Obama Administration Supports More Health Insurance Competition, Declines to Do Anything About It
Barack Obama and his aides often complain about the lack of competition in health insurance markets. So why not let insurers compete across state lines? Wolf Blitzer asks top White House adviser David Axelrod and finds that, essentially, the answer amounts to, "Uh, erm, because, well, we—Hey, look! A blimp!"
Okay, so it's not quite that bad, but as far as I can tell, Axelrod offers nothing approaching an actual reason for refusing to allow competition across state lines. Instead, he mixes anxious babble about "symbolic expiditions" with platitudes about the interests of consumers and unspecified "disruptions" and whether a national insurance market would be "endemic to the kind of reform" the White House is trying to pass. In other words, the White House opposes it, but he doesn't know why.
But here's the key line from Blitzer: "If the president wanted greater competition, he could change the law and let health insurance companies compete nationally." That's not quite true—Congress would need to be involved; the president couldn't do it unilaterally—but the president certainly could support reforms aimed at tearing down barriers to nation-wide competition. But as we know, he's not—despite, from the looks of this segment, having little reason not to.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is a power grab. I don't like the corporatist relationship that the insurance companies have with the government, but I'll hold my nose and trust someone who is out to make a buck over someone who wants power.
WTF is the reason given for not allowing inter-state competition in insurance? And what does that mean, surely i.e., Geico is an "inter-state" company?
Of course the large health insurance companies don't want unfettered competition. Props to Blitzer for bringing it up.
------------------------------------------------------
Is it just me, or is the honeymoon over?
I'm amazed that it isn't perfectly clear: if they actually take steps to fix the root of the problem, then that will significantly deflate the enthusiasm and support and momentum they're trying using for other agenda items and pet/pork programs.
If they fix the competition problem and things improve, and then they say "Hey let's go do X also!" nobody is going to care.
With all due respect, is Axelrod even *capable* of giving a straight answer?
the president certainly could support reforms aimed at tearing down barriers to nation-wide competition
Indeed, his minions in the leftosphere and cable news repeatedly state the "fact" that Republicans (who mention the interstate-insurance-competition model constantly) have no ideas, that they have "brought nothing to the table," that they are the "Party of No." Obama says he welcomes all ideas, except, apparently, this one. He wants more "competition" in the health-care marketplace, except actual competition. Yes, he lies.
It's a lot harder to convince someone to completely overthrow something that they don't completely hate. The more things improve the harder it will be.
I guess with a name like Blitzer, you pretty much have to be racist.
I've seen less dodging in a game of, well... dodgeball.
I may have to start watching CNN more (and by more, I mean in the first place).
MNG
By federal law insurance is regulated by state governments and they jealously gurd that power. The notion of whether this desire to regulate is done to protect the public interest or to engage in restraint of trade depends on one's outlook.
Yes, GEICO (and the rest of them) is a national company but to sell policies in your state it must be licensed by the state in every one of the product lines it wishes to sell and, in Florida, at least, must set up a state subsidiary separate from the parent company.
Lawyers welcome to jump in and clarify and/or correct any of the foregoing.
My interest in seeing a national insurance market as well as separating work and insurance is that I believe it would make policies more portable and continuous and would further help the development of a more direct relationship between insurer and insured.
gurd=guard.
Thanks Isaac.
If you listen closely, you can here an actual answer in there. He (presumably accidentally) mentions that the change would be "disruptive". So monopolies suck, but disrupting them is bad?
Axelrod bitching about "capping out-of-pocket expenses for people with pre-existing conditions" makes me want to vomit. Create a public option solely for diabetics, people born with bad heart valves, and the like, but leave actual insurance for people protecting themselves against actual unexpected medical situations.
"Instead, he mixes anxious babble about "symbolic expiditions" with platitudes about the interests of consumers and unspecified "disruptions" and whether a national insurance market would be "endemic to the kind of reform" the White House is trying to pass"
LOL
What a crock of shit.
As if their own plan isn't a massive disruption and virulently anti-consumer.
How is mandating a one aize fits all benefit plan, a one size fits all premium plan and mandating that everyone buy it or pay a tax (yes Obama it IS a tax) pro-consumer in any way?
