Obamacare

Can't Repeal ObamaCare? Defund It.

|

At a Health Affairs breakfast earlier this week, Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess argued that Republicans could take down the new health care law by refusing to fund it:

Burgess, a licensed obstetrician and the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, told attendees at a Health Affairs Media Breakfast that while repeal of the new law is unlikely; shutting down funding to implement it could be just as effective. Such a move is "an opportunity for those of us who think it's a bad product," Burgess said. He added that Republicans have not changed their opposition to the "badly flawed" Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the three months since it became law.

I've heard this idea floated elsewhere, but there are drawbacks to the strategy. First, it would allow opponents to say that Republicans are yanking health care money from children/the poor/etc. Second, it only works as long as enough Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are in charge.

NEXT: A Dangerous Precedent

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think the trick would be to defund at the same time you offer up a solution. Neither will happen.

    1. Solution to what?

    2. Bullseye. Republicans need to quit being reactionary against Obama, and start offering up their own hope-and-change-based vision of the future.

      1. Compassionate Conservatism, in other words. Let’s give that one another go.

        1. no such thing

      2. “Republicans need to quit being reactionary against Obama”

        In other words they should roll over and play dead.

        1. I would hope they would decide to be proactive.

          1. What do you define as proactive?

            1. Well, reactive is just responding to something that Obama has already done. Instead of not even responding, I’d hope they’d want to be thinking ahead of him.

              But who am I kidding? The Reps are a bunch of disorganized, neutered idiots. And maybe it’s better that they are just Obama’s stumbling block instead of trying to enact policies of their own.

              1. Quite a few republicans offered up possible health care alternatives to ObamaCare before ObamaCare was passed. They were all ignored, of course, but doesn’t that count as being proactive?

              2. JEP,

                This is one of the differences between conservatives and libertarians. Libertarians do want to be proactive in the sense that we want to actively repeal laws. Consevativism, by its very nature wants to “conserve” the status quo, or perhaps the recent past as long as it is in the living memory of someone now alive.

                Given a choice between the status quo and EVEN MORE tyranny I will take the status quo. But I am a libertarian, not a conservative. I too wish they were more proactive about repealing laws.

      3. If you mean hope and change based on deregulation, downsizing government, and laying a legal framework that allows the free market to do it’s work, then I agree with you.

        1. Actually there were Republican alternatives to Obamacare that fit those requirements, but the media tended to ignore them.

          1. “We support a health-care system that protects patients against fraud and collusion through the same process of civil law that protects them from fraud and collusion by every other business in every other aspect of their life. Pursuant to this, we will issue all future Medicare and Medicaid checks to the patient to be used as they wish including strippers and blow if that makes them feel better.”

  2. “First, it would allow opponents to say that Republicans are yanking health care money from children/the poor/etc.”

    They are going to say that regardless. The republicans need to grow a pair and do the right thing, which is stop this crap however they can then make their case clearly, concisely, and forcefully.

    1. Exactly. If you’re going to be hung for a thief, you might as well go and steal something.

      1. If you’re going to be hung for a thief, you might as well go and steal something.

        Like, ALL of the rope at the local home depot.

  3. Sure they’re going to defund it. Just like the Dems defunded the Iraq war.

    1. This.

    2. In the Democrats’ defense, defunding the troops in Iraq would have meant losing a war and getting blamed for it. Now that would have made them wildly popular among libertarians. It would not have done so with the rest of the country. Defunding Obamacare has a lot less risk and would take much less political courage.

      1. If only it were possible to know exactly how many Obama voters were acting out of a desire for “free healthcare for everyone.” As opposed to the number that got swept away in the cult of personality thingy. Voters are a fickle and ignorant bunch. If you take away that free healthcare and at the same time desire to give more to the greedy rich and the evil corporations, you bring back all the Obama voters from last time. It will certainly be interesting.

        1. Of course Obamacare will produce no free health care for anyone. It is very much going to be a victim of expectations among some.

          1. I know that and you know that but the average voter is the person perched on the edge of their sofa waiting for the infomercial host to say “but wait! if you buy thiss in the next 26 minutes we’ll throw in all this other shit for FREE” They haven’t a clue about reality and will rise back up to vote for Obama if you threaten to take away their “free” shit.

            1. They will know it when they get the bill. At some point even the rubes figure out they have been scammed.

              1. Exactly. All these young people who voted for Obama think they are going to get all the health care they want for free. Right now they could get a high deductible health insurance policy for a few dollars a month. When Obamacare kicks in they will be REQUIRED to buy a gold plated policy (because every disease lobby and medical specialty lobby will make sure their pet illness is required to be convered) that will cost them out the yin-yang (due to the community rating and the ban on pre existing condition exclusions).

        2. All of the progressives I know in Seattle are true believers in single payer health care. 90% of them sincerely believe you can raise taxes just on the wealthy to pay for single payer, and believe the same thing for Obamacare. Trying to explain the Laffer Curve and the income shifting that occurred after the Reagan tax cuts to people like this is a severe exercise in frustration.

