Rebane's Ruminations
September 2013
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

[Representaive McClintock made the following speech on the floor of the House today 28 September 2013.  It is here reproduced in its entirety.  gjr]

Tom McClintock (R-CA4)

Mr. Speaker:

            A crisis is not a good time for inflammatory rhetoric and ad hominem attacks.  I will simply say that yesterday, the President missed an opportunity to bring both sides together.  That responsibility now rests solely with us.

            Nobody on the Republican side of the aisle wants to see a government shutdown or a credit default.  And I am confident that nobody on the Democratic side wants to see millions of Americans lose the health plans they were told they could keep; or see their healthcare costs skyrocket, or lose their jobs or work hours because of the unintended consequences of Obamacare.

            But these events — that nobody wants to see — are now unfolding.  They will do great damage to our nation that nobody on wants to see happen. 

            If we agree on these fundamental issues, our course should be clear and is only blocked by the kind of partisan division that we heard yesterday from the White House. 

            We can avert these calamities and redeem this institution if we can put aside the name-calling for a few days and get down to business.

            The good news is that we have a process of government that has evolved over centuries that is very good at resolving differences of opinion within and between the two houses of Congress. 

            And in this case, there shouldn’t even be much to resolve: ALL OF US want to see the government stay open; ALL OF US want to see the government’s credit preserved; ALL OF US want to see Americans protected from losing health plans they want to keep; or from being socked with crushing premium increases; or from losing their jobs or having their hours cut back.


            If we are all agreed on these objectives, isn’t the appropriate course self-evident?  Senator Manchin seems to have laid it out very clearly the other day:  a temporary Continuing Resolution to keep the government open; a temporary increase in the debt limit while we complete the normal appropriations process; and a temporary delay in Obamacare until the unintended consequences of its mandates can be corrected.

            Is that so unreasonable?  After all, this Administration has already exempted big corporations and more than a thousand politically-connected groups from the Obamacare mandates. 

            More revealingly, the Administration has protected members of Congress from its crushing costs.  That ought to be the ultimate wake-up call: if members of Congress can’t afford to meet Obamacare’s costs, how do we expect the average American to do so?   Why not give EVERYBODY the same relief by delaying these mandates until the law can be replaced with provisions that actually fulfill the promises made to the American people when it was enacted?

            I don’t like Continuing Resolutions at all.  Congress has a responsibility to superintend the nation’s finances, and it has developed an appropriations process that requires painstaking review of every expenditure of this government.  That review involves countless hours of committee work, scores of hours of floor debate and hundreds of individual amendments.

            Continuing resolutions cast aside this work and abandon Congress’s responsibility over the nation’s finances.  They shift enormous authority to the executive branch that the Founders never intended.  

            I had hoped to be done with continuing resolutions.  Those who enacted Obamacare no doubt hoped it would lower health care costs and help the economy.  Sadly, events in this imperfect world can often disappoint and transfigure our fondest hopes.  We have not completed the appropriations process; we need additional time to do so and we need to correct the damage being done to existing health-plan holders and employees by Obamacare.  

            If we all agree on these objectives our course should be clear to us all.  We should fund the government long enough to complete the normal appropriations process and we should delay Obamacare long enough to preserve the jobs, working hours, and existing health care policies of the millions of Americans who are now losing them. 

            So let’s cool the rhetoric and do what this institution is designed to do: come together in support of the objectives upon which we all agree — for the good of our nation and the people who have trusted us with its care.

Posted in ,

185 responses to “Rep McClintock on Resolving the Healthcare and Fiscal Dilemmas”

  1. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    McClintock is the king of rhetoric. So much hypocrisy from such a trivial player in Congress. I don’t often agree with McCain, but he makes more sense then the entire GOP House.
    McCAIN: I’d remind my colleagues that, in the 2012 election, Obamacare, as it’s called — and I’ll be more polite, the ACA — was a subject that was a major issue in the campaign. I campaigned all over America for two months, everywhere I could. And in every single campaign rally I said “we had to repeal and replace Obamacare.” Well, the people spoke. They spoke, much to my dismay, but they spoke and they re-elected the President of the United States. No that doesn’t mean that we give up our efforts to try to replace and repair Obamacare. But it does mean elections have consequences and those elections were clear, in a significant majority, that the majority of the American people supported the President of the US and renewed his stewardship of this country. I don’t like it, it’s not something that I wanted the outcome to be. But I think all of us should respect the outcome of elections, which reflects the will of the people.

