Oh, joy!
House Majority Leader-designate Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Monday that Republicans will not be seeking to completely scrap the healthcare reform law.
Cantor said there are certain elements of current law that will be included in the GOP plan, which he said will move simultaneously with a repeal measure through the House.
Provisions that Republicans will seek to retain include the barring of insurance companies from refusing coverage to patients with a pre-existing condition and allowing young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26.
[…]
“We’ve taken the positions that preserve what’s good about our system without bankrupting the country,” Cantor said.
The Virginia lawmaker, who appeared at the event with Majority Whip-designate Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and soon-to-be Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), emphasized the GOP “repeal and replace” strategy on healthcare. Cantor said early next year, the House Republican majority will be fighting for a “a repeal of Obamacare, while simultaneously pushing an alternate plan.”
Well, it’s hardly an alternate plan in any important sense if it keeps alive the fascistic aspects of the current socialist-inspired debacle.
I can certainly see extensions for coverage of children to 26 (at an increased rate of premium, for those who desire it) — just as I can see preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who’ve made regular premium payments once they’ve taken ill: after all, you don’t buy insurance just to pay premiums for when you’re healthy.
But what I can’t understand is how it comes to count as “insurance” if you are already sick and didn’t already have coverage — but yet demand coverage once you become ill. Because that seems to me is no different than simply asking insurance companies to pay your bills as if they were some sort of charity (albeit one being made to support you at regulatory gunpoint).
If the government is worried about those people born with severe medical problems unable to obtain reasonably-priced coverage (or any coverage at all), they should concentrate their efforts on providing for that small class of specialty cases.
But what they shouldn’t be doing is telling insurance companies that they have to pay for customers they are directed to take on — when there is no “insurance” being provided: they are instead merely being told that, as a condition of doing the business of providing insurance against medical problems, they must accept those for whom insurance against medical problems is not something they need. They need help paying for treatment.
Because honestly: why pay premiums at all if you can simply demand that an “insurance” company with whom you have no contract begin paying your medical bills if you happen to get ill?
One would think the GOP would recognize the absurdity of this. But I guess they want to keep what’s “popular” with “health care reform” so as not to lose the “moderates” who like them some free stuff.
Frankly, I find this rather revolting. This is crass populist politics — and it has nothing whatever to do with fighting for the classical liberal principles upon which this country was founded. If the GOP is going to do no better than the left, then screw them, too, as far as I’m concerned.
This is their last chance. They’d better act wisely.
***
update: They don’t want to beat back mandates, but Boehner and Cantor do want to fight vile vile gay art.
For freedom!
Yup. That’s what the Tea Party was all about. You betcha!
From JHo in the comments:
So let’s review: So far this week we have Pubbies folding like cheap suits on ObarkyCare, earmarks, and the FDA’s mad rush to beat out the EPA as the biggest game in town.
Looks like we have plenty more work to do.
And I haven’t yet begun to get angry.
update 2: Note: The Hill has updated its original story:
Editor’s note: This article was changed at 1:57 p.m.. The Hill incorrectly reported in the initial version that Cantor wants to keep certain provisions of the healthcare law intact. The article was revised to emphasize that Cantor and House Republicans are pursuing a full repeal of healthcare reform while addressing issues in the law, such as pre-existing conditions and allowing young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plan, in their replacement bill. Both provisions are in current law, but Republicans would deal with them differently than Democrats did in the bill that passed earlier this year.
Deal with them differently how, exactly?
Cantor is quoted directly as saying “‘We too don’t want to accept any insurance company’s denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition,’ Cantor said, addressing a young woman in the audience who noted that she had a pre-existing health condition.” Is there some magical way to turn the insistence that insurance companies take on those with pre-existing conditions into anything other than a nonsensical mandate?
Because if so, I’m willing to listen.
(h/t newrouter)
It is already illegal to drop someone from insurance if they get sick and make a claim. That’s considered fraud. (And, ironically enough, I don’t think Obamacare prevents that, anyway.)