@ kilroy
When I first read this post i thought of the question, "why does the healthcare bill have to be a huge omnibus bill? Why can't we pass bits and pieces at a time like this?" Then I made the same conclusion you did. If things get better no one will care for all the other stuff in the omnibus bill. Heaven forbid we let a crisis go to waste.
This is one issue NFIB pushed but the Republicans could never get done. Something about the Democrats standing in the way because they didn't want to undermine state regulations. (On this one single issue they claim to respect states rights? WTF?)
There has got to be some other reason the Dems opposed it then, but I haven't figured that out.
Also, why couldn't they just expand Medicaid to people who can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions? I've been there, and it's not hard to provide proof you can't get insured.
By federal law insurance is regulated by state governments and they jealously gurd that power. The notion of whether this desire to regulate is done to protect the public interest or to engage in restraint of trade depends on one's outlook.
Consumer protection laws/insurance regulations vary by state. If I am selling insurance policies to multiple states, whose laws are going to govern/regulate me? The strictest? The weakest ? Somewhere in between? Who decides?
Or would you prefer a national regulatory body setting regs/protections nationwide.
What would be absolutely terrible would be the Credit Card model. Where banks incorporate in the states with the least regulation/consumer protection, and sell their product in other states under the weak rules of where they are incorporated (I am looking at you Deleware).
I know that around here the answer is going to be don't regulate them at all and let the market sort it out, but in the real world, these bad actors need to be regulated. They have repeatedly shown to act in bad faith and in consumer unfriendly ways.
So unless you want national standards/regulations at the federal level, then I don't see how you can allow selling across state lines without having to have different rules for policies in different states with different regulations. (States rights, WOO HOO)
Also, why couldn't they just expand Medicaid to people who can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions?
Why only people with pre-existing conditions?
Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the most expensive while the private sector gets to deny coverage to those people?
That's a nice model you propose...let the private sector collect premiums from people who are least likely to file claims and let the taxpayers pay for the sick and infirm.
Medicare for all is a much better solution than that and a better deal for the taxpayer.
Good points above, but here's another: liberals/leftists and various special interests have spent 30+ years convincing state legislatures to mandate all sorts of coverage for health insurance. As a result it's illegal in many states to sell health insurance that does not cover pregnancy, drug addiction, mental illness, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc. etc. To allow interstate competition would, in their minds, result in a "race to the bottom" with companies offering pared-back but cheap coverage. Can't have that!
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has an interesting take on the whole thing. http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/healthcare/
Here's a concrete example. I have a health care plan that allows me to e-mail my doctor through the plan's website, and I usually get an answer in an hour or two. For 90% of the minor issues that would otherwise require a visit to the doctor, my doctor handles them in about half a minute by e-mail, including sending an electronic prescription to the pharmacy if needed. It is a HUGE time saver for me, and a big money saver for them, which I hope gets translated into keeping my premiums low. So here's my question to you: Which health care insurance do I use?
If you know the answer from something I wrote in the past, don't give it away in the comments. The point is that you can Google all day long and never find a way to compare health insurance plans on price or features. That's a problem that I think the government could fix."
Who was the last WH spokesperson who looked as weasely as Axelrod? Every time he's interviewed, his eyes are darting around and his mannerisms are "I don't believe this shit either but that's what I have to say to keep this job."
I had a pre-existing condition for years and yet somehow I hav health care coverage for that condition and many other. How did I accomplish this? Black magic, you ask? No. I got a job. It doesn't pay much, but the benefits are fantastic. I suggest this method to those pitiful uninsurables.
But some will surely call me a radical.
Create a public option solely for diabetics, people born with bad heart valves, and the like, but leave actual insurance for people protecting themselves against actual unexpected medical situations.
I don't understand the appeal of this idea.
Who pays for the medical expenses of these people? Taxpayers?
Do the people in this closed public option pay premiums?
Would their premiums be so high to cover expenses or could this public option run at a loss and have to tax healthy people to pay for the high risk/high expense people in the closed public option?
To have a public option that only covers the most expensive cases is a bad deal for everyone else.
Unless you price the closed public option to a point where it is prohibitively expensive to cover the expenses of the sickest people, than taxes are going to have to fund the shortfalls. So it's a bad deal for the taxpayer who is going to pay twice. Once for the public option via taxes, and once for my private policy.