    Like

  2. Barry Pruett Avatar
    Barry Pruett

    This article is going to attract all of the liberal flies. You do know that…lol.

    Like

  3. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    How true Barry. The flies are already buzzing here.

    Like

  4. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    Barry do you disagree with McCain? This article has also attracted conservative hypocrites too. I guess it cuts both ways.

    Like

  5. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    So Ken – ‘the people’ vote to renew slavery for folks of African descent. And you think we should all ‘respect’ that. Good on you, boy! A man of principle. I know all the lefties have reverently respected all of the R’s that have been elected over the years. What a crock of cow waste. Obamacare is designed to wreck the established system of paying for health care as well as taking down the health insurance industry and a massive transfer of wealth from producers to takers. It is a planned step towards socialized, govt run, health care. That’s what Obama said he wanted all along. “You can keep your current health care” “I won’t raise taxes one dime” “It will save you $2500 a year”. These are already proven lies. It’s not hard to sell a product when you are exempt from consumer protection laws and contract law. Just lie and lie. I think we are seeing in the unions a lot of buyers remorse. Too bad most of them haven’t got the honesty to admit they were snookered and they should get a break from Obama along with a break from Obamacare.

    Like

  6. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    Scot you gotta be kidding. Did I say anything about slavery. As I stated,the conservative hypocrites run smock. The crock of cow waste begins with McClintock. The proven lies start with the Rs in the House. Pathetic waste of space, and Tom is the biggest waste.

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Scott the lying commie bastards are the democrats and now the world is getting to see where these slime buckets hide. Watch SPAN and listen to these scum liars from the left. We have a bunch right here in River City too.

    Like

  8. rlcrabb Avatar

    Ah! Can you feel the hate? The contempt? It’s like a bonfire that’s about to consume a once-great nation. Too bad. It was nice while it lasted.

    Like

  9. Fuzz Avatar
    Fuzz

    Gentlemen, please!! Let’s keep invective out of this and stick to issues and solutions! …. or maybe I’m just too tame. Calling someone an “ignorant, greedy, red necked, tea bagging, hypocrite bastard”, and vice versa, doesn’t get us anywhere. The political and economic divide in this country is bad enough. Let’s not splash in the cesspool but cogently discuss the pros and cons of policy. If Obamacare is trying to address something missing or harmful to healthcare consumers, then what’s the problem and what are possible solutions. I’m a free market guy but the free market, on its own, isn’t always a successful solution to a problem. Sometimes it takes a hybrid solution and sometimes pure government. Sorting out the differences is our task.

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar

    What would Professor Turguson have had to say about Obamacare?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5k6toS7i8
    Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night. Personally, I don’t see how the administration is going to rationalize why it’s OK to negotiate with Iran’s leadership but not with the Speaker of the House and those related 2014 election commercials will practically write themselves.

    Like

  11. MikeL Avatar
    MikeL

    Ken what did McClintock say in his speech that is antithetical to his voting record or his political philosophy? My biased eyes did not read anything in his speech that would lead me to push the hypocracy button. Please enlighten me.
    McCain is an old fart that is lacking in spine to stand up for principles. Pretty soon he might even join in with Harry Reed in calling those that actually like the Constitution arsonists and extremists.

    Like

  12. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Mr. Jones: You have taken contempt prior to investigation to a new level. If I was a ruthless person, I would repeat the words Fox News or Tom McClintock (R-CA4) 3 times on every sentence just to see your head do the Scanners thing.
    The people elected Tom McClintock (R-CA4). We should all respect that.

    Like

  13. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I have decided to meet the liberal left with their own words from the opposite direction. Not very pleasant is it? But since they owned the media all these years Americans never got to hear their vitriol and namecalling. Now we can. If those in the mushy middle can’t hack it then I say too bad.
    Ken Jones is a democrat operative and he has actual hate for anything conservative. He lets us know all the time with his words. As soon a person from the right gives him tit for tat, then the conservative is way out of line. Judged by all to be a bad person. Too funny.
    I remember once smokinga cigarette outside the doors of the Rood Center after a hearing where I agreed and voted with the folks from the Ridge on a K Housing issue and one of them, a tall scraggly fellow, came up and yelled and wagged his finger in my face and called me a Nazi! I supported his position! I figured their is truly a great divide in smarts and told him to shut his pie hole and go read the transcripts. He was a affecionato of Crabb cartoons. (not really but you get the point?)

