“Our message to the United States Senate is real simple: The American people don’t want the government shut down and they don’t want Obamacare.”
Friday’s vote was Step One in the GOP crusade to undermine the health law. Step Two comes next week, when House leaders hope to advance a separate measure that will demand a one-year delay in the law’s implementation in exchange for an agreement to avoid a first-ever default on the nation’s debts sometime next month.
Obama responded with an uncharacteristically angry speech in which he accused Republicans of “trying to mess with me” and “holding the economy hostage.”
“They’re focused on politics. They’re focused on trying to mess with me. They’re not focused on you,” he told a friendly crowd of about 1,000 autoworkers and their families at a truck manufacturing plant on the outskirts of Kansas City, Mo.
Three times, Obama used the phrase “deadbeat nation” to condemn Republican brinkmanship on the debt limit.
“We are not a deadbeat nation. We don’t run out on our tab,” Obama said. “We’re the world’s bedrock investment. The entire world looks to us to make sure the world economy is stable.”
1. The ACA is the law of the land. If the tea party Republicans don’t like it, change the law. It passed the House and the Senate and the ACA has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. I expect people don’t even know what they don’t like. It is simply a mindless feeding frenzy at this point.
2. Brinkmanship-The idea of attempting to destroy our economy by defaulting on the nation’s debts is unconscionable and absolutely un-American. The thugs who are voting to do this should be drummed out of office and if the economy falters, they should go to jail. It is unnecessary and inexcusable. They are holding our well-being hostage. These so-called legislators obviously don’t believe in Democracy.
Many of us are trying to prepare ourselves for another crash. How can that be done? If you have investments in the stock market you lose your shirt paying taxes on capital gains if you sell so you are holding cash. I guess you just take it like a man and let egotistical politicians ruin you financially.
Any time I lose money I turn evil. I only have a set amount of it and I want to keep it. Am I selfish?
Actually I am sitting here trying to control blind rage over what is happening 25 miles from here.
I think I am going to pick a person to ridicule each day until this crisis passes. Today’s idiot of the day is Rep. Blake Farkenthold. I am not even sure where he is from. When he opens his mouth, stupid pours out. But don’t forget, he has the “power of the purse.”
Possibly the funniest video of the day.
“by defaulting on the nation’s debts”
How will that happen?
A) The budget except ACA is covered.
B) The executive gets to decide what gets paid if there is a “shut down” or no debt ceiling raise.
C) Since the President has said that he will not negotiate…. who is willing to shut down the government? Why…that would be the Democrats. The House has paid for ALL other functions. Apparently forcing ACA on Americans is more important than keeping the gov’t running, economy functioning, and growing employment.
Of course, why do we need to raise the debt ceiling? It hasn’t gone up in months……of course the gov’t would not be lying to us and would be spending past the debt limit for months…..without the Treasury acknowledging it, would they?
https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html
Total Public DebtSubject to Limit Sep. 19.
$ 16,699,396,000,000
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/treasury-debt-has-been-exactly-1669939600000000-56-days
(CNSNews.com) – According to the Daily Treasury Statement for July 12, which the U.S. Treasury released this afternoon, the federal debt that is currently subject to a legal limit of $16,699,421,095,673.60 has stood at exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00 for 56 straight days.
That means that for 56 straight days the federal debt has remained approximately $25 million below the legal limit.
Even though the portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limit has not changed in almost two months, the Treasury has continued to sell bills, notes and bonds at a value that exceeds the value of the bills, notes and bonds it has been redeeming.
You really believe the crap you are saying, don’t you?
The ACA passed both house and senate and was signed into law by the president. Challenges to the law were upheld by the Supreme Court.
What the hell else to you want? You can’t always have your own way.
Obama shouldn’t negotiate with thugs. I would be very disappointed in him if he did. Why should he negotiate over something that by all rights is the law of the land?
Would you have expected George Bush to have negotiated over NCLB? I would not have. How about the Prescription Drug Act Should he have negotiated with Congress over it? I hope not. Those two examples are also the law of the land.
Our country pays its bills. That’s pretty much the basics.
Republican Scott Rigell of Virginia was the only Republican to vote Nay for the continuing resolution. He felt that CR’s hurt the economy.
Two Democrats votes yea for the CR.
The rhetoric by the Administration is getting slightly overheated. Congress has used debt ceiling extensions as leverage going back at least to Eisenhower.
