thousand days now it doesn't really matter..."
oh but it does if the Republicans show the will.... it's a powerful statement
"BTW the same lack of testicular fortitude in running rampant with the R.I.N.O.s in the Senate...
Have any of them made an effort to filibuster? "
RINOs? holy moly.. I thought they were EXTINCT...
who are you calling RINO - Collins and who else?
If the GOP passes their version of health care reform and Romney promises to support it - and the American Public likes it - Obama is toast...
right?
so why doesn't the GOP do that?
it's a positive agenda ... and it shows that they DO intend to do something.
"indeed.. which ones coalesced into actual legislation?"
At least 3:
1) The "Health Care Freedom Act" (S. 1324),
2) The "Patients Choice Act (S.1099),
3) The "Empowering Patients First Act" (H.R.3400)
"this is foolish. the premise is that a panel will decide if you can get treatment."
Uh, yeah..
"well.. that happens RIGHT NOW guy.
it happens with private insurance and it happens with Medicare and MedicAid."
Huge difference. Private insurance still exists until Obamacare's intentional squeeze shuts down the industry. Then the fun begins. We will be left with the 15 unaccountable IPAB "experts" who have the power to make changes to Medicare's reimbursement rates. Pre-Obamcare, that power was in the hands of the Congress. That's the key piece of the death panel argument. IPAB is just another part of the Obama stealth socialist agenda of circumventing the democratic process.
"I want to see a GOP alternative proposal that the GOP will support as a group - not a flock of different ideas of which none have the full support of the GOP."
Oh.
Before you were saying the GOP didn't even offer an alternative. Proven wrong, you move the goalposts, Larry. As I said, the GOP didn't work hard enough of the issue in large part because they never had the 60 votes needed to get past the Democrat opposition.
"where is that better plan?"
The ones I already told you about, and also jumping into the time machine and killing Obamacare.
"the problem with the "let them die" ... "plan" is that we lack the collective guts to actually implement it especially when it comes to kids, the elderly and the defenseless."
IPAB will do that with ruthless efficiency. We are all becoming budget items as private health care is purposely killed off. It's not good to be a budget item during times of $1 trillion plus Obama deficits.
"If you don't get rid of them, then what you are saying is that you WILL pay for these folks care."
The free rider problem is only 2% of health care costs. The unfairness problem can be largely fixed by turning the mandate on its head and giving a tax break to people who buy health care. If you don't buy health care, you don't get the break. Voila, no dictates from Lord Almighty Obama required.
Ron H,
Yeah, Larry does alot of that because he's working backwards from "how do I protect my hero Obama."
"who are you calling RINO - Collins and who else?"
Seriously?
Seriously?
yes..
educate me
" "the problem with the "let them die" ... "plan" is that we lack the collective guts to actually implement it especially when it comes to kids, the elderly and the defenseless."
IPAB will do that with ruthless efficiency. We are all becoming budget items as private health care is purposely killed off."
but private health care already has their own "death panels".
" 1) The "Health Care Freedom Act" (S. 1324),
2) The "Patients Choice Act (S.1099),
3) The "Empowering Patients First Act" (H.R.3400)"
I'm trying to track these down..no luck so far.
What is the CURRENT REPLACE legislation that the GOP supports after Obamacare is REPEALED?
and which of the GOP candidates supports that legislation?
S. 1099: Patients' Choice Act
111th Congress: 2009-2010
Introduced May 20, 2009
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee (did not occur)
Senate Vote (did not occur)
House Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)
I bet the other two are similar
"but it does make a statement and it in theory shows the commitment of the Republicans for a certain path forward."
No it doesn't. It goes off to die in the Senate and 99% of the American public never hears about it. Obama and the Democrats even pretend it doesn't exist.
S. 1324: Health Care Freedom Act of 2009
111th Congress: 2009-2010
Status:
Introduced Jun 23, 2009
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee (did not occur)
Senate Vote (did not occur)
House Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)
LAME!
" No it doesn't. It goes off to die in the Senate and 99% of the American public never hears about it. Obama and the Democrats even pretend it doesn't exist. "
no it doesn't.
if it because what the GOP says is REPLACE - it becomes the alternative to ObamaCare....
and people start comparing the two
and the GOP candidates for office start supporting the alternative as opposed to just opposing ObamaCare.
