« Obama's Presser: Some Brief Thoughts | Main | Police Have 911 And Dispatch Tapes In Gates Case »

Fox "Hannity" tonight - "Hawaii's Universal Health Plan"

Tonight's "Hannity" show on Fox News features an in-depth look at "Keiki Care", the attempt by the state government of Hawaii to implement a universal health insurance program.

From Griff Jenkins' blog at Fox:

[T]here are lessons in the land of pineapples that seem lost on its favorite son, Barack Obama.

Hawaii was the first state in the country to attempt universal health care. It was called "Keiki Care" (Keiki means Child in Native Hawaiian) and it was stopped seven short months after it began due to budgetary concerns. Republican Gov. Linda Lingle had signed it into law, but they soon found a whopping majority of those who wanted free health care already had been insured!

You don't hear the President talk about "Keiki Care" in his speeches. So our mission was simple: talk everyone in Hawaii and find out what happened in the Aloha State.

Here's more on last year's cancellation of Keiki Care:

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

Under the expanded SCHIP program signed into law by President Obama, these children should all be eligible for Federal health coverage, so the Hawiian program would have been rendered redundant anyway.

You might also recall that in 1975, Hawaii first attempted a large-scale reduction in the number of Hawaiians without health insurance by mandating that employers provide health insurance benefits to all full-time employees:

Since 1975, Hawaii has required employers to provide health insurance to full-time employees, defined as those who maintain a work week of at least 20 hours. Employees pay no more than 1.5 percent of their wages, while the employers pay for the remainder. An analysis last month by the Federal Reserve Bank found that the mandate "increased reliance (by employers) on the exempt class of workers who are employed for fewer than 20 hours per week."

The state's law at first reduced Hawaii's uninsured rate from 30 percent of residents to 5 percent, lowest in the country. Insurance costs in lower brackets increased from 8 cents an hour in 1979 to 43 cents an hour in 2005, inflation adjusted, the researchers noted. Some employers were moved by the increase to hire part-time employees, which contributed to the uninsured rate rising to 10 percent of the population, eighth lowest, according to the Hawaii Uninsured Project.

Bottom line: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Mandating health coverage for full time employees resulted in a five-fold increase in health insurance costs over a 30 year period -- exactly the opposide of what ObamaCare is promising. Naturally this resulted in fewer full-time employees, or in other words a net reduction in wages earned by Hawaiians. Not exactly a prescription for rapid economic recovery.

Hopefully someone will publicly question President Obama about the results of Hawaii's attempts at universal health coverage. If it turns out he is "not familiar" with that situation either, then his credibility as an advocate for Federal universal health care will be fatally damaged.

...

Mickey Kaus on last night's Obama health care press conference:

Doesn't [dramatically changing the "health care delivery system"] undermine the reassuring message that if you like your health coverage, nothing will change? Sure. Nothing will change except the entire health care delivery system! Which is going to be redesigned! By experts!

... I know I'd like universal health coverage. That's been debated ad nauseam. What hasn't been debated--what have been blessed mainly by pronouncements from on high couched in euphemisms and deception--are Orszag's "delivery system" changes. I'm worried that they will result in denial of treatments that may be useful at saving and prolonging lives. Obama's refusal at his press conference to declare that all covered treatments would still be covered is an example of what people worry about. And Obama knows--or even scarier, maybe he doesn't--that the difficult decisions don't involve cheap blue pills that are as good as red pills, but treatments that are the "best" but also the "most expensive"--including cancer drugs like Herceptin and Sutent. ...



TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36355.

Comments (56)

From Obama : Middle class s... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

From Obama : Middle class should get ready for new taxes.
Obama: ' And so if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I'm going to be opposed to that ...'

Primarily funded. So if it's not 'primarily' funded, it's okay if we tax the middle-class.