It would be better to have the public option open to all so that healthy people can pay into it and get the average cost per person down.
"So unless you want national standards/regulations at the federal level, then I don't see how you can allow selling across state lines without having to have different rules for policies in different states with different regulations. (States rights, WOO HOO)"
Hey braniac:
The dems plan requires ALL insurance companies in all states to issue policies to people with pre-existing conditions. It requires them NOT to charge those people higher premiums. It requires they cover a bunch of preventative procedures at no extra charge.
That IS national standards and reguluation.
What would be absolutely terrible would be the Credit Card model. Where banks incorporate in the states with the least regulation/consumer protection, and sell their product in other states under the weak rules of where they are incorporated (I am looking at you Deleware).
This would be because the credit card companies are so notorious for denying credit to just about anyone except the very wealthy, right?
SF, that's how I got insurance too. Had to close my business though. Once again, if I had the ability to join an insurance pool via a trade association, I'd have been insured.
In this case, I wouldn't be against Federal laws for insurance, because that would truly be a product that is sold across state lines, and would fall squarely under the interstate commerce clause.
Call my crazy, but I think we are actually offering alternate ideas here.
Call my crazy, but I think we are actually offering alternate ideas here.
[covering ears] Status quo! Nothing!
The dems plan requires ALL insurance companies in all states to issue policies to people with pre-existing conditions. It requires them NOT to charge those people higher premiums. It requires they cover a bunch of preventative procedures at no extra charge.
And pre-existing conditions aren't the only regulations that states have are they, genius?
As was stated upthread, states have lots of different rules for what insurers can and can not do/exclude including contraception coverage, pregnancy coverage, alcoholism, autism, breast cancer, differnt types of screenings, etc.
So again. I ask, which state's rules would govern in a case where an insurance company sells its policies to multiple states. Or would you prefer that the feds basically make a one size fits all rule for every insurance provider in the country ?
Consumer protection laws/insurance regulations vary by state. If I am selling insurance policies to multiple states, whose laws are going to govern/regulate me?
Just like anyone else who sells products and services in multiple states, you will have to comply with the laws of the states where you do business.
What would be absolutely terrible would be the Credit Card model. Where banks incorporate in the states with the least regulation/consumer protection, and sell their product in other states under the weak rules of where they are incorporated (I am looking at you Deleware).
If Delaware has a law saying you can charge any interest you want, and Texas has a law capping interest charged to Texas residents at 5%, I'm pretty sure Citibank can't charge Texas residents more than 5% regardless of where they are incorporated.
Being incorporated in Delaware doesn't affect the application of other state's laws to the corporation at all.
So again. I ask, which state's rules would govern in a case where an insurance company sells its policies to multiple states. Or would you prefer that the feds basically make a one size fits all rule for every insurance provider in the country ?
Who the hell knows? Do *you* know the differences in insurance laws between all 57 states and which on is preferable? Do you think there is some nefarious plan afoot that will do away with fraud and other consumer protection laws?
Here's a radical idea, kill the protectionist state laws, let the companies compete with one another to provide insurance benefits to the consuming public, and the companies that offer a substandard product that the public rejects go under.
Who knows, competition might be the mother of invention and perhaps we'll see innovative ideas on how to cover poorer people without stealing it from everyone else first.
BTW, I'd like the same process applied to ISPs.
The local franchise law is the worst thing that could have happened to consumer-level Interwebs access.
I'm lucky in that I have *2* (!!!) companies from which I can choose. Many locales are stuck with their local guvmint-granted monopoly, charging out the ass for a poor product and poor service.
The state where the insurance company is located. Michigan has no business telling me I can't buy a policy from a company in Hawaii. It's called interstate commerce and removing state barriers to competition would, like, y'know, be regulating without micromanaging.
Pretty sure the Delaware thing is mostly about low taxes and ease of incorporating, not so much about what a corporation can and can't do.
Pretty sure the Delaware thing is mostly about low taxes and ease of incorporating, not so much about what a corporation can and can't do.
Of course, but ChicagoTom is too busy pimping ObamaCare to mind little details like that.