The government set up an exchange for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance before mandatory coverage kicks in in 2014. It was supposed to help 400,000 people. Only 8,000 even looked into it.
But the whole crap about “pre-existing conditions” is this — by and large, no one is denied care. They may not get the care they want or the best care available (in this country), but everyone receives life-saving care and, to a large extent, quality of life care. Care is not insurance.
This is what frosts me about the health “care” debate. It’s not about care at all.
and Paul Ryan just sat there
The GOP won’t act wisely, of course, and no one but the liberal, the insane, and the greedy think they’re actually going to benefit from Obamacare. So I have no idea who the GOP thinks they’re winning with this strategy, unless the new GOP base is the liberal, insane, and greedy.
There’s the rub, as this sort of scheming demonstrates quite clearly they haven’t a clue how to go about it.
Health “care” reform makes me even angrier than the TSA crap, because it has an extra dollop of sanctimony covering two dollops of cruelty. It’s just cruel.
They’re avoiding pissing off the press too much while also avoiding pissing off the voters too much.
I think they’ll find the press a more forgiving audience than the voters.
Most states already have plans for people with pre-existing conditions to allow them to get insurance. I use the one in MN. They charge a bit more than I would pay elsewhere for the same coverage without having pre-existing conditions, but those are the breaks.
If you change the laws so you cannot charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, everyone’s insurance rates will increase. There is simply no other result one could expect.
Cantor has now demonstrated that he does not get it. Well, we can rid ourselves of him in two years, then.
There is no way to do that without the mandatory insurance part, the most onerous aspect of Obamacare.
You can’t preserve that without enslaving the country Eric.
Is anyone else feeling like we’ve achieved terminal velocity and the rocks at the base of the cliff are getting really close?
we’re just left to wonder if the rest of the Pledge to America is as fraudulent as the part about healthcare [PDF p. 5]
Rush made the point – if you have a pre-existing condition, and need to sign up for health insurance when you previously did not …that’s called welfare.
BTW, there is more than one way to look at a pre-existing condition. One can have a condition that hasn’t needed treatment for perhaps a year or two, and that condition can still be excluded from coverage as pre-existing. When I was looking at new insurance a few years ago, what would generally happen is that one would not get coverage for a pre-existing condition until at least a year had passed in which there were no problems from that condition.
Half steps like this screw everyone, including the uninsured. Until health care is completely privatized, with all gubmint noses out of the tent, the gangrene of socialized medicine spreads. Get out the saw.
Had enough?
Not yet we haven’t. That’ll only be on the day these clowns wouldn’t even think of foisting this sort of shit off on the public. That day is a long, long way off.
I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in Cantor.
Don’t get too bent out of shape, yet. This could just be posturing. Democrats who vote against this measure would be voting against the pre-existing conditions. And I haven’t read the law, but it there are two cases of pre-existing conditions. A) You switch jobs / move and need a new insurance carrier, but because you have Disease X, you can’t get coverage or B) You never had coverage and you decide, now that you’re sick, you need insurance.
Section A was kind of covered under the horrible COBRA act, but still allowed insurers to drop you in case you were expensive. Section B is absurd, and Jeff rightly lambastes it.
Besides, you can get insurance if you’re sick. You just have a huge co-pay and deductible.
I’m in favor of allowing people to contract for whatever they wish. If you wish to contract for covering your child to age 26 or 76, no problem. Its the mandate that’s the problem.
And as a mandate, the infantilization of the US proceeds. If they really wish to keep this as is, it should be accompanied by making 26 the legal drinking/smoking age in all 50 states and restriction fo voting to age 26 and up. Among other things that are supposed to come with attaining majority.
sdferr:
I disagree: The reason we’re fucked is that they’re following their constiuents’ marching orders.
Carin:
Him too.
The only way back to liberty is to outlaw the lobby and reign in the corporation. Start by taxing them and relieving the individual of that burden.