Obama himself as a Senator said that it was unpatriotic to raise the debt limit and voted against the extension.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/19/obamas-claim-that-non-budget-items-have-never-been-attached-to-the-debt-ceiling/
On different scale there was a lot of panic over the Family Medical Leave Act and the devastating impact on business and the economy. I’m not sold but the more this becomes partisan the more I resist the opposition. At this point no one appears to be dealing with facts – me included.
The argument needs to change and I’m beginning to think it is.
People were in a blind panic over medicare also. Those on medicare love it.
@Moon-howler
I’m being snarky about the debt not rising. But isn’t it suspicious that the Treasury did not report a rising debt.. for months….all the while they spent more money?
Hit submit too soon.
What part about “what I think” is crap? The executive IS the entity that decides what bills get paid.
Obama HAS SAID that he won’t negotiate.
All bills are paid. Every program other than ACA.
The power of the HOUSE is to fund or not fund ANYTHING. Its their prerogative and a check built into the system. Its there for just such a case as ACA. A bill was rammed through. Its unpopular. Seems to be harming the economy. The gov’t was dishonest about it. Its more expensive and less capable that presented.
ACA was not ‘rammed’ through. It was discussed and negotiated for over a year. It is law. Period. Someone had to vote for it.
The time for negotiations has come and gone. All three branches of government have given the LAW the seal of approval. The power of the house is to fund the government.
Once again the Know-nothings endanger our country trying to hold government operations hostage so they can get their own way.
How do I know they aren’t going to do the same thing with social security or medicare? How about the Rx program?
The House Republicans and those two turn coat democrats are simply dead wrong.
The R’s really do not want to see our economy start moving. Every time the Debt Limit, Fiscal Cliff, tax code changes, etc is left to go to the brink it affects the economy in a negative way. The markets start to react, people start to stop spending businesses start planning downturn instead of expanding – all at a cost. The cost is the economy slowing down a bit causing a sluggish economy, more unemployment and cutbacks. All in an effort to tarnish the Obama Administration.
The R’s made a campaign issue out of the Senate not passing a budget – the Senate passed a budget but here we are counting down the days and we do not have a budget – we have yet another CR. Why? Where is all the outrage from the pundits that there is no budget; not a word out of any of them (pundits or politicians).
@Lyssa
The fight is really over who pays for large-expense healthcare items. Obamacare adds new things to be covered, plus removes pre-existing conditions as a consideration for the cost of individual policies. These huge costs mean that everyone will pay more, plus the young and healthy have to be forced into purchasing insurance to subsidize everyone else.
Everyone should have health care. Those that don’t cost this country a fortune.
Are you seriously saying the young and healthy don’t need insurance? Of course they do. Actuarials are build on probability. The young and the living always help offset the sick and the old. That’s just how it works.
Who is supposed to pay for the 25 year old who breaks his leg or gets hit by a car? Who is supposed to pay for a 26 year old who develops cancer, has a heart condition or kidney stones? Who is supposed to pay for pregnancy?
I have never been without health care, even when young and healthy as a horse. Its irresponsible. A broken leg can cost $10,000. More serious diseases can cost close to a million dollars, especially by the time all the diagnostics have been done.
I don’t feel the least bit sorry for young people being forced into having health care.
And another thing…(best drunk voice) @Kelly,
What is the govt paying for that is a big ticket item?
I like the idea of removing reexisting conditions. I have known several people who were stuck on their job because either they or a family member was uninsurable because of diabetes or other pre existing condition. Even pregnancy was considered preexisting.
I have known men who couldn’t take a job opportunity because they had a wife who might be pregnant. That is horrible.
@Pat.Herve
Two can play at that game.
Everything that the Democrats have done is to keep the economy right here.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama’s campaign stated that 7-8% unemployment was going to be the new normal, that we would be “like Europe.” The increased benefits, the spending to prop up the Stock Market bubble, the ongoing attack against energy, the cronyism of the ACA and other sweetheart deals by the administration all keep the populace worried and the Dems can lie about “coming to save America.” Remember when jobs was the priority? Obama said it in 2008. And hasn’t done one thing that promotes job growth. Jobs bills? The SENATE killed those. His bills were worse than theirs. The BLS lies about the actual unemployment rate. The inflation rate is BS with the real inflation rate running around 7-8%. Or are you ignoring the rising price of food and fuel. The Treasury is lying about the debt not increasing…they’ve not raised the amount of outstanding debt for MONTHS. If its not rising…why raise the debt limit ceiling?
