health coverage

The Republicans insist they’ll fight back against the pending change in health coverage; they’ll huff and puff and try and find a way to kill the movement.


It’s one thing to oppose a potential bill. It’s another all together to literally remove health coverage from 32 million Americans. It’d be political death … and I’m excited to see it.

A very good night.

16 thoughts on “health coverage”

  1. I’m sure the majority of people in America who didn’t want slavery to be abolished before the Civil War are nodding their heads with you on that line of thinking.

    The people want it, more than you make it out to be. If Ted Kennedy didn’t die or if Massachusetts didn’t come up with the LAMEST and least imaginative possible candidate they would have had 60 votes to pass it and this would have passed much, much sooner.

    It’s flawed, but it’s the beginning of something great. If you can’t understand that, I don’t know what to tell you.

  2. Nobody who says it’ll add “trillions to a (sic) deficit” has any right to use that as an excuse not to do this without acknowledging and apologizing for the war in Iraq which truly has added in excess of a trillion dollars to the deficit and counting, and instead of making us safer in the world has in fact made us less safe by creating thousands of terrorists.

  3. kab…I wasn’t asked my opinion and millions more weren’t either.

    Polls are garbage…just like NCAA Tournament seeds…just ask Cornell.

    Here’s what I know…

    Barack Obama was ELECTED president. 219 Democrats were elected to their positions in the house. Those 219 voted, as did the other 212, and the majority won out.

    That means the people were represented. You and me…we were represented.

    That’s how government works.

    And now….now…the Republicans want the bill–a bill not even signed yet–to be repealed:

    And worse, 10 states plan to file a federal lawsuit…

    When will the political games end?

    You know, I wrote my Republican congressman today and I thanked him for passing healthcare legislation.

    Obviously, he didn’t vote for the legislation, but I thanked him anyway…and I also told him I hoped it didn’t cause too much friction in his home. See, he is married to a lobbyist, a lobbyist who draws a $100K pay check from a company that would have benefited from the current system continuing as it was.

    That lobbyist used to be one of his staffers…they had an affair. That affair occurred just a few years after this Republican congressman voted to impeach Bill Clinton.

    Did I mention this Republican congressman was booted off the House Ethics Committee for his association with criminals…in two separate incidents?

    Now, why is it this Republican doesn’t want this healtcare bill to pass?

    Is it because the bill is no good? Or is it because it was a Democratic plan?

    Or is it because he may now lose campaign contributions? A lobbyist wife?

    Who knows what drives these people, but it’s quite obvious it isn’t the good of the American people.

  4. Jeff, opponents of civil rights legislation didn’t need to pay for it.

    What really irks me about people like you is that you claim to be practically falling all over yourself to pay your own “fair share” to ensure that the destitute get access to health care, but then you don’t actually do it until the government requires it. Why don’t you and the other true believers set up your own insurance fund, put your own capital into it, and then open it up to the masses, regardless of their ability to pay or the amount of risk they bring to the pool? Why doesn’t the government set something like this up, where you can voluntarily contribute your disposable income in the name of helping others. All participants get a tax credit and a thank you letter from Michelle Obama. And, judging by your moral certainty, a free ticket to Heaven.

    1. Ed, what a sad, sad, sad, sad statement. It is staggering to me how absolutely unwilling so many people are unwilling to help the less fortunate. I never, ever bring this up here, A. Because it can’t come off righteously; B. Because it’s nobody’s business; C. Because it’s just not the type of thing you bring up—but someone like yourself would be blown away by the amount of time and money my family (and many of my friends) devote to charity and assisting the less fortunate. I am beyond well aware of how fortunate I am, and want to help those who need it. And, truth be told, I love your idea. Were such a fund in existence, I’d do it ASAP—without question.

      Now re-read your post. Your basic philosophy seems to be, “Why should I give a damn?” Which is just pathetic. Truth be told, the only way health care can exist—universally—in this country is if the government takes widespread action. That’s not socialism or communism—it’s, ideally, what the government is for: Stepping in when help is needed.

