Archive for the ‘obamacare’ tag
Evidently a mandated medical loss ratio of 85% is not even remotely feasible for “mini-med” plans that pay out limited benefits, experience high churn rates (which is typical of restaurants)Â and necessarily incur higher administrative expenses.
These policies are likely to go extinct– and not just at McDonald’s.
So you’re telling me the Democrats’ healthcare bill is having the exact opposite of its intended consequences?
But Democrats are so smart, and so well-meaning… How did that happen?
Ronald Reagan lets Nancy Pelosi know how he feels about Obamcare.
Reagan clip fromÂ “The Killers” (1964) via Ace of Spades HQ.
From an executive order dated January 20, 2009:
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at GuantÃ¡namo. The detention facilities at GuantÃ¡namo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at GuantÃ¡namo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
I am glad Obama realized the error of this order when he was (presumably) confronted with reality– and that the executive order has not typically beenÂ employed to rule by fiat–Â but maybe Bart Stupak should haveÂ taken that into account before selling his soul for an executive order.
From the St. Louis Business Journal:
Kinder called the health-care overhaul a violation of Missouriâ€™s sovereignty and Missouriansâ€™ rights.
â€œAt no other time in the history of our nation has a mandate forced citizens to purchase a product or face penalties, even imprisonment, for not doing so,â€ Kinder said. â€œAt a time when our state is dealing with vast budget deficits, we cannot afford to have the federal government throw this huge financial burden in our lap.â€
Kinder said he would join the suit using his statutory authority as Missouriâ€™s official senior advocate.
I am still unclear in what capacity he expects to join the suit, but glad somebody in Missourah’s ready to fight.
UPDATE: Dana Loesch has more, including the press release.
From a 1968 Medicare poster, via Nick Gillespie at Reason.
It is possible, for example, that the results of the legislation will turn out to be unpleasant more quickly than most observers realize. The bill requires insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same as everyone else, and the only reason for people not to game the system â€” dropping their insurance until they get sick and the insurer has to take them â€” is because the law requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine. For many people, the fine will be a cheap price to avoid premiums that could run around $8,000 a year for a family of four. The effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically â€” and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens, we can expect liberals to agitate for a single-payer system; but we can also expect the public to blame the Democrats whose health-care system it will now be. A less lopsidedly Democratic Congress is not going to respond to this chaos by enacting single payer or strengthening the fines.
Longer wait times, fewer doctors, more bureaucracy, massive IRS expansion, explosive debt, the end of the Pax Americana, and global Armageddon. Must try to look on the bright side . . .
And from Ace of Spades:
He also aims to make Republicans partners in the destruction of America, by making us endorse his cataclysmic irresponsibility — when we take back Congress, we will be faced with two vicious choices: Raise taxes ruinously, or allow the country to repudiate its debt and go bankrupt. Because the best option — repealing the bill — will be impossible until a real President is installed and next-to-impossible thereafter.
[T]he smart money says there won’t be five [Supreme Court] votes to thwart the popular will to enact comprehensive health insurance reform.
But what if five justices think the legislation was carried bleeding across the finish line on a party-line vote over widespread bipartisan opposition? What if control of one or both houses of Congress flips parties while lawsuits are pending? Then there might just be five votes against regulating inactivity by compelling citizens to enter into a contract with a private company. This legislation won’t go into effect tomorrow. In the interim, it is far more vulnerable than if some citizens had already started to rely upon its benefits.
Via Ace of Spades.