          I don’t have much hope for people changing their opinions after facts show their ideas to be wrong either. I haven’t made much headway with friends with the idea that Bush II was a big spender and expanded government :-/

          1. Dan and Tony are actually intelligent and informed for liberals. I am not kidding.

            1. My two dogs are actually intelligent and informed for canines. Hang on, one of them is out there reading the paper instead of bringing it in, again…

              1. I would trust your two dogs to run things before I would Tony and Dan. I am sure they are noble creatures.

                1. I would rather be governed by the first one hundred entrants in the Westminster Kennel Club dog show than the faculty at Harvard.

            2. I’m trying to back away from this kind of thinking. When I think someone has no rational basis for their arguments, I lose the ability to have a civil discussion pretty rapidly. Maybe I should focus on teaching people to think in a rational fashion instead of trying to educate them about specifics in economics.

      2. Well as Nathan said at 11:03 above, the Dems will always be accused of being weak on national defense, so they should just grow a pair, get us out of the mess in Iraqistan, and then explain why it needed to be done.

      3. In the Democrats’ defense, defunding the troops in Iraq Obamacare would have meant losing a war more poor people dying from lack of medical coverage and getting blamed for it.

        Same crap.

      4. John, respectfully, we are not fighting a war in the real sense of war. If the US were fighting a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, neither country would be habitable. We are engaged in violent policing and enforcement of sticking our noses where we are not wanted nor welcome. Such is US foreign policy. It’s past time for folks to accept the fact that we cannot “win” a war that’s not really a war.

    3. Why would the Dems have defunded the Iraq war? They fucking voted for it.

  4. You can defund it until 2012 and then “reform” it after Obama is gone. It all depends on the Republicans taking the House and making serious gains in the Senate. If they do that, that will be understood as a direct repudiation of Obamacare. Yeah, the Democrats will publicly claim otherwise. But, privately they will know the score. As the great Sheed Wallace once said “ball don’t lie”.

    That will put them in one hell of a bind. The Democrats in the House who survive will be okay to vote against repealing it because they will have already survived an election. But the Democrats in the Senate who are up in 2012 will have a real problem. What does Ben Nelson do when the House passes a repeal and it goes to the Senate? My guess is that he would vote for the repeal knowing that it would be vetoed. But then the Congress can do all sorts of fun things to the President. They can tack a repeal onto important legislation that Obama wants. They can as pointed out here refuse to fund it.

    In the end Obama can fight a rear guard action to keep Obamacare in place. But it will take a lot of time and political capital. And he has two wars to fight. He has an economy that is the worst in 70 years. He has the largest peace time deficit in history. His approval rating is hovering around 40%. To have a chance at getting re-elected he has to do something besides defend a wildly unpopular health care bill.

    1. It’s curious to me that down here in conservative christian republican country, we elected a democrat to the house and folks are happy with it. Considering we are closing in on mid-terms, things are very quiet here concerning the makeup of congress. Folks seem to be trying to ride out the economy and aren’t paying much attention to politics. I still think that Obama is safe in 2012 mostly due to the fractures in the GOP.

      1. He is anything but safe in 2012. Presidential elections are always a referendum on the incumbent. It doesn’t really matter how strong the opposing candidate is. If the country likes the incumbent, he is going to win. If they don’t, it doesn’t take much of a candidacy to win. People look back on the campaigns like Carter in 76 or Clinton in 92 and remember them as effective campaigns. That is true. But they were only effective because the country was angry at the incumbent and willing to listen to what they had to say.

      2. Obama is safe in 2012 because the current Repubican possibilities (save Johnson) all are as garbage as he is.

        If Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin are anywhere near the nomination, wake me up in 2016.

        1. You make the mistake of thinking everyone thinks the same as you. You could run anyone as the Republican nominee and absent a third party get 45%. If the country is sufficiently angry at the incumbent, virtually any candidate from the other side R or D will win.

          1. Which is precisely what happened in 2008. Hate Bush? Elect Obama. Hate Obama? Elect some other unqualified douche bag. Hate that unqualified douche? Elect someone worse. The precedence being set here is disturbing.

        2. Mitch Daniels is gaining momentum. A Daniels/Christy ticket would whip Obama’s ass. But I don’t think Obama is really interested in being president for eight years.

          1. It would. And I think that is what the ticket is going to look like. It will include a couple of non Washington governors.

        3. What? Let’s think back a bit. We elected a total neophyte with no background with which to judge him by, with concerns from moderates and the right about how far left he really lived, etc. all because of how much we disliked Bush. Obama is going to be even less popular than Bush, because he’s perceived as hurting our wallets and as incompetent.

          Just about any Republican can win in 2010. And will. If we’re lucky, it’ll be a dark horse. If we’re not, it’ll be one of the usual suspects.

          1. Exactly. We elected two Southern governors no one had ever heard of and a former actor who was considered too old and too radical for national office all because we were angry at the incumbent party.

        4. I think it would fucking hilarious if someone ran on a Democratic ticket, did it all Obama style and everything, got elected, and then said “Hey guys, I forgot to mention that I’m actually a libertarian and lied to you for the past 18 months.”

        5. If Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich or Palin are anywhere near the nomination, wake me up in 2016.