And their constituents are wise JHo? Or if not, then my contention the Representatives don’t have a clue what wisdom would be in this case must still have some plausibility.
Huh?
You’re being sarcastic, right? Because no corporation actually pays taxes; their customers do.
“no corporation actually pays taxes; their customers do.”
I took that as Howards point.
corporations make most of the tastiest foozle also they the make filmed entertainment products and the airplanes
I’m certainly not. The notion that some pragmatic cost-shifting justifies taxing the individual’s exchange of the hours of his life for the money to support it is about as abhorrent to the classical liberal ideal as the one that clutches of paper in the hands of central banks constitutes sound money and prevents the individual’s loss of property.
The corporation should pay tax. The individual should pay none. This is how one aids liberty.
These radical views make me an unpopular minority. So be it.
Also they sponsor sports. What would a nascar look like without Corporations?
Plain vanilla, that’s what.
No taxation without representation, the saying went once upon a time. Oh what a distant memory, no?
Obviously they are not, not collectively. The Senate is still majority Democrat, and the House only narrowly Republican in an era of impending socialist statism. There’s not a Classical Liberal party anywhere to be seen, and not a single member of either chamber openly champions the cause.
Your contention makes perfect sense if you mean it to say that this chronic condition proves congressional foolishness solely on the basis that a socialist statist is naturally a fool. If you mean it to say the majority are speaking through their critter, that washes too, assuming that majority want more of the same by another name; more of what killed the Republic.
It’s just not in evidence that these clowns are bucking popular sentiment, sdferr. Not when the only game in town is bringing home federal pork by literally any means possible.
I guess my confusion must reside in my ignorance when it was I was suggesting they were bucking popular sentiment then.
Are they bucking popular sentiment, sdferr? Are they shirking earmarks, for example?
I contend there’s no evidence that this is so, and that with decades of your state or mine beating the other 49 to and at the trough as proud tradition by now, it’s also consistent.
Have we learned, finally?
“Your state,” JHo? What the heck are you talking about man?
No? Your state leaves the pork back in Washington’s larder with all the other confiscations?
Spare me the indignation, sdferr. You know how the system works and you know I was speaking generally.
It’s easy to spare you indignation I didn’t have in the first place, so no problem there. I’m just looking for a bit of clarity is all.
So let’s review: So far this week we have Pubbies folding like cheap suits on ObarkyCare, earmarks, and the FDA’s mad rush to beat out the EPA as the biggest game in town.
What evidence do we have that in each case some combination of individual dependency and corporate influence didn’t cause these events to occur?
The gerbils should buy sponges. The cat should buy none. This is how one feeds corn.
What? Mine makes as much sense as yours.
We’re greedy. We elect our own in order that this sin is continued.
I’m sure it does, Crawford, I’m sure it does.
DON’T WORRY, FOLKS: BOEHNER AND CANTOR MIGHT NOT WANT TO ROLL BACK MANDATES OR FASCIST POPULISM, BUT THEY ARE WILLING TO DO BATTLE WITH THE GAY ART EXHIBIT THAT THREATENS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS!
We’re safer already.
I don’t think myself greedy JHo, though I’ll happily grant your right to think as much of yourself if you choose. As to sin? I’d sooner keep the religion business out of the politics business.
sdferr, in the blockquote from comment #29, where did “or mine” go from the original quote in #28?
It was important for context.
That’s real cute, sdferr.
He quoted before my edit, LBascom.
Nevertheless I continue to fail to get across the point that I’m speaking generally. See #37…
Seriously — WTF were you trying to say? Once more, taxing corporations is just a way to hide the level of taxes behind consumer prices. Where taxes are collected means jack shit to liberty: it’s the amount, and how they are spent, that damages liberty.
Baby-babbling like you’ve been doing does nothing but convince people you’re not worth listening to. Try to communicate instead.
Perhaps it’s the fault of the communicator, not the audience?
Nah…. can’t be that, can it?
Irony much, Crawford?