    Like

  14. rlcrabb Avatar

    Gentlemen, this year I got to see the ACA up close and personal . My working wife was finally able to purchase insurance that had been denied before due to preexisting conditions. Because she was able to visit the doctor, she was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition that demanded immediate attention. In the old system, she would have had a heart attack and ended up in the emergency room or the morgue. So I can say, without reservation, that Obamacare saved her life.
    On the other side of the coin, I also got to see the bill, which at this time is well over $400K. Obviously, it would have bankrupted us. I doubt that any charity would have been able to pony up that kind of dough. And I can see that no matter what the Dems say, this is unsustainable when you factor in the number of previously uninsured people who are going to benefit from the new law.
    The Republicans would do better to work toward fixing the broken system rather than grandstanding. It’s obvious who is going to get the blame for shutting down the government. If you want change, you have to get elected, and the way things are going, you’ll be lucky to hold on to the house, much less retake the oval office and the Senate. Geen eggs and ham, indeed.

    Like

  15. fish Avatar
    fish

    So I can say, without reservation, that Obamacare saved her life.
    How much did the insurance cost RL?

    Like

  16. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Good point Bob, and more anecdotal evidence: my company provides health insurance for about 20 employees and 10 dependents. For the first time in the 10 years I have been involved in purchasing our health insurance (our renewal date is August 1st), which maintained the same or a slightly better benefit level and is the same policy a typical small business would buy, our per person health care cost actually went down. That was largely due to competition between insurers leading up to the beginning of the health care exchanges. I suspect that as the evidence actually comes in in California we will see a similar trend amongst small businesses.
    The problem with Mr. McClintock’s position is that, although he was elected in the district, and I am sure he is primarily hearing from people who want to kill the ACA, he is voting against the best interests of the vast majority of his constituents, and once the ACA goes into effect they are gradually going to realize that, making him even more out of synch with the vast majority of moderate constituents that he represents, but rarely rubs elbows with.

    Like

  17. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    But I do think that Mr. Pruitt was prescient about what attracts flies.

    Like

  18. MikeL Avatar
    MikeL

    RLcrabb,
    While I am very glad that your wife had her life saving treatment, I am not sure how the rest of society will absorb the cost of treating the thousands of others with similar $400K maladies.

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar

    We continue forward in this discussion with the unanswered charge that the Repubs along with other conservatives/libertarians have proposed no better alternative to Obamacare. That is a patently false assertion foisted by Team Obama, the lamestream, the Dems, and local acolytes. Such alternatives have been discussed in these pages for the last 4+ years. And if you want a snootful, just google ‘alternatives to Obamacare’.

    Like

  20. Gregory Avatar

    RL, the Repubs in Congress did get elected, and they have the power they are exercising.
    The insurance Mary Ann was allowed to buy was charity. The insurer knew that barring a miracle (from their point of view, something akin to a comet impact on the Crabb home) it was going to cost far more than the premiums but they could either make the deal and figure out how to squeeze more blood out of the greater turnip later, or leave the business. Time to put the screws to the turnips out there.
    Many, including TP’s in Congress, think there is no fixing Obamacare. Dems who want it to all collapse and be replaced with the single payer they wanted all along agree; the only difference is the timing.
    The price ‘competition’ among approved plans is often in the underpinning that is hard to see… the size of the network of providers that are in the plan, and believe me, you do not want to go out of network. Fewer in network doctors, and they are the ones who charge less. Care will be rationed, by cost, by wait and by quality no matter the system that is in place.

    Like

  21. fish Avatar
    fish

    Good point Bob, and more anecdotal evidence: my company provides health insurance for about 20 employees and 10 dependents. For the first time in the 10 years I have been involved in purchasing our health insurance (our renewal date is August 1st), which maintained the same or a slightly better benefit level and is the same policy a typical small business would buy, our per person health care cost actually went down. That was largely due to competition between insurers leading up to the beginning of the health care exchanges. I suspect that as the evidence actually comes in in California we will see a similar trend amongst small businesses.
    The problem with Mr. McClintock’s position is that, although he was elected in the district, and I am sure he is primarily hearing from people who want to kill the ACA, he is voting against the best interests of the vast majority of his constituents, and once the ACA goes into effect they are gradually going to realize that, making him even more out of synch with the vast majority of moderate constituents that he represents, but rarely rubs elbows with.