          Based on his record, why exactly do libertarians hate Gingrich so much?

          The Gingrich-led House GOP was far better than as led by the later Speakers. He’s certainly not unintelligent or intellectually incurious (indeed, perhaps too curious), so that criticism doesn’t apply.

          Is it purely a personality type thing, or a belief that he can’t win? I don’t really see why libertarians would care about that so much.

    2. John the bill’s popularity is rising. Nobody is going to vote to do away with the reforms in it. Everyone likes the specific elements. You’re just attacking the bill as an amorphous bogeyman that right wing talking heads tell you everyone hates.

      1. As employers start to drop people’s health insurance benefits because it is cheaper to pay the tax than keep the insurance and more and more people end up in the publicly run exchanges, which of course are going to be mad expensive because of people gaming the system and not buying insurance until they are sick (see the MA example), whatever popularity it has gained via propaganda will evaporate.

        I would point you to the below linked report from HHS.

        About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

        An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

        A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

        http://www.politico.com/static…..acted.html

        This thing is going to unfold as a national tragedy. And no amount of lying and obfuscating will be able to hide that.

        1. My god you are a dishonest hack. Are you aware of being one, or does it just come naturally?

          The bottom line to all your selective citing is that the number of uninsured in this country will be cut in half by 2019.

          1. Come on Tony. At least try to respond to the points. Stop calling names. You are better than Dan T and Edward. Put up a link to a credible source that says the number of uninsured will be cut in half. And moreover, disprove the numbers I gave or explain why reducing the number of uninsured being reduced somehow outweighs the harm. Do that or shut up. Calling people names and pulling unlinked statistics out of your ass just wastes everyone’s time.

            1. I got that number from the very document you linked to.

              1. As AO points out below, what good is insurance if you can’t find a doctor and it costs twice as much as it once did? The point is to provide health care not insurance. Insurance is the means not the end.

            2. How much do you trust HHS reports?

              1. When it cuts against the current administration line, a lot. The numbers must have been pretty bad and self evident to get HHS to even admit this much.

          2. My god you are a dishonest hack. Are you aware of being one, or does it just come naturally?

            Pot, meet Kettle, Kettle, Pot.

          3. So what, Tony? People need health care, not health insurance. What good is insurance if there’s no one around to take it and it’s more expensive than the unconstitutional tax you so favor?

            I am definitely going to be one of those who game the system. I’ll wait until I get cancer and blam! smack you with the bill you have to pay.

            1. I have no doubt of that. Libertarians are the ultimate freeloaders.

              1. Why the fuck not, asshole? Shit like you vote for massive fucking government shoved down our throats, and you expect us to work hard to pay the bill? Fuck off and die, Tony. FOAD.

              2. Voting to make someone else pay for something doesn’t make you not a freeloader.

              3. ultimate whinny freeloaders

                1. You sir, are a cock-sheath.

                  1. You stupid dick

              4. “Freeloading” as you define it is what Obamacare invites by design. If you don’t like that, you shouldn’t be defending the bill.

      2. John the bill’s popularity is rising.

        No. Polls that have slightly different questions that have always shown more support have been polled more recently. If you look at the same poll over time, support has been stable.

        Unless you, Tony, would be willing to concede that the bill’s popularity declines whenever Rasmussen runs some extra polls.

    3. And he has two wars to fight. He has an economy that is the worst in 70 years. He has the largest peace time deficit in history.

      Como?

      1. I think it is the largest peacetime deficit in history right now. It is certainly the largest in dollar terms. But it is also the largest in percent of GNP, if I am not mistaken. If there has ever been a larger one, I can’t think of it.

        1. I believe his reaction was more to the juxtaposition of the claim that he has “two wars to fight”, and later the claim that it’s the biggest “peace time” deficit. Those two statements can’t exactly be reconciled with each other.

          1. That is a good point. My bad for always thinking of war meaning world war II. This would not technically speaking be a peacetime deficit. He has the largest deficit since world war II.

            1. Well, since we never declared War, it’s still a peacetime deficit.

        2. I think you missed the bolded point, John.

          1. I know. It is not a peace time deficit. Make that the largest deficit since World War II.

        3. Then we’re not at war?

          1. Yeah yeah yeah. the brain isn’t fully functioning today.

            1. No, we are at Nation Building.

              1. above called violent policing that works.

    4. And he has two wars to fight …. He has the largest peace time deficit in history.

      It’s like you’re not even trying anymore, John.

      1. Oops, beaten to the punch. Should read all the comments before I post.

  5. Even if it is defunded, it’s going to bury me in 1099s as well as screw with my health savings plan coverage. This crap must be rescinded defunding just isn’t enough.

    I generally despise Republicans, and have always been a reliable protest vote for an independent in the past.The time coming is special though, if you are someone who could credibly win against a health care voting incumbent, you have my support. Giving cash to Betsy Markey’s no doubt theocratic Repub opponent hurts like continually smashing my toe with a hammer, but we are on the event horizon of a giant black hole of stupidity that threatens to consume us all.

    1. but we are on the event horizon of a giant black hole of stupidity that threatens to consume us all.