It's been a while since I was in banking, but let me give this credit card issue a shot:
Exporting of rate is a little more complicated than what CT describes. Essentially, a nationally chartered bank can export the interest rate rules of the state in which it is chartered (not incorporated) to its out-of-state customers. Federal law preempts state law in a few other areas as well. Note that a national bank is regulated by the OCC; a national savings and loan is regulated by the OTS. Even state banks that are FDIC-insured are partially regulated by the FDIC, and some state banks are Federal Reserve members.
Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDA) in 1980 to avoid placing federally insured state-chartered banks at a competitive disadvantage with national banks, so they (along with S&Ls--state or federal, I think), too, can use the interest rate rules of the state in which they are chartered when dealing with out-of-state customers. Some states could and did opt out of this provision of DIDA, as I recall. This is most frequently applied in the credit card business. A common example is with Utah industrial loan companies, which a number of pure credit card operations call home, charter-wise.
In any event, the ability to export rates does not mean that a bank can ignore the laws of other states. Or of the federal government.
For regulatory purposes (esp. in consumer protection), the state of incorporation is irrelevant. Shareholder derivative suits and other corporate actions will be governed by Delaware law or wherever the company is chartered, but that has nothing to do with regulation, except where there is some sort of federal preemption, like in banking/lending. Even then, state law governs quite a bit, like general contract rules, real property laws, etc.
Instead, he mixes anxious babble about "symbolic expiditions" with platitudes about the interests of consumers and unspecified "disruptions" and whether a national insurance market would be "endemic to the kind of reform" the White House is trying to pass. In other words, the White House opposes it, but he doesn't know why.
It's easy to explain. The health care bill was written by a team of political consultants, by cobbling together a bunch of sound-bites.
Like: "We've got to do something about pre-existing conditions!" Ergo, force insurers to "cover" them. (How you "cover" a risk that has already been realized is left to the viewer to decide).
They have not actually thought through their proposals, and consequently don't have any good arguments for them, (other than calling people racist).
If they stopped and thought through things, they might realize that the correct way to deal with the pre-existing conditions issue might be to, say, make the PREVIOUS insurer pay for the costs of an illness that occured on their watch, instead of forcing the next insurance company to pick it up.
You shouldn't have to continue paying premiums for a risk that has already been realized.
Get rid of the interstate health-insurance barriers, give them the ability to buy only the coverage they want, and let people have medical savings accounts.
Oops... too much power to the people there. Doesn't put the boot of government on their necks and up their asses. Fail.
Wolf gets a "thataboy" for that one. He was on Axelrod like stink on shit.
The state where the insurance company is located. Michigan has no business telling me I can't buy a policy from a company in Hawaii. It's called interstate commerce and removing state barriers to competition would, like, y'know, be regulating without micromanaging.
Why should it matter where the company is located and not where the customer is located?
If it's as simple as where the company is located every company is going to relocate to the state willing to give them the most. (talk about a recipe for rent seeking)
Of course, but ChicagoTom is too busy pimping ObamaCare to mind little details like that.
I'm not pimping anything.
I am adding some nuance to the simpleton "let em buy from out of state" statement.
Illinois has certain rules about the policies you can sell in Illinois. You shouldn't be able to avoid those rules simply because you are incorporated out of state.
Granted the analogy to the banking industry isn't perfect (as ProLib talked about) but the point remains quite the same.
For example, in Illinois insurers who offer insurance in the state must cover FDA approved contraceptives if they offer a prescription plan. Unless you are proposing allowing an insurance company to not be beholden to state regulations based on where the company is located, then I don't see how you can sell the same policies across states that have different rules/regulations.
Insurance regulation 101:
The missing element to this discussion is taxes - state premium taxes. Usually somewhere between 1% to 2% of premium received in each state, state premium taxes are one of the higher yielding revenue sources for most states.
For an insurer to sell a policy in a state, the insurer must hold a license from that state. Property, credit, life, major medical - these lines all require different licenses under different rules in each state.
Most national insurers will have several different insurance companies under the same corporate banner. The various companies will be domiciled (established/created) in different states either based on historical accident (an acquisition) or by design (a particular state had more advantageous rules governing an insurance line which the company's organizers wanted to pursue). Almost all national insurers will have one or more companies which are NY only companies because of the significant differences in the way NY regulates insurers.
Each state has specific regulations applicable to what a policy must include (in health policies, these are state mandates such as the requirement for accupuncture or native american medicine men) and how it can be sold.