So how about it, middle class? Do you want more taxes? Most of us are in a bad recession and have less money. But now we are going to have even more money taken from us.

found via Kaus

(apparently the comment monster ate my first attempt)

In Michigan, 1980-1995, I p... (Below threshold)
epador:

In Michigan, 1980-1995, I purposefully had only part-time employees to avoid adding to what amounted to a 68% tax/insurance/benefits (NOT malpractice) overhead. Hawaiians saw the light, sorta. Compare their economy to Michigan's now.

epador,So you thin... (Below threshold)
Rance:

epador,

So you think emulating Hawaii would have kept open all the auto plants in Michigan the way it kept open all the auto plants in Hawaii?

LOL rance, you have no idea... (Below threshold)
epador:

LOL rance, you have no idea what they hell I am talking about, do you?

From Obama : Middl... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
From Obama : Middle class should get ready for new taxes. Obama: ' And so if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I'm going to be opposed to that ...'

Primarily funded. So if it's not 'primarily' funded, it's okay if we tax the middle-class.

Yep. As long as the 'primary' funding comes from another source, the 'secondary' funding can be from an increased taxes on the middle class.

In order for one person to receive something without paying for it, someone else must pay for something without receiving it. TANSTAAFL.

epador,You said "H... (Below threshold)
Rance:

epador,

You said "Hawaiians saw the light, sorta. Compare their economy to Michigan's now."

That's comparing pineapples to oranges since the state economies are so totally unlike one another.

I never would have... (Below threshold)
914:

I never would have believed the people of this Country would elect an even bigger shiester than Billy bob Shlangermeister but, I see miracles do happen.

TANSTAAFL is certainly a tr... (Below threshold)
James H:

TANSTAAFL is certainly a truism. That said, if the feds can cough up a system in which the cost to me is not too much more than my current insurance policy AND can deliver an equivalent level of service, I'm willing to listen.

"Mandating health covera... (Below threshold)
The Obvious One:

"Mandating health coverage for full time employees resulted in a five-fold increase in health insurance costs over a 30 year period"

And here I thought ALL AMERICANS saw their health insurance costs rise that amount over the last 30 years.

Oh wait, they did. The cost increase had nothing to do with the mandate.

That was obvious.

"As long as the 'primary' f... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"As long as the 'primary' funding comes from another source, the 'secondary' funding can be from an increased taxes on the middle class."

Agreed. So primary will be what, hundreds of billions? I guess secondary will 'only' be billions, tens of billions?

Am I being too general with the numbers? That's okay. The Pols have no idea exactly how much this will cost, either. So it's all good.

Does anyone think it will cost more or cost less than what they say it will? Three guesses, the first two don't count.

Some people think it okay t... (Below threshold)
mag:

Some people think it okay to the tax the rich for health care....but what is consider rich?

I am sure they consider middle class people as rich. Or if the cap it at a certain amount like making 200k a year....that cap keeps dropping until it includes all of us.

Wasn't the federal income tax first sold as that...just the very rich to pay and then....look at us now.

Never give the gov't a hand in taxing you more.

James "..if the feds... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

James
"..if the feds can cough up a system in which the cost to me is not too much more than my current insurance policy AND can deliver an equivalent level of service, I'm willing to listen."

You just said you want the same service but you want to pay more for it. Is that what you meant to say?

Also, do you really think the .gov will provide you with an equivalent level of service?

Rance:The economie... (Below threshold)
epador:

Rance:

The economies are different, but the governments similarities, and similarities of problems with different outcomes is indeed intriguing in light of the vastly different social and economic frameworks. Both States do have a huge nanny state and tax structure that impairs their economy. Hawaii is saddled with the family power structure. Michigan with its unions. Hawaii does not have a Detroit. Plus the weather is nicer there. Yet they still have some BIG economic problems.

You really should not have taken the blue pill.

I would be willing to liste... (Below threshold)
Grace:

I would be willing to listen, too. But they seem to have nothing substantive to say except Trust Us. Sorry, never did, never will.
The unintended consequences of bad legislation are always the biggest problems. Discussing and dissecting bills are time consuming and critically important. Instead we hear nothing but this is something that has to be done "NOW". Ridiculous

By the way, what is TANSTAAFL? Thanks.

epador,I'm not for... (Below threshold)
Rance:

epador,

I'm not for or against your point. I'm just saying that backing anything up by comparing the relative strength of two state economies that are so radically different, would get you nowhere in Debate 101.