The increased regulations have kept small businesses from hiring or expanding. Giants like Fed Ex and Home Depot have stated that they could not start those businesses in today’s business climate.
The government will use the information gathered by the ACA to further influence people. Having the corrupt IRS over it all will most definitely intimidate people. And since the IRS is partisan….. now the conservatives have yet another thing to worry about.
Today’s business climate is the DESIRED result of Democrat policy.
Speaking of partisan…I have never read so much partisan rubbish in my life.
ACA is the law. That should end the discussion for now. Congress should get busy and fix the parts of it they on’t like. I am sure there are things that need tweaking. Why don’t they? Laziness and partisanship. I also think many of them are probably too stupid.
As for the jobs bill? Partisanship. They aren’t going to give Obama jack. Many have said so. Go back to Congress if you are looking for that jobs bill.
I am not so sure that people are unhappy with the bill. It does solve some fundamental issues with our healthcare insurance industry – pre-existing conditions, cost, access, etc. There are still issues with it and it needs to be improved and that will come in over time. Even the R ‘plan’ that was crafted last week relies on the insurance exchanges – something that does not exist today. Most people do not understand what is in the bill, have not read it and only believe the rhetoric that is spouted by the pundits.
On another topic I recently heard a pundit saying that there should be no minimum wage and that wages for people should be on par with the cost of a robot doing the same job.
That should make the surgeons who use the Divinci robot for heart surgery and prostate surgery real happy. NOT.
That’s where all of this is going. You can either swim with the tide and train our workforce to design, build and maintain said robots (a metaphor for a larger technological revolution, really) or get washed out to sea. The President says as much when he talks about the lack of bank tellers.
Things like Obamacare will accelerate the trend, quite possibly one of the few positive aspects of the law.
If the republicans want to repeal the ACA, they should try to win back both houses of congress and the White House. I doubt there will be another republican president in my lifetime.
There will not be a shutdown. Senator Cruz is too much of a chicken to filibuster Reid’s bill. The repugs will blink.
Aren’t you fairly young, Starry?
Blake Farenholdt, 27th District of Texas — Texas Gulf Coast down around Corpus Christi and Victoria. Second term. Re-elected in 2012 with 56.8% against 39.2% for the Dem and 4% for others. They seem to like him down there. But who’s the guy on the left with the creepy eyes? Oh, shoot, now I know him……
Hmmm, I didn’t realize Starry’s time was so short. Poor feller.
Elena and I have already beaten up on Chris Matthews. Give someone else a chance. Plus, he isn’t an elected official. We can turn him off if we don’t like him. (and I usually do NOT like him)
Unfortunately, Blake Farentholdt does affect what happens to us. Regardless of where he is from, we all are subjugated to his votes in Congress, therefore he is fair game. He just seemed like the horse’s ass of the day.
Some folks here never cease to amaze me about trying to deflect the attention to some place else to avoid the discussion of what a horse-hind the original person or topic of interest is. It’s about Blakey boy, not Matthews.
@Moon-howler
The issue for young people (and older people who take care of themselves) is that the cost of health insurance will be significantly higher (up to 100% higher than pre-Obamacare in some states) than it should be if they weren’t being used to subsidize everyone else. So I do take issue with forcing them to buy these expensive policies.
The big winners (other than the insurance companies) for Obamacare are those with significant health risk factors and preexisting conditions. It truly is the Affordable Care Act for them because they get to pay significantly lower rates and lower deductibles for expensive medical treatment. The very high costs required to insure these conditions are being shifted from the individual with the condition to everyone else.
The segment of society in good health with few risk factors or preexisting conditions is therefore getting screwed over. Those who have put in the hard work to stay fit and avoid choices that increase risk factors can no longer expect lower rates for health insurance. Such people will pay more for access to services that they may never use, while those with preexisting conditions will pay less for access to services that they are VERY likely to use. In essence, it is another massive transfer of wealth.
In the longer run, I do not think Obamacare will benefit even those with preexisting conditions. Since so many people will pay much more for longer periods, they will have no incentive to limit treatment in any way for their health issues. People will want to get their money’s worth. This will drive up demand for limited services, which will lead to further increases in rates, significant wait times for treatment, and, perhaps, justification for the government to ration treatment.
So I strongly disapprove of Obamacare. And given its huge price (particularly for my kids), a government shutdown is a small price to pay to try to force major changes to Obamacare.
