Ok, I’m up coughing, so I might as well do something.
—
It frustrates me to no end when I hear liberals whine about what’s being called the Tea Party. The latest babble is that Tea Partiers don’t even know what’s in the health care bill – they can’t articulate what they are against.
Pooey. NO ONE really knows what’s in the Senate bill with over more than 2,000 pages. If you aren’t paid to read the thing, you likely aren’t doing so in your free time. If you are paid to read the thing, I’d lay odds you don’t have a clue what it says anyway.
We have to rely on others to get our information, and then hope it’s correct.
Another is that Tea Partiers would never give up their Medicare and Social Security. Um, wrong. Don’t make me pay in, and I won’t plan on collecting.
Oops? Now that won’t work for you, will it? Those two programs, enacted as “sweeping reform” of their day, are incredible failures. Sure they hand out thousands in benefits, but they can’t be supported by the current revenue.
What in the world makes a human being think this entitlement grab bag is going to have a different fate?
—
This list is not complete because even I can rattle off a couple of things they left out.
Even more confusing is that a lot of this stuff doesn’t even kick in for four years or so.
—
Listen, if you live in Wisconsin, some of what went through leaves you little room to complain. An expansion of Medicaid? Psssh. We did that some time ago with Badger Care. In fact, if you’ll recall, Wisconsin is getting a little bit of a kickback in the House fix for the effort. (Not in that summary above, and frankly difficult to confirm if it still exists.)
Another benefit being waved around is that dependent children can stay on a plan until 26.
Slowpokes. Wisconsin enacted that a while ago. It’s a state’s decision. Health care insurance is a state issue.
Or at least it used to be so.
—
It must still be. Those insurance exchanges, while mandated by the feds, are set up state by state. That acknowledgment by lawmakers is one reason I don’t understand the federal mandate to purchase health care insurance.
Feds really don’t get to call insurance a states issue and then regulate it.
—
Most of our society’s laws are ones regulating choices. If you own a car, you must purchase liability insurance. If you smoke, you must pay taxes on your cigarettes. This new one is: If you breath, you must have health care insurance.
The federal dictate to purchase is one of the reasons I do believe this reform is unconstitutional. Federalism, a concept that states have rights the conglomerated government does not, is an article in our constitution. It’s even one of the Bill of Rights! Sigh. I miss knowing those are absolute. They feel very fungible these days.
—
What’s going to be tough is the talking points. The Democrats are already selling the House fix as removing the Senate kickbacks for Nebraska. Don’t you lousy Republicans want to fix the Cornhusker Kickback? But what’s also in the fix is an even more generous scoop to the expansion of Medicaid and a reduction in the tax on Cadillac insurance plans. That tax on generous health care plans is a big chunk of the Senate bill revenue. To compensate, the House fix demands an extra 3.8% tax on non-earned, also described as investment, income for couples earning more than $250,000 a year.
Of course the Democrats will argue those nasty Republicans never want to tax the rich. And I’ll argue Democrats will never stand up to the unions.
—
I’ve told you what bugs me about this. We’re moving past a tipping point. America is on track to be a nation with more than half of its population dependent upon government in the next few years.
That doesn’t work out very well in the end. I’m told in countries where this is already the norm, the misery is palpable. Greece is broke and threatening to drag down the EU. France is miserable, made an attempt towards a more conservative direction, and is about to abandon that because those consuming government services are about to swing the nation back to the left. Britain is, according to a native who just recently visited his home country, severely depressed both economically and emotionally.
It doesn’t sound like much of a future.
—
I will confess there’s one country I’ve visited in the last few years where this all seems to work and that’s Austria. Maybe it’s the smaller size of this country, or maybe it’s the extraordinary work ethic these people still exhibit, but somehow it seems to work for them.
The country’s size and homogeneity must have something to do with it. I look at tight communities like the Amish who are allowed to function without having to buy into big government. They accept responsibility for things like the elderly in that community, and at least from what I can recall, are exempt from Medicare and Social Security taxes. (Frankly, I could be blowing smoke on this one. I remember this to be true once, but haven’t done any current research. Still the comparison holds in the argument of Austria’s success.) Perhaps a smaller more closely knit society is more likely to buy into the all for one, one for all taxing arrangement.
—
Another huge risk of this health care change is the exacerbation of class warfare. The top and the bottom are pitted against each other and the middle class is mostly ignored.
Read any Marx lately?
This is my opinion, so for goodness sakes if you don’t agree, kindly ignore me instead of slapping me around in the comment section, but there is no doubt in my heart the increase in class warfare is part of the plan, not an unintended consequence. In general such division is believed to be a precursor to revolution.
It will fail. The revolutions of the past were predicated by an idle rich and a working poor. America’s rich – as in those couples making more than $250,000 a year – are anything but idle. And today’s poor? Not a whole lot of working in that bunch.
—
I will make exception for the genuinely working poor. Who spend properly. Who don’t throw away their money on cigarettes. Or booze. Or lottery tickets. Oh, I’m quick to say those with certain disabilities should absolutely be supported in our society.
Lazyass syndrome is not a disability.
—
Which brings me to probably the last point I’m going to make for now: Just like we have not been able to articulate how much should be spent to save one life, and whether or not it matters that one life is a 95 year old or a two week old premature baby, we are having a miserable time as a nation defining what it really means to be poor.
It won’t be a surprise to you that my description of poor does not include someone who refuses to work.
Furthermore, we’ve done a pathetic job of reducing the incentive to pop out children as extra income.
—
That’s it. The word counter says I’m over a 1300, and the antihistamine is finally kicking in. Don’t call around here before noon – I’ll be sleeping it off.