      Don’t watch much sci-fi do you? The best way to keep from falling in a blackhole is to spend accelerate as fast as you can, and slingshot around it.

  6. The other factor is that most people, in my estimation, don’t have a clue what’s actually in the bill. They have no idea how damaging it will be. They only know what they heard on MSNBC or Fox and that info is questionable at best. The public’s perception will be molded by whatever spin the media gives it.

    1. We’ll let you know what’s in the bill once it’s passed when we’re damned good and ready, or never, whichever we choose, prole.

  7. “but there are drawbacks to the strategy. First, it would allow opponents to say that Republicans are yanking health care money from children/the poor/etc.”

    Big Government Democrats always say that about Republicans and Libertarians no matter what they do.

    1. Because that’s what they always do… to hear Republicans and libertarians talk, having the most expensive healthcare in the world and the worst healthcare delivery in the world is not something that ever needed to be addressed.

      1. I’m not sure addressing it by doubling down on those two characteristics is a winning strategy.

      2. Wrong, we want it to be adressed without the government. The government itself is the very problem. Why can’t I by cheaper drugs from Canada or other nations? Government laws. Why can’t I buy over the counter alergy medications that actually work any more? Government laws.

        If the government made shoes and people spoke against that saying we should let the market manufacture shoes without government interference, the big government democrats would say Republicans and Libertarians want everyone to go barefoot!

        1. Considering all those other countries whose healtchare costs half as much and is efficiently delivered universally have some form of government-run healthcare, perhaps you’re aiming at the wrong target?

          Why do laws exist that prevent buying prescription drugs in Canada? That would be the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on government. I’m sure you’re in favor of all sorts of policies to diminish that influence.

          1. Poor government… if only people would stop influencing it so much, it might do a better job.

          2. “Considering all those other countries whose healtchare costs half as much and is efficiently delivered universally”

            [Citation needed]

            “I’m sure you’re in favor of all sorts of policies to diminish that influence[of the pharmaceutical industry].”

            Sure, I am. As an anarcho-capitalist I do not think there should be a government at all. How could the pharmaceutical industry influence something that does not exist?

            1. How could the pharmaceutical industry influence something that does not exist?

              Prayer.

              1. ThreadWin!

              2. Hahahahahaha!!!

            2. Oh okay. Well since you don’t believe in government, I’m within my rights to take all your stuff provided you don’t have a bigger gun than I do, so I don’t see what you’re complaining about.

              1. “Well since you don’t believe in government, I’m within my rights to take all your stuff ”

                Rights are not derived from government. They are inherrent to our nature as human beings. Besides, I have a right to defend myself from theives. I also have the right to hire defense services from others. We can debate the details of this if you like, if not I will not bore you.

                Governments infringe upon rights, they do not create them.

                1. PIRS,

                  But that’s the thing. There are no rights without government, because without it there is no way to legitimize your claim to those rights or to your stuff. An unscrupulous person who doesn’t possess your ethical system can come by and take it, and not only will there be no police to stop him, he will have exactly as legitimate a claim on it as you do. You don’t get your right to keep your stuff from the fabric of the universe. It exists as a contract between you and your fellow citizens, enforced by the government. Natural rights is mystical hogwash, and in an anarchic system, you can bet that very few people will be as certain of their existence as you are.

                  1. All these years trolling these boards and you still don’t understand anything about what it is we believe. The strength and will of your commitment to ignorance is quite amazing.

                  2. Tony,

                    “There are no rights without government, because without it there is no way to legitimize your claim to those rights or to your stuff.”

                    If you truly are interested, there are:

                    http://mises.org/books/securityproduction.pdf

                    “An unscrupulous person who doesn’t possess your ethical system can come by and take it, and not only will there be no police to stop him, he will have exactly as legitimate a claim on it as you do.”

                    Are you implying that unscrupulous people never take charge of governments? The problem with governments is that they assume a monopoly on the use of force. When an individual does this we call that person a criminal. When a government employee does this we call that person a police officer or soldier. Does someone magically become more ethical once that person is in the employ of the government?

                    “It exists as a contract between you and your fellow citizens, enforced by the government.”

                    Governments do not exist based upon consent. Even in a “democracy” where we have popularity contests to choose our dictators only a majority at best, plurality at worst, choose any particular dictator.

                    “Natural rights is mystical hogwash, and in an anarchic system, you can bet that very few people will be as certain of their existence as you are.”

                    I am an atheist and reject mysticism. I observe natural rights in nature. Animals defend their own defined space, their own property. To me, I own my cat. To my cat, he owns me. Our recognition of this special property is different for each of us but to each of us it exists. To me, the ants in my backyard are wildlife. To them, I am wildlife. We each have an inborn right to defend our property to the extent possible.

                2. Don’t worry, PIRS. I’ve no doubt that your gun is bigger than his.

                3. “Rights are not derived from government. They are inherent to our nature as human beings.” Just like food, water, shelter and health care. 🙂

                  1. Correction,

                    I do agree we need to fight to protect our rights. If that is your point I agree. But water and food exist, we need to gather them, but they exist.

                    I understand your point however and it is noted.