I feel like you and I live on different planets regarding health care costs, Kelly. When I paid out of pocket I paid over $500 a month. That amount was based on getting no part paid by my former employer. It had nothing to do with my health or my age because it was basically a COBRA with a very large company. If I had been 30 and on leave I would have paid the same amount. That’s a fairly large chunk of change foe a group plan for a single person, I think. It was definitely pre-“Obamacare.”
I think you have a lot of preconceived notions about what people will and will not do that is based on opinion about the ACA rather than facts. I remember the same thing being done about the health care plan when Bill Clinton first took office. The plan was eventually abandoned because the same political people were basically against it. I don’t know, for example, what proof there is that people are going to run the system dry because its there and people want to get their money’s worth. Do people who have insurance now do that? Do people on Medicaid do that? I don’t think so.
What happens to all those people who cannot afford to pay for their trip to the hospital or the ER? They walk on their bills. In the old days there used to be judgements on them. I worked at the University Hospital in the business office on weekends, writing up mailed in payments when I was much younger and living in Charlottesville. I will never forget those green ledger cards. Some poor people came to the business office each week to make a very small payment. One fellow sent in 2 bucks every couple of weeks with a note about what skunks we were. I was young and actually took it personally back then. Now I don’t blame him. Some of those green ledger cards had been around a long time. It took those people years to pay off their medical judgements.
People refuse to pay now. I know one person who had a heart attack about 10 years ago. I think it ran about $100k and he had no insurance. he had too much income for Medicaid, he was too young for Medicare and didn’t have enough money for his own insurance. He got the bill and just told them he wasn’t paying it. He had recently filed for bankruptcy and so he had nothing much left to take anyway. Who paid? Those of us who have insurance. Our rates all go up seriously to cover cases like this. That’s the reason we have $10 Tylenol and other absurd itemizations. Our costs are driven up to the level of the absurd to pay for those who don’t have coverage. If our costs are driven up then our premiums are driven up.
So what’s fair? Is it fair to make everyone get coverage, even subsidized coverage? Is the current system fair where we end up paying for those who are going to dead beat it with our own coverage? I have always resented the $10 Tylenol myself. I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect everyone to pay for their own health insurance. It just seems like the responsible thing to do (she said conservatively).
@Kelly_3406
Moon-howler just covered the financial aspect so I’ll just say that people – young or old – never know what physical problems await them. My father was always physically active – on the SWAT team until he retired – but he had an underlying heart condition caused by rheumatic fever that he suffered as a child. He was asymptomatic until he was in his seventies but his hospital stays were expensive after that – all covered by insurance. My roommate suffered an ovarian cyst in her twenties and ended up hospitalized – without insurance – and paid off her bill incrementally for a long time. Any young person can have a kidney stone, suffer a car accident, or merely inherit a serious disease. They are just as likely to hand the rest of us an unpaid hospital bill as an older, poorer, less active person. I’m physical active, but arthritis didn’t pass me by in my sixties and a kidney stone didn’t pass me by in my twenties. The kidney stone would have been a bigger bill for society to pick up had I not been insured. Every family will have younger people who are less healthy than some of its older members.
You are right, Censored. Even though the probability of younger people getting sick is less, it sure can and does happen. Take childbirth for example. Sorry but that is really a younger person affliction. How many people have babies with no insurance? Half or more? Who pays for that? If you stick around in one place, maybe you make payments. If you are more mobile, you walk on your bill. Just that alone should be reason to insist on mandatory insurance. Hospital delivery 20 years ago cost around 10k. That doesn’t include new born costs. A few rounds in the neonatal nursery can sure jack up the cost of things.
That is also really how insurance works. The well help the sick. Take something as basic as a sick leave bank at work. Those not sick deposit days for those who are sick. You hope and pray you never have to use those days.
This idea of paying when well for when you are sick is so basic yet it is being overlooked by those who oppose ACA. Life insurance works the same way…you pay while you are alive for the pay off when you are dead. If you just waited until you were dead the picking would be mighty slim.
I just find this Republican stance of defending those who don’t want to be insured to be irresponsible. I don’t feel badly for them in the least. Its the responsible thing to do so you don’t mooch off of society.
Speaking of mooching off of society, isn’t that what is really driving the cut back of food stamps? So its ok to mooch off of society when you get sick but not when you need to eat? go figure.