Hopefully someone will p... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Hopefully someone will publicly question President Obama about the results of Hawaii's attempts at universal health coverage.

And my bacon sandwich will sprout wings and take flight.

GraceThere Are No Su... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Grace
There Are No Such Things As A Free Lunch
TANSTAAFL

I think.

What is interesting is when... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

What is interesting is when you question those 'experts' about specific details, their eyes appear to cloud over and they begin mumbling. the Pork Bill was passed as an EMERGENCY! Now we're told that it wasn't meant to help the economy immediately. Crap and Tax was pushed in the House as an EMERGENCY! Now Barry is pushing ObamaCare as an EMERGENCY! Looks like the public is beginning to wise up.

James H:... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

James H:

That said, if the feds can cough up a system in which the cost to me is not too much more than my current insurance policy AND can deliver an equivalent level of service, I'm willing to listen.

Here's the rub... I don't believe that the feds can do such a thing no matter what they promise. If 'they' (Obama/Pelosi/Reid) wish to attempt such an endeavor then they should do so in a manner that doesn't involve compulsion (i.e. outside of government). They won't, however, because their plan does require the government's ability to compel people into compliance through force.

re: Grace,
TANSTAAFL = There A'int No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Thanks for the translation.... (Below threshold)
Grace:

Thanks for the translation.

"And My bacon sandwich w... (Below threshold)
914:

"And My bacon sandwich will sprout wings and take flight."

Your sandwich will then be wiser than Obama. Getting the hell out of here before "Spamulis 2..The respawning..


ha ha

clarification: My comment #... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

clarification: My comment #1
I found the quoted part via Kaus. The rest of the comment is mine.

Rance -The problem... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Rance -

The problem is, you're not in Debate 101.

This is real life we're talking about, where shit that looks good on a blackboard fails miserably when actually applied. Where the shining rhetoric used to get a crappy idea in place is completely forgotten when the crappy idea's effect become apparent.

We've already seen that the government seems to have no problems with borrowing against a supposedly prosperous future they're determined to wreck (w/Cap&Trade) before it can happen.

And with any large proposal, you HAVE to watch out for the unexpected consequences. They WILL bite you in the ass good and hard. And these bills have got sharp teeth that'll also rip bloody chunks out of the economy's throat.

Hawaii found that out the hard way, so did Massachusetts. 'Free' government health care isn't a workable option, because the money HAS to come from somewhere to pay for it - and we're already damn near tapped out with the credit cards maxed ... but our creditors are still willing to extend the credit limit, for now. We're already seeing signs that's not going to continue much longer.

Without borrowing, the only recourse is to tax. Government spends money - it doesn't create it. All the money the government spends comes from the taxpayer and those it can borrow from - and without anyone willing to lend, it'll all fall on US.

Are you willing to see your taxes go up to half or more of your income so you can have 'free' health care? Is the idea of it worth that much to you?

Do you have any idea what that's going to do to the economy when that level of taxation kicks in?

As I said - this isn't Debate 101 where you'll have a fun time arguing and at the end of the hour go off to party. What is being passed NOW is going to have effects for decades to come.

What JL said. ... (Below threshold)
epador:

What JL said.

just remeber rance, that yo... (Below threshold)
southernsue:

just remeber rance, that you live in US along with the rest of us. if this health thing passes you will be affected just like the rest of us. if any of these stupid bills pass that the demonrats are trying to ram thru, you will be affected just like the rest of us. oh and if you are a college kid, good luck finding a job, cause their won't be any.

JL, ss,Again, I'm ... (Below threshold)
Rance:

JL, ss,

Again, I'm was not voicing and opinion for or against taxes, heathcare bills, or anything else.

I simply pointed out that using the differences between the economies of Hawaii and Michigan as
support for an assertion was a reach since they are so vastly different to start out with.