Search me Lee, I just copy pasted the thing without editing it beyond leaving off the initial “I contend there’s no evidence that this is so, and “. I can only conclude it has been altered.
I saw that, too, Lee. It was mightily important for context.
In regards to the update (Jeff’s #36): FUCK, FUCK, FUCK. They really do not get it. None of them.
It can’t be fixed, it’s pointless to try. Kill it all and start over. With maybe some discussion this time, thanks. And you Congressional mooks might even consider READING it before voting on it.
Yeah, right. Like that’s gonna happen.
link
Damn right context counts, and those extra words weren’t there when I copy-pasted the goddamn sentence. I don’t appreciate being accused of having edited them out either. Fuck.
The Mayans were wrong. The world won’t end in 2012; it won’t be around that long.
Tax corporations instead of individuals? Sure, that’ll work. Tax those with no vote and count only the votes of those who pay no tax. What could possibly go wrong?
No one said this was going to be easy or would be over quickly. It took a long time to build this mess, it will take a long time to tear it down.
I see, so personal income tax is classically liberal. Enumerated and all.
And we wonder why we’re jacked beyond belief.
sdferr, all was explained in #40. And if you were referring to me making accusations, I wasn’t. Just asking questions.
sdferr is justifiably unhappy with me today, LBascom.
so Boehnerfag and Boehnerfag Jr. think we elected Team R for to curate the museum exhibits?
re: newrouter’s link to the Hill update: Cantor is quoted directly as saying “‘We too don’t want to accept any insurance company’s denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition,’ Cantor said, addressing a young woman in the audience who noted that she had a pre-existing health condition.” Is there some magical way to turn the insistence that insurance companies take on those with pre-existing conditions into anything other than a nonsensical mandate?
Because if so, I’m willing to listen.
Otherwise, it doesn’t matter what the “alternate” plan is. And that was the point of my piece in the first place. Nothing has changed except for whose name is potentially on the bill as sponsor.
No Lee, I’m not referring to you. Nor OI, for that matter. Nor anyone else who happens along and doesn’t notice what’s taken place for want of the attention you two bring to the matter. I’m referring to the merest possibility that you can reasonably infer to ask a question based on the context altering change that took place without notification that a change had taken place. That’s just fucked up.
Communicate much, JHo? If more than one person doesn’t get the point, it’s the fault of the speaker, not the audience.
Oh for crying out loud, sdferr. It doesn’t matter, man: No matter what state you inhabit, it’s reasonably certain it struggles mightily to take home the pork and that combined with excess special interest is how Team R gets elected to change not a damn thing.
Take a pill already.
And what point is that, Crawford? That income tax is more or less just as I described it?
Why change the subject of my objection here JHo? I’m not arguing about whether States seek Federal largess at the ultimate expense of their own citizens. You are hand-waving again.
You’re the speaker. It’s your responsibility to get the point across.
I don’t get what the fuck you mean with your “TAX THE CORPORATIONS” bullshit; all that does is shift the means of collection and does nothing to change the cost and damage of excessive spending and regulation. Perhaps you could try to be a hell of a lot clearer?
By now only you know what you’re saying, sdferr. Expletives included because, you know, you’re all cool with it, whatever it is.
Damn, but that’s a stunner.
If I read this correctly, then it’s setup A (switching carriers and getting denied). If the government mandates the coverage, the insurer can still throw down a high deductible and a large co-pay to cover expected expenses.
The fix the Republicans are in is that they don’t want to be the guys who threw those with Pre-Existing Conditions to the wind (I can imagine the commercials in 2012 already). But by doing this they can get political cover while still giving the insurers what they need– a way to mitigate the large costs they’ll have to front.
Wanna bet on that JHo? I’m confident reasonable readers will know exactly what’s going on here. And yeah, I’m cool with that.
Damn straight, sdferr. Your reputation is at stake.
I guess everyone just thanks their lucky stars I don’t have the power to fashion ex post edits of my written stupidities then JHo, being as how I’m all about my reputation, to your way of thinking. But then, to my way of thinking and maybe considering my own reputation I wouldn’t be fashioning such edits in the first instance?