Open season is about upon us and you should be getting info in the mail about how Obamacare affects your premiums. We just did and the truth is here. My wife and I currently pay $600 per month in 2013 for our non-Medicare coverage. Our premiums WENT DOWN to $581 per month in 2014 and our 2014 coverage meets the Obamacare standards. We elected to provide a higher self-insurance share which lowered our premiums and still met the applicable standards. Now this may not be the best option for everyone but it was for us. So conservative anti-Obama every things, what do you have to say now? Our health insurance costs went down……
We need to talk. I haven’t figured this all out. I don’t think I will get anything in the mail.
Another looming cost will be concierge service which some medical practices will opt to provide instead of taking all comers. A friend told me her primary doc will offer only concierge service in the future – the present patients have the option to join. For almost $2000 per patient per year a person can opt for this service and then pay cash for any additional visits. The 2 thousand is just a yearly membership fee. In parts of this country docs are refusing to take any new patients over the age of 62 in order to avoid dealing with Medicare. Everyone gets old – like it or not, deny it or not. Something has to be done with medical care in this country.
What do you get for that $2k?
@Moon-howler
I too had to pay out of pocket for about 18 months. However, we did not rely on Cobra, but rather obtained an individualized policy to save money. The policy excluded pregnancy and had high deductibles. Of course my wife became pregnant, and so we had to pay for pre-natal care and delivery out of pocket. I think the hospital and doctor were happy to avoid the paperwork, because they gave us a pretty good deal. We ended up paying less than if we had used Cobra, and we avoided any debilitating debt which is the real purpose of insurance.
I do not think Obamacare will do much for the scofflaws and poor who won’t or don’t pay.
Those who refuse to pay should have to pay up front.
I have gotten the individualized policy too. My husband lost his job and it wasn’t during open time on my policy so I couldn’t pick him up. He was right at heart attack age so we didn’t want to risk it. I have always been covered. I wasn’t even seduced with the getting on the spouses policy. People whose job is in sales for corporate America just don’t have that kind of job stability.
I am saying COBRA but I am not really sure it came under COBRA. It was expensive but I kept good coverage.
Debilitating debt varies from family to family. The person I know who had to pay maternity out of pocket paid about 10k around 20 years ago. That debt was paid for many years.
I guess the fact that it was paid counts for something. I just think everyone shoul have coverage because nothing goes to debilitating debt like medical costs.
Lighten up, kid. It was a joke.
Which kid are you talking to?
You. We are only as old as we feel.
How old do you feel today, Wolverine?
There’s no question that the Affordable Care Act is imperfect. It was originally designed as a middle-of-the-road program by the Republicans to counter Hillarycare during the first Clinton administration. It was obviously originally a give-away to the insurance companies, as one would expect from the Republicans. Some of the adjustments made by the Democrats have angered the insurance companies and their lap dog (the GOP) is now fighting like heck to kill or postpone it BECAUSE it empowers the consumer.
It will provide open competition for insurance plans on the exchanges, which should save consumers money. It will make it much easier to compare policy to policy as far as benefits and costs. It will provide subsidies for consumers that can’t afford a policy on their own. It will stop some people from getting all their health care from the emergency room, which we all pay for. There are provisions for cost control by looking at best-practice issues and promoting them. Insurance company overhead costs are monitored and controlled. Not to mention other benefits such as pre-existing condition coverage, preventative care coverage, no yearly or total caps on coverage, etc.
It’s not perfect, but it’s a start, and the GOP could make legislative changes to improve it if they really wanted to be part of the solution, as they have done in the past with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs they hated at first. But that’s not possible with a party where 10% of the nut-jobs are in control.
All of us will pay the price for those nut-jobs- the stock market took a dive already last week when the House voted to de-fund Obamacare. And it’s gonna get worse…
I am tired of the nut jobs. What I don’t see is why normal Republicans are allowing themselves to be hijacked by people who are willing to sacrifice their country and the American people.
Middleman is correct. The ACA isn’t going to be perfect. Where is the GOP? why aren’t they trying to fix the flaws rather than destroy a system that many people need.
It sounds more and more like midi-gap insurance that goes with Medicare. Again, most people love it. Yes, it has had to be tweaked.
“Congress should get busy and fix the parts of it they don’t like.”
THAT is what they are trying to do. They don’t like ANY of it. It’s not the job of the federal gov’t to force us to buy one damn thing.
They don’t know whether they like it or don’t like it. They ust know they hate Obama.
What person would hate being able to keep your kids on the policy until age 26? If they don’t like that they are simply not being truthful.
