O-Care can be Defunded


Yes, this monster can be defunded. Will be interesting to see if Boehner goes the RINO path or the conservative common sense path.

There is a link at wnd.com, if I am not successful in posting my link today. Yesterday, there was a real "slow-down" at this site (in my opinion, hacking), and I could barely get on the website, and when I did, couldn't put my link into my post. We shall see, but the story is at wnd.com about defunding BO-care NOW.

No votes yet


(guess there IS more than one way to skin a cat....)


Ok. Then what? How do they intend on controlling the cost of healthcare which is skyrocketing out of control?

Pink Slip

Step one is to regulate the insurance industry hard enough to leave welts. Like the banking industry, the insurance industry cannot possibly be over-regulated, nor can the penalties for fracturing a regulation be too severe. Dispense with fining the corporation, which is ridiculous. Fine the members of the Board of Directors personally, and include a little jail time for repeat offenses. You'll see insurance rates and practices come into line so fast you'll wonder why we ever thought we'd have a problem.

Step two is regulation of drug company profit. Simply apply the unconscionable profit law the way it should be applied and the drug companies will fall into line. Or, their executives can always be put away for a while.

Step three is to take a hard look at ER service and make sure the alternative of urgent care is available. The ER gets utilized when it shouldn't.

There's three. Add a few and let's see how it looks.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

"How do they intend on controlling the cost of healthcare which is skyrocketing out of control?"

They can't. Because there's this huge disconnect between those who consume health care, and those who pay for it.

Most workers are welfare queens when it comes to health care. That's empirically true since those people rely on employer-sponsored insurance systems, and on average, the employer picks up 80% of the premiums for said insurance. Most people don't pay the real price for their insurance (which is exposed when they are offered COBRA). So they over-consume and don't comparison shop. That helps drive up prices, in addition to insurance doing the same.

There are only two possible fixes for our fucked-up system (#1 in the world for per-capita costs, yet #37 in the world for quality of care):

1. Cancel all the tax breaks for employer-provided care, and tax such benefits (assuming any remain) as compensation (which it is). Also cancel restrictions on insurers so that they can sell whatever they like, as long as they obey basic regulations like capitalization.


2. Implement socialized medicine or universal access (that every other industrial nation has, and they ALL beat out the USA for quality-of-care metrics).

Note I said "two", not "three". Option #3 was Obamacare. That's not a fix. Obamacare kept the same, faulty employer-sponsored care system, THEN loaded up the system with more costs (which will just be passed along in premiums or write-offs in the tax system), THEN unconstitutionally told people to buy private insurance (which is unaffordable).

interstate sales from other non-domiciled insurance companies from other States, to market their health insurance business, will allow companies to thrive and costs to moderate ,without politicians ruining it.

In California, day-care has to be in all health insurance coverages ?!
Now, what does day-care have to do with health insurance ?

Just one of a million or so political interventions into a market they know nothing about.
And, all it does is to conceal the real costs behind the skyrocketing price of insurance.

Colored pieces of paper should stay out of the economics forecasting biz.
Your prognostications regarding Greece, were so far off as to be from Uranus !

Funding has no effect on the "individual mandate", where the federal government unconstitutionally tells you to buy private insurance.

Obamacare must be repealed.

Every industrialized nation in the world has soom form of universal health care. It is a form of subsidy to their manufacturers which hurts American companies when competing in world markets.

Every time this topic comes up, some naysayers pretend that only a government program is bureaucratic and rations care. WE ALREADY HAVE HAVE BUREAUCRATS MAKING HEALTH CARE DECISIONS, AND WE ALREADY HAVE RATIONED HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY!!
The bureaucrats are working for giant insurance/health care conglomerates. These corporate bureaucrats ration health care by denying or delaying treatments which are recommended by health care professionals. In addition, the current system rations health care by one's ability to pay. Health care is a basic human right!

We also have universal health care, for a very limited definition of "health care". The USA already has a form of socialized medicine. If you become so injured or ill that it's determined that you're in a state of medical emergency, then you will be taken to an ER and treated, without regard (at least, right then) for your ability to pay.

Of course, that sort of "health care" is the most expensive and least effective form possible. There's no prevention or maintenance effort whatsoever. Prevention and maintenance efforts are what make health care "care". Really, we need to re-name our system to a "health reaction" system, not a health care system.