                    1. Do you gather your water from a well? I turn on my tap, and it is filtered at a city plant funded through taxation. If a third party distributed our water, would we all have equal access to our right of water? Health care needs to be reasonably priced and equally accessible to all. Rc loves to mention how the poor have access through our “safety net” hospitals but fails to mention that those above the poverty line, and the middle class are left financially unable to afford this right.

                    2. “Do you gather your water from a well? I turn on my tap, and it is filtered at a city plant funded through taxation.”

                      Really? I live in a city also but I get a water bill. The city is acting as a monopoly for this service. Do you like monopolies?

                      “If a third party distributed our water, would we all have equal access to our right of water?”

                      A third party DOES distribute water. Try again.

                      “but fails to mention that those above the poverty line, and the middle class are left financially unable to afford this right.”

                      [Citation needed]

                    3. Oh please! Your water infrastructure is paid through your taxation. Your water bill is likely a charge based on usage. “The city is acting as a monopoly for this service. Do you like monopolies?” Yes, I want consistent services paid with my tax dollars. If I have an issue, I have the option of voting out those responsible in city government.
                      Citation needed?
                      “After the initial shock of these massive charges, most uninsured people who cannot pay their medical bills can either just file for bankruptcy, or they can try to apply for public assistance (State Medicaid) if they qualify under the abysmally low thresholds enacted by most states. After a few months or years of unsuccessful collection efforts, many unpaid medical bills are simply subsumed into the overall system. The physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers merely increase their bills submitted to insured patients to make up for those unpaid bills, many of which are more than twice what is paid by insurance carriers for the same services.”

                      http://themoderatevoice.com/33…..tsourcing/

                    4. “Your water infrastructure is paid through your taxation.”

                      Yea, and I also pay taxes. Do you?

                      “If I have an issue, I have the option of voting out those responsible in city government.”

                      And if a majority or plurality of your fellow voters vote for someone else? Do you then have the option of purchasing services from someone else?

                      I wonder how much those moderately-low income people pay in taxes. How much over their lifetime has been taken up via sales taxes, property taxes, medicade, medicare, estate taxes etc.

                    5. Yes, I pay taxes. If the majority votes to keep an inept government, my choices are to move, or work to educate the populace to my POV. People who live in rural areas confront overdevelopment and increasing demand of taxable services. The reality is that we cannot always successfully maintain our status quo, or change our government. I know it is a popular Libertarian theme that poor people are always playing the system, taking more resources than their contributions to our society. Guess what? It is likely true with some people but my observation is that most have often returned time and talent to society. Frankly, It has also been my observation that the wealthy are likely to play the system and do so with pride… And no I won’t cite who, but you would know at least one of them.

                    6. “If the majority votes to keep an inept government, my choices are to move, or work to educate the populace to my POV.”

                      In a free market there is no need to move. Regardless of the market preferences of your neighbors you have the option to buy from elsewhere. Your neighbors can eat McDonald’s Hamburgers and no one forces you to do so. Niche markets exist in everything from food to music to software. Those who choose to not go with the herd have options in a free society. If food were chosen by vote I would not be able to eat most of my favorite foods.

                      “People who live in rural areas confront overdevelopment and increasing demand of taxable services.”

                      People who live in rural areas live in a world of government like the rest of us. They just have a different kind of government in some cases. It is not always “small government” either.

                      “I know it is a popular Libertarian theme that poor people are always playing the system”

                      No, you have use confused with conservatives. Poor people suffer the most from government. [SEE ALSO: “War on Drugs”. SEE ALSO “Eminent domain” SEE ALSO “Disproportional levels of incarceration”.]

                      “It has also been my observation that the wealthy are likely to play the system and do so with pride… ”

                      Yes, that is why we oppose corporate welfare. There is collusion between the rich and the government. We oppose that.

                    7. “In a free market there is no need to move. Regardless of the market preferences of your neighbors you have the option to buy from elsewhere.” Perhaps, on a computer animated city. Otherwise, a business has to justify their costs, and they will not supply goods or services without an expectation of profit-in the case of water= multiple consumers. I agree with your other statements but this site is full of ‘welfare queens’ references, and unfettered support for corporations to self-regulate without any government regulation.

                    8. “Otherwise, a business has to justify their costs, and they will not supply goods or services without an expectation of profit-in the case of water= multiple consumers.”

                      Multiple? In rural areas people have the option of well water. One of the great things about technology is that it enables possibilities that did not exist before. Create a market and someone will fill that market. Bottled water already exists. Cisterns to catch rain water are another possible alternative. They are not possible now but if the market were freed perhaps the technology would make them popular. Micro-markets exist in the real world. We see this in many areas of life – areas where there is a free market that is.

                    9. “I agree with your other statements but this site is full of ‘welfare queens’ references, and unfettered support for corporations to self-regulate without any government regulation.”

                      What does the one have to do with the other?

                    10. What does the one have to do with the other?

                      Speaks to the childish/simple viewpoint of libertarians.

                    11. “Speaks to the childish/simple viewpoint of libertarians.”

                      Ad hominems are a sign that you have no answer.