How could this happen ? The first night after passage of the ‘Healthcare Bill’, you are up coughing. I just gotta believe that somewhere in those thousands of pages or in the thirty something speeches the President has given it has been stated that this shouldn’t occur. Maybe after he actually signs the Bill……
You’re silly. I sure did miss you.
I’m awake now, by the way. Let the party begin!
No, I think they printed the bill on pollen-and-dander-laced paper.
Ah-hah! See I told you it was an evil plot.
Anyways, a few things I want to comment on/ask you about.
So, i get the federalism thing–it’s a legit argument. But do you feel the same way about other things federal government has regulated that isn’t explicitly stated in the constitution?
Should each state have its own drinking age? Should environmental protection be a state issue? Should some states be allowed to not have laws on child abuse–and others punish it severely?
As I understand it, the reason why the federal government is able to regulate something like healthcare or drinking age is because of the Elastic (Necessary and Proper) Clause and Commerce Clauses of the constitution. Surely, health care influences interstate commerce in a huge way.
I think one of the reasons why the system will remain state by state is that’s how insurance companies run now, and they wanted to reserve some semblance of “federalism.” In other words, this is about regulating the healthcare system, not federalizing it.
The legislation doesn’t really federalize the system, but the funding is federal. That’s one of the complicated issues surrounding our government style–that separation isn’t always the most effective and equitable.
This was the central issue in both of two classes I took about legal history and the criminal justice system. It’s really interesting.
The other thing was that I think it’s funny how you are convinced everyone in France and Britain are miserable, but have you looked around? Everyone here is miserable–heck, you’re well off and you always have something to complain about. I think that at the core, manging systems of human beings is messy and maybe impossible. We’re always unfulfilled and pissed off. No?
Honest question about the 26 year olds on their parents insurance…. what if the parent wants their 25 year old to get a freaking job and boots them off their insurance? Can the son sue his parents to get back on?
Don’t think so. It’s an option, not a requirement.
Not so fast, Lorax. It’s a RIGHT now. It’s law. You can stay on until you are 27. (But like I said, you already could in Wisconsin.) I think Ryan has an interesting question.
I will say that one bit is particularly helpful during this time of recession. I know a lot of young adults who have graduated college but are still unable to find full employment. It’s helpful to still have coverage available.
Not so fast? It’s a law that insurance companies have to allow people on until they are 27. It is not a law that they have to be on.
Every once in a while you are in over your head. Maybe someday you’ll realize you don’t know absolutely everything. I contend this might be one of those times.
Yes, I do feel states should have their own drinking age. Countries do. States are little countries under one umbrella.
I remember growing up that Louisiana used to issue driver’s licenses at 15. Dang! Those Louisiana kids sure were lucky.
The Commerce is a weak argument here when they will not allow insurance companies to cross state lines. Necessary and proper? That’s a little like a parent proclaiming “because I said so.”
Environmental protection shouldn’t be at all. That said, if they’re going to fight over it, I can see where my pollution might drift into Michigan and be a problem. It traveled across state borders, so the entity creating that pollution would likely be a good candidate for federal governance.
“Surely, health care influences interstate commerce in a huge way.” Oooh. That was wimpy.
Fake federalism is no federalism at all. And funding is a way the federal government has put their hand into so many of the state’s rights. Want highway dollars? Put up a 55 mph speed limit sign. States may be addicted to the funding feed, but they really don’t have to take it.
I’m pretty hacked off about this issue, and yes, for a couple of days I was a little overwhelmed with what was coming down the pike, but no, I’m not unfulfilled and pissed off. Quite the opposite in fact, but that may have to be a whole different post.
I think what you will find as a die-hard liberal, Lorax, is that your perpetual black cloud simply won’t be following conservatives around. We’ll dust ourselves off and get on with it. We work. We fuel this country. We’ll be back on the job before you know it.
You have to suck off something.
While it is far from the provision I am most strongly against, I can’t say I favor 25 and 26 year olds staying on their parent’s insurance, though I do want to elaborate a bit because my comment probably sounded more callous than I intended it to.
At least before yesterday, a major medical plan for a 20-something was very reasonable….. around $100/month and potentially less depending on the deductible and such. However, I suspect this age group (which, in the interest of full disclosure, happens to be my age group) will see the largest increases of all as a result of this reform.
This sort of stuff along with the “you don’t have to payback your loans” business is not good news…. further infantilization is the very last thing my generation needs.
——
“You have to suck off something.”
Cindy: your comment made me think of this cartoon…. what do you think? http://commonsense2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/toon_obama_milk_the_cash_cow.jpg
Oh, can we just clone you Ryan?
BTW, that comment got me in a little trouble with someone. For the record, I meant it in a generic sense, much like your cartoon implies.
Why would any 21 -30 year old have traditional health insurance now ? With this new manifesto if I were that age I would take out a major medical plan with a moderately high deductable. These are relatively inexpensive and will cover any catastrophic occurance.. Then if your medical situation changes simply go sign up for the best insurance program that fits your needs. You can’t be refused. Once that passes drop the regular policy until the next need arises.
Remember, the President has promised our existing plans will be reduced. I can hardly wait to get that notice that my premiums are going down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKWoPe_o82U
Ok, I’ve played a bit with something, and frankly have more questions than answers.
A reader tapped into this little detail on the Wisconsin plan to cover kids 26 and under from that Journal Sentinel article:
I can’t find detail under the bill – btw, it looks like the age issue is a part of the House fix and not the Senate bill – as to whether or not this exclusion applies for that new plan. Here’s that language:
What’s interesting to me is that “child” is described specifically different than “dependent” which makes me wonder if the child doesn’t have to be dependent to qualify.
Now to find the Wisconsin law…
It’s maddening not being able to get real information.
Tada! Statute 632. Read at 632.885.