PS: By the way, this is also why the Affordable Care Act is so screwed up. It is not, as some will tell you, a law railroaded through by one party. Tons of compromises are written into that law, and came from by politicians on both sides of the aisle, under the guiding hand of the insurance, pharma and corporate healthcare lobbies, making the stinking dog's breakfast of a law we have today. Both sides got what their benefactors wanted - preservation of private insurance, preservation of drug company profits, preservation of a bloated network of corporate healthcare providers, preservation of a hierarchy that puts administrators and insurance companies above doctors and nurses, a new customer base that's 40 million strong....and a law so hobbled that it will take a decade to make it effective, in the unlikely event that it survives.
The fact that, in the end, one side of the aisle didn't for for it after they got what they wanted is just political positioning and theater.
Tim
That's not true at all Tim! I'd like to remind you of this shameful moment how a law affecting 300 million people was rammed down our throats by one party.
That's not true at all Tim! I'd like to remind you of this shameful moment how a law affecting 300 million people was rammed down our throats by one party.
Regrettably, not pretty but only way to get it done.
GOP single political objective was to make Obama fail, Obama got elected on heathcare reform platform - so the process was predictable. The individual mandate was designed by the heritage foundation (Romney care anyone). If you don't have a negotiating partner that is acting in good faith, all you can do is ram stuff down their throat.
Only thing the conservatives have not blamed him for in five years is violating Pakistan sovereignty to kill Osama Bin Laden, because that position did not poll to well. Screw them.
No, you just reminded me of a political foot in mouth moment. There are a million of them. And there are a couple of hundred concessions to conservatives in ACA. I can't help you see that truth, but it's all over that law. If it were a liberal, Democratic law shoved down the opposition's throat, it would be a single payer system. Period. It is, instead, a pro-business healthcare law (it hurts too much to call it reform) that gets nothing but the most critical needs -- portability, an end to coverage limits and pre-existing conditions, expanded coverage -- addressed at the expense of the American people and to the benefit of private insurance. It's got GOP, with the usual collusion by the Dems, written all over it. And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti business, but this (American private health insurance) is not a business that deserves our "pro." This is a business that was given a decade (after the failed Clinton HC proposals) to fix the problem itself, to find a way through the private markets, to get the get coverage to most Americans and get the cost of healthcare under control, and they made things much worse for everyone - doctors, clinics, nurses, patients, the American economy -- everyone but themselves. The worst thing about ACA in my view? It fails to throw those bastards to the curb.
Tim
Regrettably, not pretty but only way to get it done. GOP single political objective was to make Obama fail, Obama got elected on heathcare reform platform - so the process was predictable. The individual mandate was designed by the heritage foundation (Romney care anyone). If you don't have a negotiating partner that is acting in good faith, all you can do is ram stuff down their throat.
Only thing the conservatives have not blamed him for in five years is violating Pakistan sovereignty to kill Osama Bin Laden, because that position did not poll to well. Screw them.
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
Its not screw them, its screw me, my family and millions of people who disagree with you and your position, where do you think we're going to end up from here as as a nation?
david
Ahh, the meme that the Heritage Foundation was for the individual mandate before they were against it. Here is the reference to the original paper by Paul Butler.
As the Heritage Foundation noted in their amicus brief to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Unlike conservatives who "flip flop" when changing a position, Progressives "evolve". To wit candidate Obama in 2008:
No, you just reminded me of a political foot in mouth moment. There are a million of them. And there are a couple of hundred concessions to conservatives in ACA. I can't help you see that truth, but it's all over that law. If it were a liberal, Democratic law shoved down the opposition's throat, it would be a single payer system. Period. It is, instead, a pro-business healthcare law (it hurts too much to call it reform) that gets nothing but the most critical needs -- portability, an end to coverage limits and pre-existing conditions, expanded coverage -- addressed at the expense of the American people and to the benefit of private insurance. It's got GOP, with the usual collusion by the Dems, written all over it. And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti business, but this (American private health insurance) is not a business that deserves our "pro." This is a business that was given a decade (after the failed Clinton HC proposals) to fix the problem itself, to find a way through the private markets, to get the get coverage to most Americans and get the cost of healthcare under control, and they made things much worse for everyone - doctors, clinics, nurses, patients, the American economy -- everyone but themselves. The worst thing about ACA in my view? It fails to throw those bastards to the curb.
Tim
Perhaps your best post ever Tim....very well said indeed.
Problem is that since nobody was ALLOWED to read it, its all conjecture on Tim's part!
Problem is that since nobody was ALLOWED to read it, its all conjecture on Tim's part!
Actually, your examples are along a continuum and point to a fundamental problem with government's attempt to mitigate the consequences of failure in society. For a free market economy to function properly, there must be a balance between reward and failure. The threat of potential failure tempers excessively risky behavior. By apparently limiting the consequences of failure, be it at large financial institutions, i.e. "too big to fail" or at an individual level, the government skews this delicate balance and shifts risk to third parties (the so called "forgotten man"). One could argue that it's no big deal to mitigate failure at the individual level, but when there are 300 million+ individuals in a society, the risks become wide-spread and less obvious; with the unintended consequence of compounding risks. The ultimate irony is that these well-intended attempts to minimize individual and isolated business failures serve only to create larger, systemic risks make our economy inherently more unstable.
or on yours.
David from Utah, is that what you really believe! IMO, the only unfortunate thing about this whole mess is that the government did NOT take over the healthcare insurance market entirely. On the contrary, we are left with the worst of both worlds...BIG pharma controlling the same lobbyists as ever; and the exact same corrupt insurance companies ( private) as before controlling the whole industry--BUT this time getting a VERY nice subsidy from Uncle Sam to insure those that they did NOT want to insure before. In other words the same wolf's as ever are guarding the hen's coop.There's no conjecture on my part, the government has taken over our healthcare insurance market and 1/5th of the economy and there are negative consequences that people are facing today, you just can't or won't see it...
This was a moment of truthful admission and you call it a foot in the mouth moment? Do I need to read any further...
There's no conjecture on my part, the government has taken over our healthcare insurance market and 1/5th of the economy and there are negative consequences that people are facing today, you just can't or won't see it...
This is not what's happening. It's not even close.
Tim