HOWEVER... I disagree that health care is a basic Human right. There are certain minima, where we regard murder and assault as illegal, leading to the idea that people should be medically treated during emergencies instead of being dumped outside of hospitals to die. Outside the minima, we need to link behavior to care costs.

But even as a non-right, there's no particular reason not to reform our system to one that taxes and cares. We already tax, and we already offer care. It's really time to make both official instead of tip-toeing around it.

That's one fix. It's socialized medicine. But we do have recourse to another fix, called True Privatization. That means the government gets out the the care industry. Sure, it can regulate quality, like it does with food and food service. But other than that, care is totally a matter between individuals, providers, and any insurer who cares to stick their neck out in the game. No tax games. No regulatory games. No government health programs like Medicare. I'm sure you'd violently disagree, but the removal of government from interfering in the the care market would force prices back down to what people could afford. And expensive procedures would remain available for the rich and the well insured, which is only natural.

I do believe that health care is a natural human right, and should not be a matter of ability to pay.

Well, the first part is half right. We've encoded the right for care deeply into our law; so deeply that it's cultural. We've always sought to render assistance in cases of medical emergency. We don't let people die on a bench outside a hospital. So maybe your claim is 80% right. It's right enough at any rate.

The kicker is the second part of your claim. Ability to pay. Our society is weak on that. Sure, there's that Hippocratic Oath thing, which very specifically addresses this issue. You could argue that after all that training, medical professionals who take that Oath are to some degree socially obligated to render X% of care for free. I'm not going to beat around the bush about terminology. The Oath expects you to extend free care. How it's done, and for whom it's done, are just details.

But outside of the medical pro, the industry didn't take the Oath. So the ability to pay pretty much remains in force. We won't just throw you away like trash, but we will expect you to pay for your care. Devilish details, of course, follow.

It is not a human right so far as a person's right to take care of themselves first.

A person who's health problems are due to smoking, overeating, and generally not caring does not have a right to healthcare beyond attempting to save their life in a life/death situation.

You have cancer and diabetes? Sorry, that's your poor choices. I have no responsibility to ensure you have the right to treatment beyond extreme measures.


Some of your thinking on this is flawed, however. You're assuming that most, if not all, serious illnesses are the fault of the individual with that disease! Often, diseases are beyond the control of individuals and their personal habits. I have known many people with cancer who did all of the right things in their life. And what about genetically inherited diseases?
I had a cousin who was a pharmacist, found a small lump in one breast, went to the doctor immediately, and had surgery. The type of cancer was very aggressive. She died less than 2 years later. No! She did NOT smoke. No! She was never obese.
I also had a close friend who was a health "nut". He would at times talk to me about losing weight out of his sincere concern for my health. He was a runner who was always slender and strong. He went to the doctor with a knee problem. It was cancer which had spread from his pancreas! He died within months of his diagnosis.
Both had health care insurance, but what if either or both had been among those who really can't afford coverage? What if surgery and/or chemotherapy would have saved them, but was too expensive for an uninsured person? My wife is a three-time cancer survivor. She also never smoked, is quite thin, and works out regularly. Do you have any idea what the bills were for her surgeries and her treatments?

IMHO health care is a basic human right. And we are the only industrialized nation in the world without a true national health care program! BTW...despite conservative propaganda that would make us think otherwise, 82% of Canadians like their system of health care better than that in the United States. Also BTW -- Canada's current unemployment rate is almost one full percentage point below ours!

"You're assuming that most, if not all, serious illnesses are the fault of the individual with that disease!" Actually no. I am taking it from the point of the people who are not already prone to disease and not already covered. I.e. the under 30 poor and elderly are already covered by medicare and medicaid.

So, Those left are the over 30 poor until the age of 65 AND are not covered. Your cousin and friend do not fit the profile because having health coverage show a higher propensity towards taking care of themselves and thus they do not need to be a part of the discussion because they are covered.

Your assumption suggests that someone who is of a mature working age and cannot afford health insurance is taking care of themselves. This is wrong. Most if they do not get benefits or have a job by the age of 30 are most likely smoking or obsese because people who don't manage their financial life well have lower education and do not engage in preventative health. This is not from a lack of understanding but from not caring.