It gives voters a choice.
"but private health care already has their own "death panels".
You understand the difference between private and public, right? And once again, private health care is on the way out if Obamacare succeeds.
"What is the CURRENT REPLACE legislation that the GOP supports after Obamacare is REPEALED?"
And here we have larry's new goalpost after starting off with the GOP has never even offered an alternative.
Whatever it takes to defend Obama.
"and people start comparing the two"
Bullshit. People do not know about it. The House GOP has sent scores of legislation to die in the Senate in the past year. How much of that do you hear about?
"LAME!"
Oh but...
"We don't need to see a passed bill to see a GOP proposal and a GOP proposal.."
LAME!
" You understand the difference between private and public, right? And once again, private health care is on the way out if Obamacare succeeds. "
not true guy.. the govt will not insure..it's private companies.
"What is the CURRENT REPLACE legislation that the GOP supports after Obamacare is REPEALED?"
And here we have larry's new goalpost after starting off with the GOP has never even offered an alternative.
no goalpost guy... I want to see a better plan.
" Bullshit. People do not know about it. The House GOP has sent scores of legislation to die in the Senate in the past year. How much of that do you hear about? "
wait a minute.
if people don't know then why do they know about ObamaCare??
and the "legislation"... ??
2 of the 3 never got out of committee guy.. what legislation has CLEARED Republican chaired committees?
No Republican legislation that has got past REpublican Chaired committees and onto the Republican controlled house floor....
lame
bogus
where is the BEEF?
where is the better plan?
"not true guy.. the govt will not insure..it's private companies."
Nonsense. The Alinskyites ramrodded this this through as a means to an end that is single payer. John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and Barney Frank are on record admitting as much. Obama used to say he supported single payer, though it might have to go through a transition period to get there. The mandate by itself is enough to do it, which is one of the reasons Heritage dropped the plan.
"no goalpost guy... I want to see a better plan."
And I offered them to you. Then you upped the requirements.
"2 of the 3 never got out of committee guy.. what legislation has CLEARED Republican chaired committees?"
Hey Larry, any idea who controlled the House in 2009?
"where is the better plan?"
And now we've once again come full circle. The better plan was to do nothing.
"if people don't know then why do they know about ObamaCare??"
Uh, because it became the law of the land. The GOP, for example, has sent 25 jobs bills to die in Harry Reid's Senate. How many of them do you know about?
" The GOP, for example, has sent 25 jobs bills to die in Harry Reid's Senate."
including a REPEAL vote.
when did they send the REPLACE vote?
and what was it?
re: private health care...
you bring up all kinds of personalities...to demonize them...
the plain fact...sans the personalities is that despite those who wanted single payer.. what passed was not single payer.
and what passed basically provides for private insurance which is much more like Germany than the UK.
Again.. all the things that you and the GOP do not like.
why can't they put together something they do like and pass it in the House and promote it as the better alternative to ObamaCare?
the GOP could win with a positive agenda.
they might win with a negative agenda but it's in doubt.
why not have a principled alternative - a competitive alternative to ObamaCare that the American people could freely pick over ObamaCare?
"who are you calling RINO - Collins and who else?"...
Every damn one of them larry g, it only takes one to filibuster in the Senate...
From Zer0 Hedge: GOP Finally Discovers Obama's Achilles Heel: Just Let Him Do What He Does... And Encourage It!
The money question if you'll pardon the pun is 'will Republicans grasp that the paradox of defeating Obama is precisely in giving him a carte blanche on all the stimulus programs he wants?'...
Here's the kicker about Obama's budget proposal: Obama proposes $800 million boost for "Arab Spring" countries
What will the R.I.N.O.s do now?
"and what was it?"
The repeal vote.
"you bring up all kinds of personalities...to demonize them..."
No, I've studied how Alinskyites operate. And I take them at their wordwhen they think their critics aren't looking. You're either ignorant, or willfully obtuse.
"why can't they put together something they do like and pass it in the House and promote it as the better alternative to ObamaCare?"
Repealing it is enough for now. Let Obama defend his garbage.
in other words...demonize people and just oppose rather than put forth a true alternative....
that seems to be what the GOP is about these days... just opposition and demonization and not much in the way of any real plans of their own.
that's a loser at election...
they have to present something ...if they want to win.