                    12. a fact, is a fact, is a fact. The ad hominem defense is boring and frankly, the most overused ad hominem. 😉

                    13. Don’t be a poor sport. I had fun 🙂

                  2. Just like your mom’s penchant for my giant black dick.

                    1. a fucking child. Be a man and use your name.

          3. Cultural factors >> healthcare. Car accidents, violent crime, drug use, alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancies, and reporting differences significantly skew our health outcomes. The difference in life expectancy between Sweden and the U.S. has not changed since before universal healthcare was enacted in Sweden.

      3. the most expensive healthcare in the world and the worst healthcare delivery in the world

        We could be a lot cheaper if we were like Cuba and paid doctors about $40 a month. We’d be cheaper if we didn’t have so many government regulations that increased prices. And yet, people come from all over the world to get medical treatment here. Why is that?

          1. “And yet, people come from all over the world to get medical treatment here. Why is that?” Cite it! The better question is why they leave the US for care?

            1. “Cite it!”

              Here you go:

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19809557/

              Until recently we had a (comparatively) free market in health care. But we still had a system saddled with overregulation. The short answer : price. Our system costs as much as it does largely because of government overregulation.

              1. …and systems outside the US cost a lot less because of government regulation. Why do you think drugs are so much cheaper in Canada?

                1. “Why do you think drugs are so much cheaper in Canada?”

                  Because the drug companies were willing to negociate the prices with the government. The R&D costs are passed onto us. If the US government would decriminalize purchasing the drugs from Canada they would no longer be willing to negociate with the Canadian government. The drug prices would more even across North America.

                  The real enemy however is the patent system. The patent system is itself a creature of government.

                2. Pirs, your link was about one family. Hardly a citation.

                  1. Here you go, an even better one:

                    http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2008/(BP) med tourism.pdf

                    1. Pirs, even better for my POV. Read page 2!

                    2. “Pirs, even better for my POV. Read page 2!”

                      How is that better for your point of view? I’m all for free trade. I have no problems with Americans going to other countries for medical procedures. It is free trade.

                  2. Do you think it would not be more efficient for a business to say fuck you to Canada? Or to any other country that does not play ball? They could charge US consumers the true costs of medication and not have to work to recoup their loss. Or is it perhaps, they are making a worthwhile profit in foreign countries while enjoying the benefits of deceiving their US consumers.

                    1. “Do you think it would not be more efficient for a business to say fuck you to Canada?”

                      Why do you equate not selling you a product with saying “fuck you”? If walk to Starbucks and refuse to pay what they charge for coffee they will simply not sell me the coffee. As I say in the post part of the problem is the patent system. The patent system is a creature of government. We see similar issues in software. Microsoft charges large amounts of money for its product because it is patented. No one else can sell Windows Seven. There are people however who use GNU-Linux. GNU-Linux is released under a free-software license and can be freely downloaded. Here:
                      http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

                      These programs exist because of many, independent contributions from many, independent people working alone and at the same time together in a remarkable web of ideas. Because they are not patented (in the same way at least) they can remix and combine their ideas in an almost infinite number of ways. The results you can see for yourself (at no charge!) This is in no way incompatible with capitalism. It is simply capitalism without patents.

                    2. Pirs, what a charming game of evading the topic. Yes, I concede patents are an issue, and research estimates for drug development are exaggerated. Starbucks will not set up business in a country that has governmental regulation impeding a profit, even if they can recoup losses in the US. Unlike healthcare, I can refuse to walk into a Starbucks and make my own coffee. There in lies the crux of medical care: I am not adapt at performing surgical procedures in my own home.

                    3. “There in lies the crux of medical care: I am not adapt at performing surgical procedures in my own home.”

                      Of course not, but in a truly free market there is competition. There was a period of time in U.S. history when it was quite common to have physicians willing to visit people at home. Nuses sometimes do now but usually not physicians. Do you think there was more government regulation at that time or less?

                    4. Also you are missing another point. Without patents Canada could just manufacture these drugs on its own.

                    5. Yes, in an ideal world, there would be plenty of competition, but there also would be collusion and racketeering. Again, when the need for a service is absolute, the chances of a true free market are diminished. Patents are a complicated issue. Much research is paid for with tax dollars in foreign countries, and then sold to US drug manufactures for therapeutic treatment.

                    6. “Yes, in an ideal world, there would be plenty of competition, but there also would be collusion and racketeering.”

                      By collusion in this context I assume you mean between private companies to raise a price? What would happen in a situation like that is that, if the price was too high a non-colluding competitor would enter the market.

                      http://mises.org/daily/4397

                      Racketeering unusually refers to fraud. Is that your meaning? If so, a person would have a disincentive to defraud his customers because his reputation would be soon ruined. Look at the effectiveness of Consumer reports, Angie’s list, Good Housekeeping and the local “Action News” reports. They have a huge incentive to treat their customers with respect.

                      “Again, when the need for a service is absolute, the chances of a true free market are diminished.”

                      [Citation needed]

                      “Much research is paid for with tax dollars in foreign countries, and then sold to US drug manufactures for therapeutic treatment.”

                      And research would exist without patents and without tax dollars. The reason I gave you that software link is because it provides a model for advancing technology without tax dollars and without patents (in the normal sense).