    Congratulations Steve…even though anecdotal evidence is frowned upon here…(not me by the way) yours is an interesting data point. Any comments regarding the doubling and tripling of premiums reported elsewhere?

    Like

  22. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Ken – I never claimed that you said anything about slavery. Please get an adult to help you read the posts here.
    And for RCrabb – ‘The Republicans would do better to work toward fixing the broken system rather than grandstanding.’
    Actually Bob – the Rs have tried repeatedly to lower the cost of health care, but have been slapped aside by the Ds. Yes – they did have the chance – once – for a couple of years and they didn’t do it. That was when the ‘responsible’ middle of the road type of ‘good’ Republicans ran things. The type of Rs that you lefties say you want. Another major reason the Tea Party arose. Getting insurance despite having a pre-existing condition could have been part of comprehensive health care reform negotiated openly and in an honest manner. Did you ever ask yourself why it has to cost $400,000? If maybe there is another way? Did it ever occur to you that once we have millions of non-producers that have run their health into the ground show up for their ‘right’ to multi-hundred thousand dollar health care we might run into a bit of a problem as to how we will pay for it all? Or if we’ll even have the health care professionals and care facilities in place for all of them? Basically, you like Obamacare simply because you got yours. Fair enough. I know a lot of folks that are losing their doctors and current providers that they don’t want to lose. My aunt has been battling cancer for years and has lost the doctor and staff that have done so much for her because of Obamacare. She is not in great condition to start hunting for another doctor that will take her case and get up to speed quickly. In the meanwhile, she is suffering. It will get worse as we go forward with this socialist travesty.

    Like

  23. Gregory Avatar

    ” Dr. Barbara L. McAneny, a cancer specialist in Albuquerque, said that insurers in the New Mexico exchange were generally paying doctors at Medicare levels, which she said were “often below our cost of doing business, and definitely below commercial rates.”…
    Even though insurers will be forbidden to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, they could subtly discourage the enrollment of sicker patients by limiting the size of their provider networks.”
    Et tu, Grey Lady?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Like

  24. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    Scott you are not any type of an adult to lecture anyone. You use insult every time to support you argument. One of the principle reasons I should not post here. Your attempt to draw a correlation between support of slavery and the ACA is truly moronic. My dislike of McClintock stems from his hypocrisy when he “represented” our district. I can point to multiple examples of abject hypocrisy, but the conservatives on this site all will start the typical insult chain, making any response futile.
    Todd loves the insult, he has no other informed response. He is an embarrassment. The only one to ever call out Todd for his BS is Gregory. The rest of you are crickets. And Todd as I stated numerous times, I am NOT a Democrat, never have been. And as Steven pointed out, we all know what attracts flies, and this site is a plenitude of material for flies.

    Like

  25. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Mr. Jones. And your point is? Disagree with the premise again? Thank you for showing your maturity in adulthood by refusing to counter specific arguments by citing facts and resources and resort to the name calling that you so decry.
    You, sir, are special and you are a child of the universe and you have a right to be here.
    https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/1229826_10151651483715911_773039740_n.jpg

    Like

  26. Gregory Avatar

    Ken, while I have called him on it, he’s pretty much just presenting a mirror image caricature of the left, some of it intentional.
    KJ, in short, you’re worse than he is.

    Like

  27. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    Greg I could care less what you, Tozer, fish or any of the typical and usual contributers post about me. I consider the source, so no amount of insult affects me. Yeah condone Todd, that alone speaks volumes about the type of dialogue this site supports. Todd is hardly smart enough to present a caricature of the left, so if you believe that Greg you are in fact much worse than Todd.
    Enjoy the day.

    Like

  28. rlcrabb Avatar

    First, to answer Mr. Fish’s query, she pays $500+ a month. That’s hardly chicken feed when you consider our income. I can’t afford it. To Scott: Exactly the response I expected from you. “I got mine.” You seem to be arguing a point that I already acknowledged. Yeah, the numbers don’t add up. While you guys keep playing the blame game, at least the Dems got the ball rolling after the concept floundered through every administration from Truman on. The sad thing is that now we have both camps so entrenched in their ideology that even if the GOP could repeal ACA, they’d never get to first base with their own convoluted replacement. A pox perpetuated by both houses, with no cure in sight.