IMHO of course.
"..in other words...demonize people and just oppose rather than put forth a true alternative...".
Well, that approach did work for the Democrats against Bush. But we don't need to "demonize" this moron you voted for. We can just tell the truth about him even if it makes you cry.
"that seems to be what the GOP is about these days... just opposition and demonization and not much in the way of any real plans of their own."
Hey Larry, your hero Obama just put forward his budget for 2013. He includes his massive cherished taxes on evil oil companies and people who make over 200 k and he's still a trillion dollars in the hole in spite of his dishonest insinuations. THis was the budget (he promised back in 2009) that was supposed to cut the deficit down to $650 billion. Add in Bush's worst deficit and he still doesn't get there.
In a sane world, even a mediocrity like Romney should be able to vanquish a miserable failure like Obama.
hey... Obama is NOT my hero.
I vote for the best person and would have voted for Romney if he had run against Obama as the geezer necon/bimbo combo was not going to get it.
No matter what kind of budget Obama submitted..folks like you would demonize it so what's new?
the GOP is still free to propose an alternative budget you know - to show how it should be done.
they are free to propose health care
Romney/Santorum are free to propose a "better" budget and "better" health care.
If I see a "better" proposal.. I have zero loyalty to a person...
but your heros are a bunch of hypocrites... lying hypocrites.
that's bad.
can't vote for that.
"I vote for the best person and would have voted for Romney if he had run against Obama as the geezer necon/bimbo combo was not going to get it."
Yeah, you voted for Obama but knew hardly anything about him. You demonstrated your ignorance a couple weeks ago when you revealed you knew nothing about his plans to skyrocket energy prices. I guarantee you've never spent a moment looking into what exactly is a "community organizer." Oh, but how you laughed at Sarah Palin like your sheep herders told you to do.
"No matter what kind of budget Obama submitted..folks like you would demonize it so what's new?"
It's not demonization to point out his lies and enormous failures. It just stings you whenever somebody criticizes the guy you spend an inordinate amount of time here defending.
"If I see a "better" proposal.. I have zero loyalty to a person..."
Uh huh, and you've spent plenty of time here defining your definition of "better." Hence your vote for the Alinskyite.
"but your heros are a bunch of hypocrites... lying hypocrites."
Yeah, I know how you expect the highest standards from the people you vote for.
but he told the truth.
the debt went from 5T to 10T but worse than that - we went from a relatively balanced budget to a structural 1.5T ANNUAL deficit.
and because Bush was totally asleep at the switch... he's standing there looking stupid when the economy craters.... so he gets up in front of everyone and supports TARP and auto bailouts.
Bush did all of this right?
and the old Neocon Geezer with Bimbo attached was going "fix" it?
nope.
the Geezer Neocon/Bimbo combo would have gotten us involved in even more wars...and even bigger deficits.
you boys had ZIP in the way of solutions... you abdicated to Obama .... this is what happens when you bring NOTHING to the table.
and you're on that same track.
you are bringing NOTHING to the table other than opposition to Obama.
that's a LOSING strategy guy.
you're gonna get 4 more years of Obama.
"but he told the truth."
He lied through his teeth. And he called Bush unpatriotic for running up debt. Now tell me again you aren't covering his ass. YOu're pathetic.
"the debt went from 5T to 10T but worse than that - we went from a relatively balanced budget to a structural 1.5T ANNUAL deficit."
All this bullshit has been repeatedly disproved for your benefit, yet you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. And again Your hero promised to cut the deficit down to $650 billion by this year. THat is failure, Larry.
"the Geezer Neocon/Bimbo combo would have gotten us involved in even more wars...and even bigger deficits."
And you base this on, what? You've already demonstrated here repeatedly how little you know about the actual candidate records.
I'm tired of this thread. Your fanboy defense of Obama and his wretched rule is not even up to the standards of Benji.
"you're gonna get 4 more years of Obama."
Yeah, probably. He intentionally expanded the base of parasites, and he has legions of morons like you to pull the lever for him again. That's probably enough to do it. Oh well, you'll probably continue to get your government checks for awhile, which is all that really matters in the end.