The only detraction for this scenario would be someone who lost a job and is in a transition period. Now if Obamacare was only expanding either medicare or medicaid to cover those receiving jobless benefits would cover this and a great deal of Republicans would consider this to close the gap but that is not what the President proposes.

In fact the biggest problem I have with Ocare is it does not address nor solve problems at the core of the Healthcare industry. It puts a band aid over headwounds until 2014 at which time the President doesn't have to answer for the large expansion and loss of freedom of choice.

Plus to think that our unemployment rate is somehow linked to healthcare coverage is disingenuious and you should be ashamed for trying to push that line of b.s.


That statement of fact was written because many, many conservatives have stated -- ad nuseum -- that the United States can't afford a true national health care system because it would ruin the economy. The Canadian statistics were stated to show that a true national health care system does not ruin an advanced economy.

For decades before Obamacare, we have covered the very poor along with those who could afford health insuance. I'm glad that you know few people between the ages of 30 and 65 who are, in your words, "poor". Our nation has turned its collective backs on the working poor. There are millions of working poor in that age bracket, and they have millions of children. Those children are often left without adequate medical coverage through no fault of their own. Their parents often have jobs, sometimes two or three part-time jobs, which do not include health care benefits, and which don't pay enough for the parents to afford to purchase health insurance. With all of its faults, Obamacare will cover more of these people and their innocent children!

Look. I could make a good case that a true national health care system, properly devised, could DECREASE the total cost of health care in this country. When people do not have health care benefits, they are less likely to go to doctors, or take their children to doctors, until illnesses as more advanced and more costly to treat. If, as you suggest, we do more preventative measures, we can reduce the overall costs as well.

In addition, those nations which have true national helath care systems are providing a very real and significant subsidy to their businesses and industries. Do you not think this places many American businesses at a competitive disadvantage? I do!

where ever they see fit ?!

This indoctrinator, doesn't know he's in America...he obviously believes he resides in China?!

Bloody, bloody, sad....

I'm surprised more people who complain about "freeloaders", aren't in favor of an individual mandate. After all, those who choose not to purchase healthcare insurance are "freeloading" (getting access to ER care without having to pay for the insurance). These costs are then passed on to those that choose to purchase healthcare insurance.

Pink Slip

Pink Slip, you're hitting a new record on personal stupidity today. If you don't use the ER, you aren't using the ER. Obamacare's unconstitutional "individual mandate" charges you for it anyway... and you don't even get it, per se, since you receive no actual CREDIT for your contribution. That means the ER can still pursue you for the bill.

So, nothing changed except yet another tax on the American people, who in the middle class pay at least 40% of their incomes already over to the government, often 50% in urban areas, and rising to 60% for those us lucky to have upper-middle-class incomes ($100K+).

Many people without insurance DO use the ER when sick. If they're unable to pay, the cost get pushed onto those with insurance through higher premiums. And it doesn't even matter if they use the ER or not. It's there for them, just like it's there for me--just in case. That's what insurance is. You don't have to use it. I didn't "use" any healthcare last year, but it was there for me--just like the ER and hospitals are there for the freeloaders. The only difference is, I PAY FOR IT--unlike the freeloaders that don't.

Not to mention the fact that freeloaders shrink the risk pool, by choosing not to pay. This increases the cost for everyone else. I'm tired of subsidizing healthcare for those that can pay, but won't.

Pink Slip

The problem comes by actually ordering people and by taxing them.

You can have a mandate without a mandate. For instance, either make all health insurance tax deductible or give a health insurance credit to those who have health insurance that meets minimum requirements. That is positive reinforcement not negative reinforcement.

When you do that there's no "I can't afford it". Now if you do that we can argue does it artifically inflate the costs of Health care? It's a good debate but what Obamacare does is essentially the same thing only through control and not incentive and that too there's a good arguement that it artifically inflates the costs of health care.


Even better as I suggested Lucas County and Ohio should do. Defer taxes on businesses that provide health coverage.

Now if you want it at a federal level.... here's what you do. Allow businesses that cover employees to pay less than the minimum wage. Since most times they argue for raising minimum wage healthcare is a big reason but no one making minimum wage uses the extra money for healthcare.


double post


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.