    Like

  29. Gregory Avatar

    “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.”
    -President Barack Obama to the AMA convention, 2009
    Then there’s this Obama speech last night:
    http://www.hulu.com/watch/539029

    Like

  30. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Fish, at least I differentiate between anecdotal evidence and fact based studies of the effects of the ACA. I wonder if others have done similar fact checking on the effects, or merely attribute loss of medical care for an ill aunt to Obamacare without really knowing what the cause is.
    The key to the ACA is cost containment; meaning that treatments like the ones Bob’s wife was fortunate to receive because her heart condition could not be defined as a pre-existing condition, should be cheaper, and those prices controlled by legislation.
    To understand the cost containment provisions you have to understand what the ACA will actually do.
    First, due to the expansion of the pool of insured, and the fact that many of them will be younger and healthier, the number of people covered will spread risk and reduce costs across the board. Almost all Americans will be be required to be insured in some form. Each person who is required to but doesn’t purchase coverage will face a penalty, which is either 1 percent of your annual income, or $95 — whichever amount is greater.
    Second, if one has an income up to 400 percent of the poverty level and you don’t receive health benefits through your employer (or through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or military coverage) you will qualify for a non-cash government subsidy — a break on premiums in the form of tax credits available. This will bring millions into the system.
    Third, if one has a family income below $23,500 you will qualify for Medicare, so at least basic levels of coverage will be available to people who cannot afford health care otherwise….this reform is tied the to the next….
    Fourth, the ACA focuses and dramatically expands preventative care, meaning that cases like Bob’s wife’s case could be intervened with earlier, reducing cost and improving the effectiveness of treatment, and reducing emergency care costs from the uninsured. Right now those of us who have health insurance are subsidizing those who have no insurance.
    A recent study from the Commonwealth Fund found that between 2003-2010, “What we saw across the states was an average increase in premiums of 50% over that seven year period, and the employee share of premiums went up even faster, because employer shares dropped, so employee share went up 68 percent for a single person plan and 63 percent for a family plan. Total premiums now equal or exceed 20 percent of those incomes.”
    My own anecdotal evidence tracks with these figures: I just looked at the figures in our annual budgets and between 2003-2010 my cost to insure staff per person for roughly the same coverage went from roughly $3500 per person to about $7000 per person.
    So the issue is not will premiums go up, it is whether or not the ACA will slow or reverse the rate of increase gradually in the next decade by expanding the pool, covering pre-existing conditions, and focusing on preventative care.
    The bottom line is that we had try to do something to control the rate of increase or we would have been in a situation where more and more people were falling out of coverage. That would have terrible consequences for every other area of our economy.
    In my humble opinion we should have gone with a straight single payer system, but what we got is way better than the way it was going. If insurance costs had continued to increase at the previous rate in the next decade, I simply would have been forced to eliminate health insurance.

    Like

  31. Gregory Avatar

    “Greg I could care less what you, Tozer, fish or any of the typical and usual contributers post about me.”
    First, the correct grammar is “I could not care less”. Second, if you could not care less you’d not be here slinging your usual effluent into the fan.
    RL, so, Pelosi and Reid had to destroy the health care system in order to save it? Shades of McNamara.

    Like

  32. Ken Jones Avatar
    Ken Jones

    Greg so you are a grammar cop too? What a narcissist. You really need to get a life Greg.

    Like

  33. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    “The insurance Mary Ann was allowed to buy was charity.”
    Posted by: Gregory | 29 September 2013 at 08:34 AM
    I think this statement is really illustrative of the problem Republicans and some Independents who act like Republicans like Gregory have with this issue.
    The idea that basic health care is charity, that in one of the richest nations in the world pooling and spreading risk is charity, is so laughable and out of touch with real Americans, that they cannot get traction. We pool risk for cars, homes, floods, fires, earthquakes, and a dozen other things. What Gregory is basically advocating is that private companies should decide who can be in the risk pool, even though those not covered end up getting paid for by the government, because we are not willing to tell Bob’s wife that she should find a quiet place and die. Let me see if we really understand this–we have laws that require that all automobiles be covered by insurance so we don’t have to pay the cost of getting hit by the uninsured but we won’t extend that same theory to people, whose cost is exponentially higher?