So in other words you’re unconcerned that you have to make all these concerning edits after I’ve so maliciously edited my unconcerning “stupidities” such as to concern your it’s-not-my-reputation for not editing your concerned remarks.
Is that about the hell it then, sdferr? If not, can it be? Cause that would be neat.
Personally, I think you both tend to be oblique, perhaps as a matter of form, leaving intent as a puzzle rather than clear.
Probably just me though, carry on.
You listen to the clips of the bi-partisan love fest, and you can’t help but get the impression that the real topic of discussion was all the significant things that they, the important people could do for us, the little people, if the Republicans weren’t so beholden to the whack-job fringe and it’s small-government ideals.
For the record, I’m bewildered that Cantor and Boehner would so publicly make pronouncements that, at least to me, seem at odds with what they outlined in their Pledge document; way to prove to the voters who supported you based on those promises your integrity and trustworhiness.
Jesus Christ! It’s like Fight Club around here.
And far be it from me to wade into what seems to be a contentious discussion here, but let me ask JHo a couple of questions that may be clarifying to folks like myself who are sometimes slow on the uptake:
JHo,
1) In your original comment at #18, were you using the word “constituents” to sarcastically refer to lobbyists and corporate special interests, implying that Republican Congressional types were trading their interests, in return for campaign monies, and in doing so wilfully disregarding the interests of the larger number of actual voting constituents in their districts?
and
2) In the same comment, where you call for taxing corporations and not individuals, in reality weren’t you talking about getting back to the original Constitutional model of taxation; the one that existed before the 16th amendment?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?
I am not sensing a lot of commitment.
And why is anyone surprised that “they” don’t get it? They don’t WANT to get it. Getting it means that they’re actually going to have to show some leadership, and what career legislator wants to do that?
There’s this anecdote about FDR and some labor union partisan hacks. I don’t remember where it’s from, maybe Liberal Fascism. But the point of the anecdote is Roosevelt encouraging the labor movement to “force” him to do what they all know he want to do anyway, so long as no political penalty acrues.
Time to make Boehner and Cantor and the rest listen to the better angels of their nature by putting the fear of the electorate into them.
UNCOUPLE.
HEALTH.
INSURANCE.
FROM.
EMPLOYMENT.
And there go most of your pre-existing condition problems.
Riding around this afternoon, I heard Rush Limbaugh counsel against rushing to damn Boehner and Cantor for appearing genial and willing to compromise in their meeting with Obama. He seemed to be saying that they were doing so in order to gain some advantage in the lame-duck session, and that he thought it wasn’t a reflection on their dedication to repeal/defund Obamacare.
Which might also explain Paul Ryan’s silence.
But what do I know…
You mean like not shoving an FDA expansion down our throat? Winning on earmark bans? That kind of advantage?
They’ll get the tax rates extended as is. Which they could have done anyway. And they’ll declare victory.
Because if so, I’m willing to listen.
Otherwise, it doesn’t matter what the “alternate” plan is.
Just a wild ass guess: They’re probably using Ryan’s plan for the basis for the ‘replace.’
“? State-Based Health Exchanges. Requires States to contract with health insurance plans or third-party administrators to run exchanges. Encourages States to form inter-state compacts, increasing their negotiating abilities and enhances risk-pool sizes. Requires exchanges to offer insurance plans with the same standard health benefits available to Members of Congress. Requires all health plans on an exchange to provide annual open enrollment periods and enroll newly eligible individuals. Prohibits plans offers through an exchange from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, and allows individuals to opt out of health care. Exchange requirements include:
– Auto-Enrollment…
– High Risk Pools…
– High Risk Pools…
– Transparency Networks.”
My guess is that this is the quid to get the pro quo of interstate insurance, something that would go a long way to actually lowering the cost of hcare and insurance. Definitely not the perfect libertarian package but I’ve always figured that if the GOP didn’t actually address the high-risk pools the angry gramps and grandmas would topple the GOP’s momentum and opt for the slouch towards NHS.