"that seems to be what the GOP is about these days... just opposition and demonization and not much in the way of any real plans of their own"...
larry g are you a liar or are you deciding you're going to ignore information that doesn't agree with your template?
The fact that several many republicans have brought up alternatives is out there for the reading for everyone but you apparently...
I don't know if the republicans ideas are good ones but they seem on their face quite a bit more palatable then the ideas being pushed by the Kenyan Kommie and his fellow travelers...
" The fact that several many republicans have brought up alternatives is out there for the reading for everyone but you apparently...
I don't know if the republicans ideas are good ones but they seem on their face quite a bit more palatable then the ideas being pushed by the Kenyan Kommie and his fellow travelers... "
I distinguish "ideas" from various individuals that total to dozens, hundreds to one that is supported by most of the opposition as an alternative.
It's EASY to attack ANY budget for any Prez but I want to see an alternative budget form the opposition that they support and would pass.
WHERE is THAT proposal?
"It's EASY to attack ANY budget for any Prez but I want to see an alternative budget form the opposition that they support and would pass.
WHERE is THAT proposal?"...
larry g who do you think you're jerking off here amigo?
I've linked several of those types of articles (and I'm not the only either) from the WSJ, Forbes, and Cato...
So its obvious YOU don't want to know anything about them...
If you really wanted to know what the republicans had to offer you could find them easily enough on your own and not have someone else spoon feed them to you...
RonH wrote:
"You cannot complain about high medical insurance costs and at the same time advocate coverage for contraception, or for any other elective expense."
The fact of the matter is prescription contraception is cheaper than pregnancy and lowers medical costs for you and for insurance companies. Contraception is not an elective expense but a necessary part of saving money for all.
Why do you hate corporate America and why do you want Americans to spend more money in healthcare to cover premiums?
Your intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance are typical.
I am registered unaffiliated as there is no Libertarian party registered in my area. Ron Paul is my horse but the right wing nuts like dog on man Santorum. We are doomed to have Obama in office for four more years because ignorant electorate like you.
434AT3M3: "The fact of the matter is prescription contraception is cheaper than pregnancy and lowers medical costs for you and for insurance companies."
Are you sure about that? Maybe you should recheck your math. Why do you imagine that paying for birth control for 40 years for half the US population is cheaper than maternity costs for 4 million women per year?
Maybe you could provide a reference for your claim.
Even if it DID save money, why should it be covered by medical plans? Isn't it a matter of personal choice and responsibility? Do you think people can't decide for themselves whether their best interest is in using contraceptives, and must be guided by the superior intellects of insurance company executives?
You don't sound like a libertrian.
"Contraception is not an elective expense but a necessary part of saving money for all."
Of course it's elective! Unlike appendicitis, heart attack or gunshot wounds, I can choose to be pregnant or not pregnant. What do you think the word "elective" means? As for saving money, I could save money if my insurance premium didn't include coverage for your birth control and or your maternity costs. Both are choices people make, and should no more be covered by medical plans than haircuts or tummy tucks.
"Why do you hate corporate America and why do you want Americans to spend more money in healthcare to cover premiums?"
Well, I would have to ask YOU why YOU want Americans to spend more on healthcare premiums, as that's what you're advocating by wanting to cover elective procedures. And, I don't think I said I hated corporate America. Are you making things up?
"Your intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance are typical."
Gee, typical of what? And are you sure your lack of economic understanding, assumption of things not in evidence, and quick rush to judgment aren't keeping you from understanding what others have written?
Perhaps a slower, more careful read of my comment, with frequent pauses to allow comprehension, would help.
I am registered unaffiliated as there is no Libertarian party registered in my area.
You don't really sound like a libertarian. Are you sure you know what a libertarian is? You sound more like a liberal reading from a script.
Do you favor small, very limited government, low or no taxes, individual liberty, and free markets?
"Ron Paul is my horse..."
Good for you. mine too.
"...but the right wing nuts like dog on man Santorum. We are doomed to have Obama in office for four more years because ignorant electorate like you."
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I'm not sure you do. You seem to have some preconceived notions that interfere with your ability to reason.
NOT having birth control readily available to the segment of society that depends on MedicAid and govt help for pregnancy and child benefits would result in enormously higher costs to everyone.
correct?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home