    Like

  34. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Mr. Gregory. Your NYT article is nothing new, except coming from the NYT instead of other sources gives it more credence to the masses.
    I shutter to think of millions of my fellow countrymen (countrypeople?) being thrown on the roles of Medicaid. View that in the light of the US Supreme Court ruling that states cannot be compelled by the Federal Government to expand Medicaid. My personal view is except for a few doctors who choose to live on the altruistic plane, most Medicaid doctors are from the bottom of the AMA’s heap of brightest and best.
    Of course there will be fewer doctors accepting Medicaid patients. Why get a 10 buck reimbursement to see a patient unless that is the only way your can struggle to keep the lights on? Oh believe me, says the laughing nurse “this won’t hit a bit”.
    Now, its Bill’s anecdote time. My favorite thing to do!
    About 21 years ago I was asked to drive a lady in her 40’s down to Marysville to see a specialist. The woman was on Medicaid. Her doctor locally said she needed to see another doctor (specialist). So, she calls around and there was not one specialist locally that took Medicaid. So, she makes an appointment with the closet one that would accept her, that being in Marysville. The first available appointment to see her was in 4 months. Yes, four months just to see the good doc. Four months just to meet the doc, not fix the problem. Fixing it entailed another appointment with the usual excruciating long waiting period.
    So, that was then and about all I know about Medcaid. However, if more docs stop taking Medicaid patients in this liberal bastion know as California and more providers restrict the pool of doctors the insured can see, then it seems to me that waiting 4 months to see a Medicaid specialist would sound like a rather short waiting period in the future.
    One must also consider the expanded Medicaid coverage and lower threshold to qualify for Medicaid which means a whole bunch of Californians will be dumped onto the roles. More people and fewer docs seems like a future logjam to this ignorant Brut.
    One must also consider that the Feds will pay for all of the expanded California Medicaid costs for 3 years only. Then the good citizens…er…good residents of The Golden State will be stuck 100% for the tab. 3 years from now? No worries. CA is a washed in cash. Heck, the streets of Beverly Hills are paved with gold. I live in the moment, in the here and now.. Tra la la live for today.

    Like

  35. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    ” I’m a free market guy but the free market, on its own, isn’t always a successful solution to a problem. Sometimes it takes a hybrid solution and sometimes pure government. Sorting out the differences is our task.” — Fuzz — This is one of the more intelligent things anyone has ever posted in here. I am surprised the wolves didn’t devour you (or label you a commie) for even suggesting that pure free market solutions aren’t necessarily always the best.

    Like

  36. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Yeah, I am with Joe and Fuzz on this one…I am a free market guy, but it is folly to think the ‘free market’ is always the best or most efficient way to deliver goods and services, or that we can wait around for ‘market forces’ to punish the bad actors while people suffer. This is the core problem with the ‘conservatarian’ philosophy as often articulated here; although some of the ideas are good, the implementation is simply usually too unrealistic and theoretical to actually mean anything.

    Like

  37. George Rebane Avatar

    JoeK 1028am – Excellent, the more carefully you read, the more surprises you’ll discover on RR. And did you notice that all this recircling of the Obamacare barn continues based on the premise that there have been no alternatives suggested (see my 834am). That’s entertainment!
    stevenfrisch 1033am – as often observed here, there exists no free market in the true sense of the word. Our markets are fiercely regulated, and have been for decades. To compare the latest regulated commercial enterprises to their ‘free market’ alternatives is specious since none of those existed. And to always think that a more regulated market is required to provide a better alternative is either ignorant or agenda driven. A more productive comparison would be to compare alternatives against the previously regulated market, and then against alternatives in a less regulated market. (And no one here has ever espoused a truly free market for America – only one that is minimally regulated, and there’s the rub.)