Cheers, and in the spirit of this thread, fuckers!
My take Bob, is that Rush was offering the Boehner-Cantor rationalization for floating the “business-as-usual” trial balloon, without himself endorsing that rationalization. The faster we shoot that puppy out of the sky, the better, in my opinion. Make them do what they’re afraid to do by giving them a bigger fear.
dicentra posted on 11/30 @ 2:47 pm
UNCOUPLE.HEALTH.INSURANCE.FROM.EMPLOYMENT.
Again, the plan:
“? Portability. Allows individuals to carry personally owned insurance through changes of jobs or residences.
? Interstate Purchasing. Allows individuals who reside in one State to buy a more affordable health insurance plan in another State. Likewise, health insurance plans would be able to sell their policies to individuals and families in every State, as other companies do in every other sector of the economy.”
Again: why would anyone purchase insurance if they can’t be prevented from purchasing it when needed — and they can’t be denied.
That’s not insurance.
Well JeffG,
I was in and out of the car a lot, so I didn’t really hear what advantages he was referring to, aside from the tax rate extention.
But you’re right about the shameful FDA expansion that went down in the Senate today, as well as the aisle-crossing on rejecting the earmark ban for the remainder of this session. I only hope that the FDA bill get’s sidetracked in conference long enough for this congress to expire and the next to reject it. But that may be wishful thinking.
I don’t see much that the Republicans will be able to do in the House during the lame-duck session, if the Democrats are determined to see their agenda through; nor in the Senate. All they can do is argue principle and try to sway others who will have to face re-election in 2012.
The only issues Boehner and Cantor will be able to really influence will be the 2011 budget, if the Democrats decide to actually write one up and extending the current tax rates.
“The only issues Boehner and Cantor will be able to really influence will be the 2011 budget, if the Democrats decide to actually write one up and extending the current tax rates.”
Aaannnd, save Christmas from the homoeroticism.
Don’t forget that.
One would think the GOP would recognize the absurdity of this. But I guess they want to keep what’s “popular” with “health care reform” so as not to lose the “moderates” who like them some free stuff.
That’s as good a summary as any as to why “pragmatism” is ultimately self-defeating.
Yes and no, respectively. I am not convinced that the voter doesn’t side with the relatively local interests that have corrupted national politics. When it comes to money, folks tend to fall into line, not least because they all feel violated and dammit, they’re owed. Put another way, if there were a groundswell of “conservative” action, wouldn’t we see a real change in national parties that went beyond D vs R, and with the recent election fresh in our minds, also went beyond it damn convincingly? Because this one has not, not by result and not by affiliation.
Yes, more or less.
Yeah Lee,
I would have been better with them calling for defunding the Smithsonian save for, perhaps, underwriting the operations of the buildings themselves.
Let the museam content and staffing be paid for by philanthropists and out of their endowment fund.
Becuase as you correctly noted, the way they’re doing it smacks of grinding social axes. And I say that as a certified God-bothering xtianist.
Harry Reid would agree with you, if you could beat the truth out of him, that is.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/11/30/dense-pack-2/#more-11326
I think one issue they can legitimately address/regulate is recission.
It’s not business either. It’s “Gun to the Head Socialism”.
“Is there some magical way to turn the insistence that insurance companies take on those with pre-existing conditions into anything other than a nonsensical mandate?”
To me, it looks like it could be what was described in #64…. or something requirinng a Black Mass and lots of darck magicks.
Because honestly: why pay premiums at all if you can simply demand that an “insurance” company with whom you have no contract begin paying your medical bills if you happen to get ill?
We’ve gotten used to having insurance companies pay for our wellness checkups, and not just unexpected illnesses and injuries. We got to this point inch by inch.
“Is there some magical way to turn the insistence that insurance companies take on those with pre-existing conditions into anything other than a nonsensical mandate?”