Who thinks people should have a cap on their medical expenses?
You are probably also against medicare. I don’t mind it being law to have to be insured. Why? Because the uninsured are bankrupting the country and it will only get worse.
re Moon at 2050: Because this anti-ACA is a poll-driven marketing gimmick from two years ago and no one has given it any real thought since then. Even the polling data is unreliable because it very much depends on how the questions are formulated.
What is the health care system that these particular Rs think best serves the national interest? Will it be in place the day Obamacare is defunded? If not, what will be in place the day Obamacare is defunded?
Great questions. I expect if we gave Congress a pop test on Obamacare, most of them would score an F …at least below 50%. I mean real facts, not made up bull puckey.
If ACA is the LAW of the COUNTRY, then how does Obama have the authority to withhold portions of the LAW? THAT makes no sense to me as far as I understand the meaning of a law. Obama prevents enacting X% of the LAW while Republicans want to prevent enacting 100% of the LAW. Aren’t we splitting hairs here? Neither apparently wants 100% of the LAW enforced!
The law provides for exemptions when it would impose undo hardship. I believe each exemption is of an x year duration.
There are exemptions to all laws. What do you think tax exemptions are? Same thing. How about NCLB exemptions? Not EVERY child had to take the tests.
SA, I thought that HHS had delayed an implementation date on one aspect of the program. I don’t think the Department prevented it from being enacted.
Scout, you are most likely correct as I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to how the delays were enacted, but I have heard that Obama was responsible for holding back portions of the law. So when a law is passed does it not have an enforcement date? I keep hearing how ACA will start Oct first. That sounds like an established enforcement date to me.
I think that is when people can start buying the exchanges. Parts of it have already started. It is enacted in increments.
So what evidence exists that ACA will indeed ensure that everyone has health insurance? Isn’t that the entire intent when it was being presented as a healthcare cure all? If we wind up with the same number of uninsured, then a whole lot of money, effort, and paperwork has been for not. From news reports it seems the negative effects are starting to take hold long before any positive effects have taken place.
That might be true. I am not sure what negative effects have taken hold. BS is paying less.
Your initial question is above my pay grade.
I am just sitting here watching my portfolio shrivel up with the threat of govt shut down.
I get real selfish when it comes down to this unnecessary waste.
@Moon-howler
You need to learn to move in and out of positions, harvest the profits when you have them, and suck it up and pay the taxes.
That actually isn’t good advice for people who invest for long term as in investing for retirement. You know, those idiots who invest in blue chip fairly safe stocks that aren’t particularly speculative. Its the paying the taxes that makes it not even worth while.
Republicans don’t want to pay their bills.
Republicans don’t want to pay their bills.
@Scout
Congress should enact legislation to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, but return responsibility for healthcare to the states along with a hearty apology for instituting a national healthcare system in the first place.
This of course will never happen because statist Republicans and Democrats believe the federal government has the right to become involved in anything that concerns the general welfare of citizens.
The problem with allowing health insurance to be sold across State lines is that State regulations on insurance vary from State to State. As an example: State A requires insurance agents to be registered and must meet minimum educational and experience criteria in order to sell policies and insurance companies must be backed by concrete financial instruments to prevent defaulting on policies. State B does not regulate insurance companies or agents, therefore, the policies that the unregulated companies peddle are less expensive. You, as a wise resident of State A buy the State B company’s policy to save money and receive a product that is less sound. The devil is you know where !!
Thanks for explaining all that BS. I had never thought about why.
It’s that rascally patchwork of laws again…
@BSinVA
If all the states had the same regulations, there would be no point in encouraging healthcare insurance to be sold across state lines. Your assumption is that consumers are too stupid to make an informed choice. So long as full disclosure is required, this could lead to significant savings.
I support a rascally patchwork of laws — otherwise there is no point to state government. Uniformity is highly overrated, especially when it contributes to mandated behavior from an ever-expanding big brother, nanny state.
I am one of those people who likes uniformity over important things.
Running over the state line to get real beer instead of 3.2 beer or to play slots is ok. Having to run over the state line to buy a gun, get an abortion, or marry the person you love is a little more important than that bottle of booze.
@ Kelly re “returning” health care administration to the individual states: when did the individual states last run health care programs? When did that shift to the federal government? How was that working out when the states administered the programs. Was this a real world event or something that people just imagine?
I thought that might be your answer, Kelly. Given that you had nearly three days to think about it, I expected something this elaborate.