I am not sure what "compete across state lines" means because of the lack of precision of the sources. I presume the idea is that the insurer could hold a "federal charter" and its regulation, products and market conduct would be governed by a single federal regulator rather than by 50 +1+ territorries departments of insurance.
I hope this helps.
Just like anyone else who sells products and services in multiple states, you will have to comply with the laws of the states where you do business.
Which is pretty much how it works now, isn't it?
Even if insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines the regulatory framework wouldn't allow the same plan to be sold in different states.
Essentially, unless you remove the state's ability to regulate, the effect of allowing the sales across state lines would be negligible since consumers in different states would still have to have different policies in order to conform to state regulations.
Practically speaking, "allow sales across state lines" a good slogan, but useless unless you remove the states regulatory ability.
Chicago Tom-
Why should the state of Illinois dictate what health insurance companies must provide for Illinois residents? The regulation of health insurance was not one of the animating principles of 1776.
Practically speaking, "allow sales across state lines" a good slogan, but useless unless you remove the states regulatory ability.
That's what "allow sales across state lines" means. The states only got this regulatory power in the late '40s (IIRC). Take it away again.
ChicagoTom:
I'm having trouble getting anyone to respond one way or another to my suggestion that pre-existing conditions be covered by the previous insurance company (i.e. if you had insurance from work), so long as it was discovered on their watch.
IMO, this seems like the logical way to deal with it. You don't keep paying premiums on your car after a wreck, so why should someone keep paying for "insurance" for a condition that already exists?
How would you respond to that suggestion? Do you still think the NEXT guy should be forced to pick up the tab for a pre-existing condition? Why not require insurers to cover all *subsequent* costs related to an illness that occured for a client who was fully insured at the time the illness was discovered?
Obama's representative NEVER answered the question Why not make insurance national?
isnt the sort answer here, "the companies don't want real direct competition, so they're not going to force it on them?"
Meaning, this is something that the lobbyists have said is a not starter...?
I havent read all the comments here, but that strikes me as a possibly obvious take-away
So again. I ask, which state's rules would govern in a case where an insurance company sells its policies to multiple states. Or would you prefer that the feds basically make a one size fits all rule for every insurance provider in the country ?
A nice template is the Health Care Choice Act of 2009. All policies sold in interstate commerce would carry the following notice:
This guy is a top presidential adviser? He reminds me of a mash-up of these two characters...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZWFf9MyVXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YghqNhMhnnc
The missing element to this discussion is taxes - state premium taxes...
I never considered the tax implication of insurance companies. That's a really good point.
Is this a normal sort of operation -- the state government with the laws most favorable to industry gets to set policy for the entire country? We already know that individual states with strict regulations can change the way that industry behaves nationwide; why wouldn't the reverse be true, to the detriment of consumers everywhere?
It's one thing to argue that states should not be able to ban products from out of state outright from being sold in favor of in-state products, but it's another thing entirely to demand that they cannot place restrictions which apply fairly to all products sold in their jurisdiction, whether in-state or out-of-state. What you're demanding is that products sold by out-of-state companies get an exemption from the rules that everyone else in the state market has to abide by. That isn't free trade, it's reverse protectionism.
Practically speaking, consumers have little ability to punish bad insurance companies through trade under the current system. Under state-by-state regulation or uniform federal regulation, they can at least clumsily wield indirect democratic power over these contracts to prevent the worst abuses. If a situation arises where they may be coerced into contracting with a company operating under the bought-and-paid-for laws of a foreign state, even check is removed. It invites abuse, and when it turns into a disaster, it will be "laissez faire" that will be blamed.
Kilroy's got it right. Any moves the administration makes to improve the health care system will diminish their power, and what they really want is 100% socialized medicine.
-jcr
Obama is not for competition, he is for control, and he is nothing but a retarded control-freak bitch.
"And pre-existing conditions aren't the only regulations that states have are they, genius?
As was stated upthread, states have lots of different rules for what insurers can and can not do/exclude including contraception coverage, pregnancy coverage, alcoholism, autism, breast cancer, differnt types of screenings, etc.
So again. I ask, which state's rules would govern in a case where an insurance company sells its policies to multiple states. Or would you prefer that the feds basically make a one size fits all rule for every insurance provider in the country ?"
Way to try and miss the point, braniac.