High risk pools
FTA:
“This approach to covering pre-existing conditions would not be inexpensive, of course. But its price tag would be tiny compared to the recent health-care bill’s. And using high-risk pools to cover people who are uninsured because of pre-existing medical conditions would not cede all power over our health-care system to bureaucrats in Washington.”
Read the rest when you have some time.
Goddammit, I got another cold … fat lot of good ObamaCare has done me!!! Where’s my cure for the common cold, you WhiteHouse biatches …along with paying my gas and mortgage.
hi Darleen here is a music
it was on the show with the vampires I never seen it but maybe someday I will you never know
[…] Also on record as being in favor of fuzzy kittens, pretty girls, strong drink BLOGS & STUFFProtein Wisdom: Cantor Said WHAT?Tim Cavanaugh: Disorganizing For AmericaJawa Report: GOP Complaints Get Ant-Covered Jesus Pulled […]
Sort of a light, airy sound, ‘feets, but I’m afraid Ms. Goldfrapp doesn’t get much sunlight, a child of the night life. I knew quite a few of those. Some turned out well.
#2
Of course not , ella. It has always been about control. No government has ever done anything ‘for your own good’.As an example I give you social security.
” Is there some magical way to turn the insistence that insurance companies take on those with pre-existing conditions into anything other than a nonsensical mandate?
Because if so, I’m willing to listen.
Otherwise, it doesn’t matter what the “alternate” plan is. And that was the point of my piece in the first place. Nothing has changed except for whose name is potentially on the bill as sponsor.
this is really very simple. If you HAVE insurance, and need to change jobs … continuing coverage – health care providers must accept any pre-exisiting condition.
those w/o health insurance who suddenly find themselves sick? It’s called welfare. There may be lines, and you aren’t gonna get a private room. Thems the breaks. This is the ONLY way to care for those who won’t care for themselves (financially).
As a side note – my bil tallied his wife’s health care costs over the last 14 years or so. We’re up to over $6 mill. She just got admitted to the hospital for 45 days – her feet won’t heal because she drinks so too much that it kills the antibiotic. These kind of decisions are killing out country. SHE doesn’t give a shit, why should you and I pay? She drinks about a fifth a day. She pounded the drinks before she was admitted. But, heh, it’s only our money, right?
If only they could figure out how to cut costs. It’s a mystery.
If I didn’t make it clear, her medical bills have been picked up by us for the last 14 years.
She’s had her entire mouth replaced (implants) twice. The first set didn’t “feel right”.
Aaannnd, save Christmas from the homoeroticism.
Speaking of which, do you guys think I could become an artist by taking pictures of the dogshit in my yard?
I don’t think it’s been done before.
It’ll be a statement about consumerism and banality of suburban life. Of course, I’ll have to have a little blurb under each picture explaining that.
Nothing says effective art like description cards accompanying it.
Anger: So it begins……
Republican “leadership” has already started the walk-back of the “Repeal Obamacare” pledge. House Majority Leader-designate Eric Cantor (R-Va.): Speaking to more than 100 students at a town hall event at American University in ….
Sounds like a good project for Big Journalism or Big Government: see what kind of insanely ridiculous project you can get approved for NEA grant money.
Here’s some good news: the FDA has recalled Darvocet and Darvon.
My wife uses Darvocet to control the pain from RSD, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, and has been using it for the last 7 years with no ill effect.
The recall was in response to a petion from “Public Citizen” the reactionary leftist group founded by Ralph Nader.
Thanks a lot, assholes, now my wife is in a panic trying to track down her neurologist in order to get a replacement pain medicine.
One that will have actual side effects, unlike the Darvocet.
Article, in case there are people who don’t know what the hell I meant by this.
Carin,
Back in ’96, Stuart Davis released a little gem called Nomen Est Numen, which included the song Stephen’s Exhibition:
All these years later, I still love the song and the record.
America the failshit:
and to think this loser little country once put a man on the moon
Five year plan is it? Do they even recall the echoes?