      I’m guessing you have health coverage. I do, too (though mine sucks). How you can lack such sympathy for the millions who don’t is beyond galling. It’s fucking pathetic.

  5. And I still want to punch Classicist in the face.

    It’s amazing to me that someone can be so ignorant.

    Hey Classicist…maybe your tax dollars aren’t funding healthcare at all. Maybe your tax dollars are being used only for the NASA space program.

    I hate it when some ignorant ass always talks about his tax dollars being used for this or that or the other.

    Classicist, you probably make a good buck, but I hardly believe that your tax dollars will fund even just one person’s healthcare.

    Hell, I don’t want to pay for NASA or probably a couple hundred other things tax dollars support…can we talk about those things? Can we bitch and moan about those things?

    I don’t support the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. How much did that cost?

    Why are my tax dollars being used to fight a war I don’t believe in?

    Did anyone ask me? Did George Bush consult me before he declared ware on Sadam Hussein?

    You are a stupid, ignorant person. You really are.

    Gosh I hate to say crap like that…but ignorance just bugs the shit out of me.

  6. Jeff,

    My philosophy is not “Why should I give a damn?” but rather “Why do we eschew solutions that would make insurance more affordable without dividing the country and forcing one group of people to subsidize another while plunging the nation headlong into further fiscal instability without even addressing the core reasons for escalating costs?” I guess that doesn’t catch on because it’s not as succinct as your quote.

    The thing is, there are numerous things we could/still can do to make health insurance and access to healthcare services/technology more widely available. These include:

    1. Reigning in malpractice litigation trends, not only lowering the cost of services (and, therefore, insurance) but removing disincentives for our smartest students from pursuing a medical career (adding more doctors to the market, further depressing costs).

    2. Allowing individuals to purchase insurance out of state. I can think of absolutely no reason to not allow this, except for the fact that it might annoy state regulators whose coffers are depleted when people look elsewhere for less expensive insurance.

    3. Remove some of the absurd mandates. This dovetails with the previous point, but in 46 states, Chiropractor coverage is mandated. In 3, Athletic Trainers are mandated. In 17, Marriage Therapists. In 35 states insurance must cover drug abuse treatment, alcohol in 45. You can’t opt out of this, unless you move to another state.

    The Federal Government (run by “[your] party”) has elected to ignore these suggestions. God only knows why, since they could have even been incorporated into the bill without harming any of the central aspects of it whatsoever, but that’s what they decided to do.

    There is more that I want to say, but I can’t keep typing. I read this blog solely because I disagree with you on just about everything and reading such material focuses my thoughts more so than reading something with which I might agree. That said, we aren’t even speaking the same language. You are making emotional appeals while I am focused on rational decision making. Doesn’t make sense to keep talking about it.

  7. Jeff, I think Classicist just called you stupid, but that’s besides the point.

    “You are making emotional appeals while I am focused on rational decision making.”

    Here’s some rational decision making for you Classicist…what the hell did YOUR party do when it was in power? It did nothing except give tax breaks to those Americans that needed it the least. It entered wars it couldn’t pay for. Why? Did we find those weapons of mass destruction? Did we end terrorism? How about curbing terrorism? Hell, throw us a bone.

    And on to your (Republican) talking points…

    1. Hogwash bullshit. First off, let a doctor’s error cause your child to die on an operating table or force you to walk around with an artificial limb then talk to me about reigning in malpractice litigation. Doctors aren’t short on cash and having spent a lot of time around many different types of doctors in the past year and a half I haven’t heard any complain about not being able to put gas in their tank to get to work. This is such a silly argument…and a very weak talking point for you and yours.

    2. Agreed…where’s the problem?

    3. What bearing does any of this have on the country? I’m missing your point.

    I think what this bill accomplishes is reforming the way insurance companies treat its customers. No caps, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Covering more Americans.