                    7. I will read your mises.org link later this evening.

                      Pirs, not all research is equivalent. Some can be done in a dirt hut located in a third world country, and require only brilliance, time, and a good internet connection. I think we can agree drug research does not fall under limited resource conditions.

                      “Again, when the need for a service is absolute, the chances of a true free market are diminished.”

                      [Citation needed]

                      by me 😉

                    8. “Some can be done in a dirt hut located in a third world country, and require only brilliance, time, and a good internet connection. I think we can agree drug research does not fall under limited resource conditions.”

                      True resources may not be the same but the principle is the same. In a free market the technology would also become cheaper to do the research would also decrease. Technology always decreases in cost in a free market. Cars were once only for the very rich. Computers were once of such a cost only large corporations could afford them.

                    9. “Again, when the need for a service is absolute, the chances of a true free market are diminished.”

                      Evidence?

                    10. Pirs, my evidence is my experience. It will take some time to research my viewpoint, but I know instinctively, it is true.

                    11. “It is vain, however, to call simply for clearer statutory definitions of monopolistic practice. For the vagueness of the law results from the impossibility of laying down a cogent definition of monopoly on the market.” I am not familiar with the Sherman Act, or subsequent legislation, and would like to read further on this subject. I doubt that such laws are completely unknowable or unclear to business. Certainly, every antitrust case cannot be based on some new interpretation of law.

                    12. One of the problems with antitrust laws is that is punishes success itself. Why would only one business remain standing in the market? How would this occur in the first place? By providing customers with products and or services that they want.

                    13. “Pirs, my evidence is my experience. It will take some time to research my viewpoint, but I know instinctively, it is true.”

                      And what viewpoint is that exactly?

                    14. Pirs,”Again, when the need for a service is absolute, the chances of a true free market are diminished.”
                      I don’t have faith that business can remain fully unregulated, and still maintain scruples.

                    15. What about governments? Let us take this same thinking and apply it to government? Who regulates government? It can’t be voters because they are not doing that job now are they?

                    16. We regulate every 4 years. “It can’t be voters because they are not doing that job now are they?” Depends if you are in the majority.

  8. This would be *almost* as underhanded as Pelosi’s tricks getting it passed.

  9. This is a great idea, but not exactly original. The republicans have made vague promises to defund parts of the leftist bureaucratic infrastructure for much of my life, and with a couple of small, barely significant exceptions they’ve never come through, so I have no faith at all that they will do so in this case.

  10. I just love it when people who don’t really produce anything, like politicians, bankers, and insurance companies, talk about some kind of deal they’ve arranged to move money around and call it a “product”.

    1. Not “a ‘product'”. Just, “product”.

    2. I just love it when people sarcastically talk about things when they don’t really know what they’re talking about.

      Insurance companies do provide a product called an insurance policy, which is a promise to pay for covered losses. Perhaps you’ve purchased one because there are risks in life and you wanted to lessen the impact of those risks by being indemnified.

  11. having the most expensive healthcare in the world and the worst healthcare delivery in the world

    HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You guys are killing me today! Is this Trollapalooza week or something? Love it!

    1. This is why I don’t bother with Tony any more. I don’t agree that he’s any better than Dan or Max. He may use less profanity and is a bit more civil, but he talks as much shit as the rest of them.

      “The worst healthcare delivey in the world” statement is just a classic example of complete hyperbolic madness, which is a symptom of liberalitis.

      1. You are right. Sometimes I think Tony is different because he doesn’t shout obscenities or post under dumb ass sock puppet names. But then he says stuff like that and proves me wrong. But I am telling you, he has an above average grip on reality for a liberal. They really do think that way.

      2. What’s wrong with what I said? Other than it’s slight hyperbole in that I implicitly exclude all the shithole 3rd world countries. America has had the worst healthcare delivery in the industrialized world, meaning lots of people have simply gone without.

        1. Americans can go without health insurance but they can still get treated at hospitals and not get turned down. And I suppose waiting months for an operation as they do in other industrialized countries doesn’t bother you one bit. You are very selective in your use of the phrase “worst healthcare delivery”.

        2. America has had the worst healthcare delivery in the industrialized world, meaning lots of people have simply gone without.

          [citation, as they say, needed].

          I have worked in non-profit healthcare for nearly 20 years. I can assure you, the only people going without healthcare are the ones too dysfunctional to seek it out at all.

          You can get any treatment for any condition without paying a penny of your own money in this country, simply by walking in the door of the nearest “safety net” hospital. And trust me, there isn’t a poor person in the country who doesn’t know which those are.

          1. No shit

          2. I went though this with Joe years ago, provided citations, my personal experience of working in healthcare for 20 years, using real-world ER experiences and procedures, charts, links to “Get your free healthcare here” websites from King County, the City of Seattle, the State of Washington and essentially proved to him that with even a modicum of initiative and effort, you could, one way or another, receive free healthcare. This was after a smug post of his about how no poor woman could get cheap prenatal care, so we have to pay thousands or hundreds of thousands in neonatal care after the fact.

            After that, he claimed he “refused” to engage in any thread about healthcare.