    Like

  38. Gregory Avatar

    “We pool risk for cars, homes, floods, fires, earthquakes, and a dozen other things.”
    Yes, and imagine how screwed up those insurance markets would be if, for the last 70 years, the responsibility for buying and choosing among those policies was the responsibility of employers and not the ones wanting the insurance.
    I insure my cars for liability only. How much would it cost if I was required by law to cover full comp and collision, with a $50 deductible, including normal maintenance, to insure I was buying the high quality car care I should be demanding? Now, make it such that I can wait until after the accident or just as the wheels are falling off to actually buy the insurance, and you see the problem with Obamacare.
    Similarly, I’d rather have catastrophic health coverage because I tend to underutilize medical care. I don’t run to the doctor with the sniffles, and last week, when I managed to hurt my foot last week put up with self medicating for pain and letting it rest. Could have done the same thing after a few $K for imaging and expert diagnosis consisting of Latin for “his foot hurts”.
    If you’re not paying full freight, it’s charity, Steve. I’m happy with the delightful Mrs. Crabb getting the deal, she’s a great person and I’m happy it was caught early enough to keep from being a statistic, but it was still charity.
    “What Gregory is basically advocating is that private companies should decide who can be in the risk pool”
    Ah, yet another inaccurate Frisch caricature. No, I’ve been clear no risk pool should be smaller than a zip code, and if you were insured when your ‘preexisting condition’ emerged, you should be allowed to buy into it as for having been financially responsible.

    Like

  39. Gregory Avatar

    “Greg so you are a grammar cop too? What a narcissist. You really need to get a life Greg.”
    Now, now, KJ. You’re projecting again.

    Like

  40. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Mr. stevenfrisch does point out valid arguments for making ACA work. This is exactly how it is designed: Bigger pool of young healthy folks to cover the unhealthy ones. We are all in it together. Dilution is the solution.
    “First, due to the expansion of the pool of insured, and the fact that many of them will be younger and healthier, the number of people covered will spread risk and reduce costs across the board.”
    Ok, sounds good, but here is where the rubber meets the road: 1)exemptions
    http://www.dailypaul.com/296870/list-of-729-companies-and-unions-with-obamacare-exemptions
    2) waivers
    http://calwatchdog.com/2013/02/05/obamacare-grants-exemptions-for-everyone-but-taxpayers/
    3)Clarification of “IRS penalty”
    Mr. stevenfrisch: There is no IRS penalty for failure to get on board. The proper term is “The shared responsibility payment”. Its a payment, not a penalty. Thank your lucky stars. FYI
    I could go on and on, but someone out there might insult me and that would hurt my tender sensitive feelings. Its all about me anyway.
    Oh Todd, you are such a meanie. Good thing you have broad shoulders to bear the onslaught. A lesser man such as I would be hiding under the shrink’s couch. You must be doing something right to tweak the feeble minds so much.

    Like

  41. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Bill you need to look at that list and understand that the main reason for giving many of those companies waivers or temporary exemptions was to allow the ACA to catch up to the health care coverage those companies and entities were already providing. In many cases if a company proves a higher level of benefit or their premiums are out of synch with the ACA requirements, it may take a few years for them to align.
    And, although you did not repeat the myth, it is important to note that Congress is not exempt from the ACA.

    Like

  42. fish Avatar
    fish

    Fish, at least I differentiate between anecdotal evidence and fact based studies of the effects of the ACA.
    My comment vis a vis anecdote was really in regards to something Paul Emery said on another thread about anecdotes being a no no here while arguing by anecdote at every opportunity. Nonetheless way to get your panties in a bunch….I admit I would have been surprised if you hadn’t responded that way.
    …..fact based studies of the effects of the ACA.
    Now you’re just trying to be funny aren’t you….this thing is already so rife with fraud I do see how it can possibly survive. Time will tell! If you turn out to be right I will be happy to offer a mea culpa.
    First, due to the expansion of the pool of insured, and the fact that many of them will be younger and healthier, the number of people covered will spread risk and reduce costs across the board.
    What you call a “spreading of risk” others are calling the young subsidizing the old….again! Good to have an AARP in there pulling for you isn’t it?
    In my humble opinion we should have gone with a straight single payer system, but what we got is way better than the way it was going. If insurance costs had continued to increase at the previous rate in the next decade, I simply would have been forced to eliminate health insurance.
    The government can barely manage its responsibilities now….single payer…..hah!

    Like

  43. fish Avatar
    fish

    Greg I could care less what you, Tozer, fish or any of the typical and usual contributers post about me.
    Dude I don’t even know who you are.