What are "heathcare bill... (Below threshold)
914:

What are "heathcare bills" ? Rance, do you buy candy bars by the truckload or what?

You're one to nitpick someo... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You're one to nitpick someone's spelling, 913.5.

As for "Getting the hell out of here before "Spamulis 2..The respawning.."" -- really? Where are you off to? A flat tax Galtian paradise in the Caymans?

breaking news...A/P<p... (Below threshold)

breaking news...A/P

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delivered the official pronouncement on what had been expected for weeks, saying, "It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through."

uh oh...but, Nancy Pelosi IS "jamming something through". Does that mean HER product is not "based on quality and thoughtfulness"????

Nancy?? Hello??

You just said you ... (Below threshold)
James H:
You just said you want the same service but you want to pay more for it. Is that what you meant to say?

Also, do you really think the .gov will provide you with an equivalent level of service?

First off, I said "not too much more." If I'm paying, say, $300 a month for health insurance and the feds provide the same service for $600 a month, no deal. But if the same service comes in at $325 or $350 a month ... I'm open to it.

As for whether the government can do it, I'm uncertain. I don't think the current healthcare system is adequate. Quite frankly, I have no idea how to improve it or where to tweak it. It's so large it's beyond me.

Ideally, I'd like to see a system in which the government handles annual medical expenses beyond a certain level, whether that level be $10,000 or $5,000 per year. Beyond that, I would like peopel to be able to purchase gap insurance to cover that covers what is essentially a national high-deductible health plan.

I also think it's incredibly important to ensure that going to the doctor costs money. IMO, people tend to value a service less and overuse it when it comes for free or at a low cost. Make sure health care costs out of pocket, and we can prevent people from overusing their doctors.

As I understand the current plans, however, they don't mandate signing up for a national health plan, but rather create a "public option" that people can choose to use or not use.

To be honest, the so-called public option appeals to me quite a bit. I'm a contractor, so I purchase individual health insurance. If I develop a condition that my insurer decides is pre-existing, then I'm screwed.

Additionally, I lack the bargaining power and lower premiums that come with being part of a larger risk pool.

James H:... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

James H:

Ideally, I'd like to see a system in which the government handles annual medical expenses beyond a certain level, [em added]

your statement would be more accurately phrased:

Ideally, I'd like to see a system in which some other person is required to pay my annual medical expenses beyond a certain level,

Hypergerbilist, I was not n... (Below threshold)
914 proud to be KENYAN:

Hypergerbilist, I was not nitpicking his post you nitwit.

I was making a joke. You should find some humor in everyday living. Makes life much more bearable.

Mike, You entirely... (Below threshold)
James H:

Mike,

You entirely misunderstand my thrust. Allow me to explain.

I believe one of the root problems with our current medical system is that as medical costs have ballooned, insurers find themselves on the hook for higher and higher amounts of money for medical expenses. Naturally, these insurers respond by increasing premiums.

Essentially, my proposal above involves enrolling all Americans in what amounts to a national high-deductible health plan financed by a tax increase. Once people are in this national health plan with a high deductible (let us say $10,000 per year for the sake of argument), private insurers know that their annual expenses for a particular policyholder will be, at most, $10,000. I would hope these private insurers would adjust their rates accordingly.

" First off, I said "not to... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

" First off, I said "not too much more." If I'm paying, say, $300 a month for health insurance and the feds provide the same service for $600 a month, no deal. But if the same service comes in at $325 or $350 a month ... I'm open to it. "

So, like I said before, you want the same service, but you want to pay more. (but not too much more)

Actually, not to nitpick, but I think what you are trying to say is that you want a service slightly better than the one you have now, and you would pay a little more for it. (wrt pre-existing conditions)

I think you are using wishful thinking if you think the .gov will give you that.

Especially when you say
"As I understand the current plans, however, they don't mandate signing up for a national health plan, but rather create a "public option" that people can choose to use or not use."