            This canard that the U.S. provides the worst healthcare in the industrialized world has gotten to the point where it’s not just hyperbole, it a demonstrable lie.

  12. More empty grandstanding trying to pander for votes. There is no way they ever vote to defund it. That would take more galls than a full scale repeal, which they won’t do either.

    I loathe Republitards, but at the very least, they generally don’t do shit nearly as stupid and harmful as Obamacare. It’s hard to ignore leftist statism because of its coercive nature. I can ignore bad wars until they blow over; fucking high insurance premiums month after fucking month after fucking month is the gift that keeps on giving.

  13. Republicans could take down the new health care law by refusing to fund it

    Ha, ha, biotches! It’s self-funding!

  14. Miller: Smitty have you seen… anything unusual at all?

    Smith: No, I haven’t seen anything and I don’t need to see anything sir but I can tell you…
    this ship is fucked.

    Dr. Weir: Well, thank you for that scientific analysis, Mr Smith.

    Smith: Yeah, well you don’t exactly have to be a scientist to figure it out, do ya?

    Miller: All right, all right!

    Smith: You break all the laws of physics and you seriously think there wouldn’t be a price? You went and killed the last fucking crew, and now you wanna kill us as well!

  15. ObamaCare is decoupling health insurance from employers which could be a plus in the long run. When the costs of ObamaCare kick in and there’s no way to pay for it, they’ll have to reform the system again. Hopefully that’s when they’ll implement a lot of free market measures.

    1. The worse the better, eh, Mr. B?

      I’m betting that the response to “this has gotten too expensive” will be more and more explicit rationing of care. Are you aware of any country that has gone any other way?

      1. First time for everything. And actually Canada has started to go the other way. Their Supreme Court struck down the ban on purchasing your own health care a few years ago.

        As the NHS system in the UK crashes I suspect they will go the other way. People are stupid and generally do stupid things. But they are not completely self destructive. At some point a system that doesn’t function fails. The Soviet Union failed even though it had and used the ability to murder millions to stay in power. Socialized medical systems will fail to.

        As smart as he was, Orwell was in the end wrong. People don’t stay in bondage forever. It just seems that way sometimes.

        1. There’s still a loooong distance between Canada’s system and anything resembling a free-market system.

    2. Once the populace adjusts to the new entitlement of health coverage at your neighbor’s expense (FREE!), you can bet they’ll get out and vote for the guy who promises more more more. The free market will be the scapegoat for any cost issues.

  16. Go ahead and defund it.

    The private insurance companies will still have to take all comers without regard to pre-existing conditions on a community-rated basis. They will sink like so many stones in a river without the promised government subsidies.

    Once they’re bankrupt, its single-payer by default. Socialist Paradise!

    1. Nah, the insurance companies will jack up rates sky-high to compensate for the much higher risks. The next step for the socialists will then be to try for price controls.

      1. Even better!

    2. Yeah, it’s like California energy “deregulation” plan that drove all the utilities into bankruptcy.

    3. Yeah, it’s like California energy “deregulation” plan that drove all the utilities into bankruptcy.

  17. Second, it only works as long as enough Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are in charge.

    It only takes 41 Senators to stop it. If the Ds get back up to 60 (which is SO not happening come November), stopping Obamacare will be the least of our worries.

  18. Do we really need to give the Democrats more “Starve the Beast” fodder?

    1. And fuck that. Michael Burgess completely fucked this up.

      Obamacare DEFUNDS ITSELF, for chrissake. It doesn’t require Republicans to do it. All it has to do is work as expected and the money will run out.

  19. Jeebus H. If you’ve got a majority to defund it, you’ve got a majority to repeal it. Grow a pair already.

    1. Would Obama sign a bill to repeal it? I didn’t think so. But if they have a majority in the House or Senate they could simply refuse to pass a spending bill with funding for it.

  20. It will get defunded by currency devaluation. Everything will.

  21. I don’t put any hope in men, and especially in the GOP, but that said, I think they’ll actually do it for a couple of reasons:

    1. It’s politically safe; the more that comes out about Obiecare, the less popular it becomes.

    2. They realize that if they don’t get rid of it, they will become politically extinct.

  22. ObamaCare will eliminate in-person doctor visits – from now on physicians will only “Tweet” their patients – SHOCKING details are at:

    http://spnheadlines.blogspot.c…..ts_17.html

    Have a great day! 🙂

  23. This is a sick law that needs to die of natural causes — lack of funding support. JUST SAY “NO”.

  24. The Republican controlled house will, after the midterm elections, include in the appropriations bills for every agency a standard restriction prohibiting the use of the funds to implement or carry-out Obamacare that also confers on any member of the public the right and standing to sue and enjoin the executive department fro, dispersing, obligation or spending said restricted funds. The house then will dig in its heels and force Obama to sign both bills or shut down the agencies?no matter what.

  25. Obama wants to offer amnesty to illegal aliens so he can have them become potential voters for his cause. What part of “illegal” doesn’t he understand? He offers them welfare and free medical care while we struggle to pay for them. If his Obamacare is so great why doen’t he and congress have to use it? Muslium

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.