YOU were the one invoking "states rights" as a rationale NOT to allow interstate competition.
The point is the dems plan ITSELF already overides states right by mandating coverage of pre-exiting conditions and forbidding risk based premiums.
So if you are going to invove "states rights" as principle, then that requires you to be opposed to Obama's plan to begin with.
Oh and it also requires you to be opposed to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and about a gazillion other things the federal governmet is doing because they ALL violate the principle of "states rights".
I retract my earlier speculation; I agree with Kilroy and John C. Randolph. Its probably all about unwillingness to let go of one inch of political control at any level. Forget what actual private industry wants, although there's probably some complicity in protecting mutual interests.
"So if you are going to invove "states rights" as principle, then that requires you to be opposed to Obama's plan to begin with."
What? Disagree with dominant H&R opnion and yet also oppose Obama's plan? Surely such a thing is as impossible as the idea of someone who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat!
I could very well be wrong here, but isn't that what Obama hopes to accomplish by setting up regional "insurance exchanges" - or would those be constructed on a state by state basis?
ATTENTION!! Congress Has The Votes Needed To Pass A Public Option - TODAY http://bit.ly/TCq7O
Why A Strong Public Option Is Essential - By jacksmith - Working Class
Robert Reich explains the pubic option: http://bit.ly/dDYSJ http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
Hollywood Supports The Public Option 🙂 http://bit.ly/3XLwPi
It's not just because more than two thirds of the American people want a single payer health care system. And if they cant have a single payer system 77% of all Americans want a strong government-run public option on day one (86% of democrats, 75% of independents, and 72% republicans). Basically everyone.
It's not just because according to a new AARP POLL: 86 percent of seniors want universal healthcare security for All, including 93% of Democrats, 87% of Independents, and 78% of Republicans. With 79% of seniors supporting creating a new strong Government-run public option plan, available immediately. Including 89% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 61% of Republicans, STUNNING!!
It's not just because it will lower cost. Because a strong public option will dramatically lower cost for everyone. And dramatically improved the quality of care everyone receives in America and around the World. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.
It's not just because it will save trillions of dollars and prevent the needless deaths of millions more of YOU, caused by a rush to profit by the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!
It's not just because every expert in every field, including economist, and Nobel laureates all agree that free market based healthcare systems don't work. Never have and never will. The US has the only truly free market based healthcare system in the World. And as you all know now, IT IS A DISASTER!
It's not just because providing or denying medically necessary care for profit motivations is wrong. Because it is WRONG! It's professionally, ethically, and morally REPUGNANT!, Animalistic, VILE and EVIL.
THE REASON THE PUBLIC OPTION IS ESSENTIAL:
The public option is ESSENTIAL because over 200 million of you are trapped in the forest of the wolves. Which is the forest of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! With no way out except through needless inhumane suffering, and DEATH. While the wolves tear at your flesh, and rip you limb from lib. Then feast on your lifeless bodies like a dead carcase for transplant parts.
At the most vulnerable times of your lives (when you were sick and hurting), millions of you have had to fight and loose cruel, but heroic battles. Fighting against the big guns of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! in the forest of the wolves. All because you have no place else to go. You have no other CHOICE!
But the PUBLIC OPTION will give you someplace safe to go. And it will give us someplace safe to take you. The public option will be your refugium (your refuge). Where the wolves cannot get at you when your down, hurting, and vulnerable. Where everyone who needs it can find rest, security, comfort and the care they need. Protected by the BIG GUNS of We The People Of The United States. THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE AND COUNTRY ON EARTH.
This is why it is so critical that we do not lead another 50 million vulnerable, uninsured Americans into the forest of the wolves, without the protections of a Strong Government-run public option. We The People Of The United States MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN to any more of our fellow Americans. If healthcare reform does not contain a strong public option on day one. YOU MUST! KILL IT. Or you will do far more harm than good. And millions more will die needlessly. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.
To those who would continue to obstruct good and true healthcare reform for the American people, and who seek to trap millions more vulnerable Americans in the forest of the wolves. We will continue to fight you. We are prepared to wage all out war against you, and will eagerly DESTROY! you. Time...is...UP! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! No Co-op's! No Triggers! NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATES! without a Strong public option on day one.