As has already been pointed out on other posts, over time people will be forced onto the public system, if they leave one company to work at another they have to go on the pulic system, etc etc...
So they can say it's a choice all they want, but it will de facto not be a choice. (except for Congress and many unions. funny that.)

I work for a small contractor so I empathize with your health care concerns, but you are really setting yourself up to be disappointed if you think .gov will serve you better.


Les:I'm actually i... (Below threshold)
James H:

Les:

I'm actually indifferent as to whether my health insurance premiums go to an insurer or to a government. I'm more concerned about the health care I receive.

Trust me, I'm incredibly leary of government-run health insurance. I can already see a Republican-sponsored bill that bars using federal money to pay for birth control. However, I'm not going to automatically reject such things out of hand. I'm willing to see if they'll work.

Oh, and I see huge potential for disaster with the public option. We could very well end up with all the healthy people insured by the private sector and all the less-than-healthy forced into the "public option" by high-priced private plans. Putting the high-risk pool on the government's nickel would certainly drive up expenses there.

I keep seeing that we have ... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

I keep seeing that we have to do something about "healthcare now". Well I have a different idea. Let's step back and look at the real problems and see if there aren't alternate solutions.

The problem is described as 45 million people without health care. Let's look at this a second. 12-15 million of that number are illegal aliens. 15 million of them are those that CHOOSE not to have insurance, and the remaining 15 million or so we can assume don't have health insurance offered to them or are unemployed. And we want to close that gap of 45 million.

Let's start by deporting the 15 million illegal aliens. This takes them off the health care the rest of us pay for AND it opens up 12-15 million jobs! This is a win / win. (Or call it a double dip, we get rid of the 12-15 million illegal aliens and put some or all of the 15 million unemployed back to work, so they can pay for their own health care!)

This leaves us with roughly 15 million that don't have insurance - that choose not to have insurance. Ok, well, let's pass a law. If you don't have insurance and can't pay, then the hospitals and doctors are not obligated to treat you.

And there you have it, not only do we solve the healthcare problem, but we beat back a good hunk of the recession / depression.

Now, I am quite willing to concede that the above may not give health care to all 45 million on the first go round. But I think it will cover enough that we can look at other options after the dust settles.

And look ma, no side effects to the laws we are adding!

Hannity - I expect a fair a... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Hannity - I expect a fair and truthful look at this from him.

JH:" I'm actually indiffere... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

JH:" I'm actually indifferent as to whether my health insurance premiums go to an insurer or to a government. "

Well there are differences that you may not be thinking about, long term.

If you don't like insurer, you can get a different one. Or, worst case, you may get stuck with paying a big bill; but you will still be alive.

If you turn your power over to the .gov, that's it. You can't get another .gov plan. If .gov denies treatment, it's the law. They have the authority to enforce the law under threat of violence and/or imprisonment.

Turning any of our rights and responsibilities over to a growing gov't is something that everyone should at least think twice about.

What mycroft said.... (Below threshold)
apb:

What mycroft said.

For the mathematically challenged, 15 million uninsured is 5% of the population (well, it leaps to 5.2% after shipping out the illegals). Why is the numbnut contingent anxious to 'act now' when apparently 95% of the country are insured?

Are these the same morons that are impressed by 2 million viewers watching the same show - when 298 million had something else to do?

That's okay, jp. We don't e... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

That's okay, jp. We don't expect any substantive comments from you either. So it's a wash.

jp2Hannity is good... (Below threshold)
914 proud to call George Obama a friend:

jp2

Hannity is good fun chap. If You missed the "blue stained dress fiasco"? I pity your soul.

How You can rationalize away the lying Shameducky in the formerly stained oral office is beyond Me.

If You can come up with 1 reason to consider Him a + for the Country, I will debate You on it.

And, making discussion even... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

And, making discussion even more surreal, even Obama admits that the 45 million people without healthcare aren't really without healthcare. They are what is causing the "hidden cost" in insurance premiums that Obama was babbling about last night. So, the uninsured are being treated anyway!
In the world as Obama sees it, it's going to save us a lot of money to get those people "insured" with his plan, because then they'll go see a nutritionist to make sure they're eating right so we won't have to pay to have their foot amputated. At least that's what I think he said.
It's lunacy.