    Like

  44. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    “And to always think that a more regulated market is required to provide a better alternative is either ignorant or agenda driven.”
    Posted by: George Rebane | 29 September 2013 at 10:35 AM
    I hope that statement is not referring to me or what I said. I actually don’t think that regulation is always a better alternative, and in fact always prefer to look for a market based solution before looking to a regulatory solution.
    But I think the comment that “there exists no free market”, really just lends credence to my position; because a ‘free market’ does not exist, has not existed in modern history, and is unlikely to exist, pragmatism demands that we look to blended solutions, with the role of regulation being to create equal treatment in the marketplace, allocate responsibility, protect health and safety, protect public goods, reduce nuisance, ensure contracts, attempt to prevent or mitigate catastrophic market failures and monitor outcomes.

    Like

  45. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Fish, I was actually referring to Scott’s statement that. “My aunt has been battling cancer for years and has lost the doctor and staff that have done so much for her because of Obamacare. ”
    I hardly think my tone implies ‘panties in a bunch”. Perhaps you should save that critique for one of the men here who actually where panties in the privacy of their homes while professing boxers in the link at TSA:)

    Like

  46. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: fish | 29 September 2013 at 11:33 AM
    Pooled risk is always about some paying for others. Think about all those poor suckers who die before they are 65 and never get to collect Social Security. Pooled risk is the definition of insurance. The only difference here is that the government is playing a role.

    Like

  47. fish Avatar
    fish

    But I think the comment that “there exists no free market”, really just lends credence to my position; because a ‘free market’ does not exist, has not existed in modern history, and is unlikely to exist, pragmatism demands that we look to blended solutions, with the role of regulation being to create equal treatment in the marketplace, allocate responsibility, protect health and safety, protect public goods, reduce nuisance, ensure contracts, attempt to prevent or mitigate catastrophic market failures and monitor outcomes.
    “There exists no free market”….is more true by the day as governments insinuate themselves further and further into the private sector. These markets are corrupted by government and crony corporatism and become less free, less efficient, and less a market as Uncle Sugar favors his pets and to hell with the rest.
    At what point in your estimation will a sufficient level of regulation be achieved?

    Like

  48. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Yes, Mr. Frisch…
    The MORE important point is not the exemptions. Its the waivers. A closer read of the last half of the 2nd link I posted shows how messed up this plan currently is and how it will hurt millions of citizens of The United States. One year exemptions are not the problem. Waivers are.
    Obamacare says that kids up to the age of 26 can remain on their parents insurance. However, Obamacare does not mandate that employers extend affordable insurance to the kids or spouses. So, if you are like me and have great yet very low cost insurance for myself and family (about 180/month for all of us total), then no problem. Cheaper and better than what is offered Congresspersons.
    But, if your employer offers you next to free insurance for you, but only offers unaffordable coverage for the family members, then you (they) are screwed. The spouse or kid of such an employee who are offered only unaffordable coverage is NOT eligible for the subsidies and has to pay full freight on the exchanges if they go there. Not good, Maynard.
    Mr. Frisch, a closer full read of the last part of the 2nd link was enlightening to me, albeit I have read the same thing from the whining labor union bosses.

    Like

  49. fish Avatar
    fish

    Think about all those poor suckers who die before they are 65 and never get to collect Social Security. Pooled risk is the definition of insurance. The only difference here is that the government is playing a role.
    Poor suckers…truer words never spoken!
    What other forced “insurance” does your side have in store for us Steve?

    Like

  50. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Posted by: fish | 29 September 2013 at 11:52 AM
    Fish, I think you are drawing conclusions that just are not accurate–I believe we have already gone beyond an appropriate level of regulation in many areas. I think we need to internalize social costs of production to reduce regulation. I think posters here merely fail to see that position because they focus on areas where I support additional regulation and ignore areas where I support less regulation.
    I support state Constitutional reform including sunset clauses for laws, boards, commissions, and programs at the state level, with clear strategic objectives and performance metrics. If reasonable metrics are not met, laws, boards, commissions, and programs should be eliminated.
    I support CEQA reform, including permit streamlining, more clarity around who has standing under CEQA, transparency on sources of funding, and elimination of ‘greenmail’.
    I support less regulation of individual social, sexual, and medical behavior.
    I support market based mechanisms to internalize externalized costs of production of goods and services so the economic system monetizes and values it instead of socializing those costs and making taxpayers liable.
    I could go on, but hardly see the point–

    Like

Leave a comment