Healthcare reform can be the GREATEST! Accomplishment of our time and century. A time when future generations may say of us, that we were all, AMERICAS GREATEST GENERATIONS.
BUT WE MUST ACT!
I therefore call on all my fellow Americans and the peoples of the World. To join us in this fight so that we may finish becoming the better America that we aspire to be for everyone.
SPREAD THE WORD!
I have been privileged to be witness as many of you fought, and struggled to take your first breath, and your last breath on this earth. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Life is precious.
Whatever the cost. WE! MUST SUCCEED.
God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings
jacksmith - Working Class
Things You Can Do To Help NOW! http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/tired_of_watching_people_die_n.html
No Triggers! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/a-trigger-for-the-public_b_277910.html
Triggers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/weve-seen-these-triggers_b_283583.html
Krugman on heathcare (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/)
Senator Bernie Sanders on healthcare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSM8t_cLZgk&feature=player_embedded)
John Garamendi on the Public Option and the Grassroots: http://bit.ly/TJMty
Howard Dean on the Public Option http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SKfW2dUnow&feature=player_embedded
We're Number 37! in quality of health care http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4&feature=player_embedded
Twitter search (#welovethenhs #NHS #hc09 #hcr #healthcar #obama #p2 #topprog #) Check it out.
Right... well... that's nice jacksmith, please go away now.
So, what about those insurance exchanges?
Back in the day, Railroad companies often had the ability to choose whether it was the state or the federal government that regulated them. This would be a good idea for today. The Federal Government should leave state rules and regulations in place for locally chartered insurers, but allow insurance companies to seek federal charters. Companies with a federal charter would be federally regulated and immune to state regulation. This would introduce regulatory competition between the two levels of government, as regulators love regulating, but if the regulated have a choice between regulators, then regulators will have an incentive to attract the regulated. They would only have one method at their disposal, that being fair and reasonable regulation.
Similarly, customers would be able to choose which regulatory regime they want to buy a policy under.
And not to defend him, but Axelrod is a purely political advisor. This clip proves his inability to think on his feet about public policy, not that the WH has no plan to deal with the issue at hand.
This is the information I've been searching at. I'm glad that I found this. Thanks a lot for posting this blog!
With all due respect, is Axelrod even *capable* of giving a straight answer?
If False Memory Axelrod does give a straight answer, it's probably got a lie or two buried in it.
A short trip down memory lane:
"I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."
Actually I am more concerned with portability than I am with competition.
That is why I am also in favor of anything that breaks the connection between employment and insurance.
If we are going to stay with insurance as our model of healthcare financing then it is, IMO, necessary to make the insured the direct customer of the insurance company.
Furthermore to the extent that group coverage does provide cost advantages belong to much more durable associations than their employment. I speak of churches, social and sports clubs etc.
Having to change insurance coverage because you change jobs or move out of state just doesn't make sense to me.
Wow jacksmith,
That was some speech.
I hope we do end up with a single-payer public plan someday. But, it's not going to happen.
People don't want healthcare...haven't u been watching tv?
People want the money to go to war.
The problem here is fundamentally economic in nature. The leftists don't seem to understand that the principles of economics cannot be handled or controlled by "guaranteeing" the risks away. When you remove the risks, people take risky actions because the fear of failure is removed. This is unsustainable long term, whether you are talking about insurance, mortgages, consumer debt, car loans, or anything. Things that are too big to fail are big enough to take down the whole economy, and it looks like the day of reckoning will eventually appear. In other news, the dollar is weaker against the yen and the world bank tells us not to take the dollars' status as world reserve currency for granted. Looks like they are already planning to take over after the US economy implodes.
Thank you so much for posting this. I learned a lot of things. Also read some of your postings and thank you for sharing them.
With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.
hi,
everybody, take your time and a little bit.agaga
Instead, he mixes anxious babble about "symbolic expiditions" with platitudes about the interests of consumers and unspecified "disruptions" and whether a national insurance market
http://www.mirei.com
Thanks, I'm very glad I could get more knowledge from here, articles and info-good info, made me grow even more success always to you
Abilene Roofing Company
Thanks for posting such a terrific website. this blog was not just educated but additionally very inventive as well. There typically are a limited number of web owners who can produce specialized information that creatively. we look for articles about a subject resembling this.
Abilene Roofing Companies