"15 million of them are ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"15 million of them are those that CHOOSE not to have insurance,"

There was a time when I was significantly underemployed, and I had enough money for four of the following on a reliable basis.

Food.
Shelter.
Utilities.
Auto Insurance.
Medical Insurance.

Yes, my employers offered insurance, but because they were mom&pop hole-in-the-wall computer shops, the premiums were really high... and the pay was rather low.

The state requires auto insurance - that was mandatory. So, I passed on the auto insurance, figuring I was healthy enough in my late 20s-early 30s to get by. Once I got into the better paying jobs, I started playing catchup on the 401K and got health insurance. (And I remember that first trip to the dentist after about 7 years. {shudder} Deep scaling isn't any fun...)

I COULD have paid for my insurance - but something else would have had to give. I knew in the event of an accident I'd be screwed - but it did tend to make me drive a bit more carefully...

"Yes, my employers offered ... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

"Yes, my employers offered insurance, but because they were mom&pop hole-in-the-wall computer shops, the premiums were really high... and the pay was rather low.

The state requires auto insurance - that was mandatory. So, I passed on the auto insurance, figuring I was healthy enough in my late 20s-early 30s to get by. Once I got into the better paying jobs, I started playing catchup on the 401K and got health insurance. (And I remember that first trip to the dentist after about 7 years. {shudder} Deep scaling isn't any fun...)

I COULD have paid for my insurance - but something else would have had to give. I knew in the event of an accident I'd be screwed - but it did tend to make me drive a bit more carefully...

43. Posted by JLawson | July 23, 2009 3:58 PM |"

The figure I quoted was based upon those that think they are "invincible" or too healthy to get sick. The category you would have fallen under would be closer to unemployed, which was one of the things I was hoping to fix in the other part.

And for those that think that my choices are "cruel". I know what it is like to pay for your own health insurance. I had to do so for time after I survived cancer, and then got a rotten paying job that did not contribute to my health insurance.

I paid EVERY dime that was owed by me to the various medical practitioners, after the insurance paid. Then I paid off the other debts that ran up during that time.

If we are going to pay all these jokers FREE health care, how about retro covering mine?

Deep scaling - know it well. That's what novacaine and nitrous are for (and yes, I PAY for the nitrous out of my own pocket).

Actually, Les, I'm nervous ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Actually, Les, I'm nervous as hell about government-funded healthcare. I don't foresee prison terms or similar for not abiding by a government healthcare decision. However, I find it incredibly likely that some member of Congress might try to prohibit federal funding for types of medicine he doesn't like. Abortions come to mind, for example.*

One possibility to explore, I think, is some sort of public-private partnership. I in interested in the notion of some sort of national cafeteria-style plan, where I can choose from several plans offered by public-private entities, to be appealing.

But ultimately, Les, I don't have a very good answer on health care. The system is so large and so massive that I either find myself looking at it from a very high level, musing about grand public or private plans, or at a very low level, where I concentrate on medical malpractice premiums or the politics surrounding a particular procedure.

Ultimately, whoever is my insurer, government or private company, will effectively be able to deny me medical care by refusing to cover procedures, thus placing them out of my reach. I'm really not sure that an insurance bureaucrat is better than a government bureaucrat at making this decision.

" I'm really not sure that ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

" I'm really not sure that an insurance bureaucrat is better than a government bureaucrat at making this decision. "

If the insurer says no, you can still get the procedure - you'll just have to pay for it somehow. If you think your life is worth it, you'll at least try to raise the funds.

If the .gov says no, then you won't get the procedure. Period. If you think your life is worth it, tough luck.

Les:Let's just say... (Below threshold)
James H:

Les:

Let's just say we're at an impasse here. I am leery of injecting the federal government even more into the health-care industry, but I'm not totally opposed to it.