    And here’s how we pay for it…no more tax breaks for America’s richest citizens. Let’s get out of Iraq and Afghanistan…alone the savings there could pay for healthcare for EVERY American…and probably a few million illegals too.

  8. @Steve – Yes, we should bitch and moan about those things. Some of us do. It boggles my mind that we spend as much as we do on the production and maintenance of spaceships. And let me know the next time you plan to protest spending billions on wars we don’t need and I’ll protest with you. But at least those are programs whose benefits, however dubious, unsubstantiated or small, are shared amongst us all equally.

    The issue here isn’t only that taxes are going to be raised. Tax increases are a minor point of this legislation. The problem is that while it will expand coverage, it will do nothing to control total costs. Medicare is already running huge deficits that are going to CRIPPLE US. We have debts coming due that we won’t be able to easily refinance and that are going to CRIPPLE US. We are trading our economic and financial future for health insurance coverage for 11% of our population and we’re not even addressing the main problems with health insurance in our country. And we call this reform? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!

    I like that this legislation will prevent insurance companies from pulling coverage from people when they need it most. That practice is disgusting and its practitioners deserve to be jailed. But the rest of the legislation, however well intentioned, is going to be bad for us.

    1. Ed, despite the fact that you insulted me (hey, it happens), I think your arguments are stated well. I only agree with about 10%, but at least you put thought into it. I can respect that.

  9. @Steve H (2nd post):

    I did not call anybody stupid. I just pointed out that we were coming from different places and would therefore not agree, since we’re essentially talking about completely different things.

    And I don’t know what you’re referring to when you talk about “my” party. As far as I’m aware, I’ve never been in power. If you’re suggesting that because of my opposition to this legislation and this sort of political agenda I therefore support the broad set of Republican beliefs, then you are very mistaken.

    As for your rebuttals:

    1. I’m not saying we should isolate doctors from malpractice liability – I’m saying we need to “reform” and “change” the “status quo.” As for your past year and a half running around with doctors, it doesnt surprise me that they’re not complaining, since the costs of malpractice insurance are passed on to the consumer.

    3. Incremental mandates on insurance policies = upward pressure on premiums. Mandating that an insurance plan must cover X, Y and Z sounds great when the politician decrees said mandates from his pulpit, but it also increases the gross liabilities of the insurance pool. If an insurance pool takes on greater liabilities, it needs more income to fund those liabilities or else it will become insolvent.

    As for your next points, whether or not your plan has caps ought to be an economic decision that you, as the consumer, make. As for excluding people for pre-existing conditions – by admitting someone with a greater liability to an insurance pool and not charging that person a commensurately higher premium, you are hurting everybody else in the pool. I don’t know the numbers here to determine whether or not the effect of allowing riskier plan members into a pool without matching that risk with increased premiums would be deleterious enough to be felt on an absolute basis, but it is necessarily negative to the plan overall.

  10. Jeff, I didn’t mean to insult you and I am sorry if I seemed to belittle your opinions with my rational/emotional contrast. Was not my intent. And I appreciate the kind words – I know they must have been difficult to write 🙂

  11. Classicist…the reason I pointed out the stupid comment is because I had a right wing nut job say the exact same thing to me.

    He said I was making an emotional decision–based on my experiences with Cancer and healthcare–while he was looking at the issue rationally.

    You may not have intended to call Jeff stupid, but you did.

    As to your rebuttals, we’ll have to agree to disagree. We can revisit the issues in a couple years after they have been in action for a while.

  12. I think Ted makes a great point earlier in this post. We keep hearing about how there’s no $$ to pay for this hcr. Hmm, why are we in such massive debt? Could it be the war the previous administration pushed on us that has cost $$$$ and hasn’t accomplished anything? What if the previous administration had spent the time with hcr instead of trying to find imaginary weapons of mass destruction?

    I’m sure this hcr won’t be perfect…but I honestly can’t see how anyone thinks the current system works. It just boggles my mind.

Leave a Reply