Incidentally, I'm surprised you didn't break out the following line:

"You say this government has tortured prisoners. And you're willing to trust it with health care?"

Granted I know the first part of that sentence can is a bit controversial, particularly around these here parts, but it might be an effective rebuttal to somebody pressing for single payer.

FOr those in favor of govt ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

FOr those in favor of govt health care I have 3 words for you.

PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

Apply that to your health care.

We spend more money per student than most countries average income per year and have some of the worst public schools.

Now apply that to your health care.

And what is the only solution that the dems propose to fix the school systems? Throw more money at it.

Now apply that to your health care.

BTW Obama had the following to say about Reid postponing the Senate vote until at least AUg.

"Sometimes, delay in Washington occurs because people don't want to do anything that they think might be controversial,"

This from that man who voted PRESENT 130 times while in the Ill State Senate.

Now apply that to your health care.

Oh, yeah, Mike, I do have s... (Below threshold)
James H:

Oh, yeah, Mike, I do have somebody else who handles my medical bills above a certain amount. It's called my insurer.

James H:Oh, yeah,... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

James H:
Oh, yeah, Mike, I do have somebody else who handles my medical bills above a certain amount. It's called my insurer.

There's an important distinction that you're missing. The difference is that your participation in that plan involves the mutual consent of both partys. You're free to engage in any venture outside of government that you like. However, when you start suggesting that the government should be involved... what you're suggesting is that you need to ability of government to use force to coerce people into compliance.

James H:I don't f... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

James H:
I don't foresee prison terms or similar for not abiding by a government healthcare decision

If the government requires someone to either purchase insurance or pay a fine, it takes very little foresight to see how one winds up in prison.

I don't foresee prison t... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

I don't foresee prison terms or similar for not abiding by a government healthcare decision.

Don't need it. Just let the doctors know that their licenses will be yanked if they go outside the plan, and *presto* there won't be any healthcare outside of the plan. Except, of course, for witchdoctors and faith healers.

I LOVE U ALL..YOU PEOPLE LI... (Below threshold)
914 proud to call George Obama a friend:

I LOVE U ALL..YOU PEOPLE LIGHT UP MY LIFE. TY

JEFF

RM,It is the same bu... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

RM,
It is the same bunch of people that want socialized healthcare for all that also fight to keep choice out of schools. I think that argument will be a non started with them.

To liberal dems, the only choices they do like: to marry someone of the same gender and to kill children before they leave the womb.

Don't forget, SCSI, that th... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Don't forget, SCSI, that they also like choosing to support an illegitimate foreigner President.

To all: if under a public plan, a gov't bureaucrat determines that they are not going to cover a treatment, you would then be able to pursue that treatment either out of pocket, or to use supplemental insurance to cover it. That's how it works in other countries.

You people are so terrified of improving your shitty fucking health care system that it would be funny if it weren't so epically sad that greed, misinformation, and ignorance are once again going to torpedo any actual reform.

Top Ten Facts To Know About... (Below threshold)

Top Ten Facts To Know About "Obamacare"

1. Those with insurance now will pay more than their present insurance plan

2. Those with no insurance will be paying the same

3. Illegal aliens who were not covered before, will now be covered

4. Your doctor who is easily accessible to you, will be more difficult to see in the future, because of the 46,000,000 new patients with government insurance entering the system

5. You will share doctors' waiting rooms with 46,000,000 new patients

6. There is no money to pay for it

7. If you love the "turtlebahn" and the Stimulus bill, you will love Obamacare

8. If you love the bailouts, you will love Obamacare

9. If you like standing in line at the post office, you will love standing in line at the doctor's office

10. If you THINK that a new 1000 page federal bill that:

a) was not written by Obama and has not been read by a single congressman,

b) proposes a new trillion dollar government Obamacare program

c) will insure 46,000,000 new patients, including 10,000,000 illegal aliens that cannot afford insurance now and must be obviously paid for by some one else

WILL NOT affect you (who is already having trouble paying for your own insurance, let alone pay for additional coverage for others):............ then you might need to see a Obamachiatrist.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy