Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterAnalysts address Heller’s objections
They say insurance isn’t like other purchases, as congressman asserts
Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- Close House vote on health care highlights Harry Reid’s tough task (11-11-2009)
- Why Dean Heller’s hard line on immigrants might sting later (11-8-2009)
- House poised for historic vote (11-6-2009)
- Dina Titus backing House health care plan after changes (11-4-2009)
- Their stories heard on the Hill (11-4-2009)
- Harry Reid’s next health care test: Securing 60 votes (10-28-2009)
Sun Coverage
Rep. Dean Heller
Washington — Since returning to Nevada after the House vote on health care reform, Republican Rep. Dean Heller has laid out one of his objections to the bill — call it the iPod argument.
Heller opposes the legislation’s mandate that all Americans carry health insurance.
Some people may want to buy health care, Heller said, others might want to buy an iPod. It should be their choice.
“I think all Americans ought to have access to health care,” Heller told Sun columnist Jon Ralston on the “Face to Face With Jon Ralston” TV program Tuesday.
“They ought to choose whether or not they want access,” Heller continued. “There are Americans out there who would choose, if they’re going to choose between health care and, say, an iPod — they’ll choose an iPod over their health care.
“I don’t know anywhere in the Constitution where it requires a citizen here in this country to have health care.”
Heller’s argument touches on economic and constitutional questions raised by proposed health care reform.
First, the economic front. Everyone loves free markets, except when markets fail, which is partly the situation today as health care premiums rise beyond what families can afford.
One reason health care premiums are high is something economists call externalities, unexpected costs or benefits that are not included in the price of a thing.
Externalities can be positive — your neighbors unexpectedly paint their home, boosting property values on the entire block. Or they can be negative — a factory spews pollution into the environment before it packs up and moves on.
In health care, the uninsured create negative externalities. Their emergency room visits and poor health later in life are hidden costs that jack up the price of health care for everyone else, explained Mark Thoma, an economist at the University of Oregon.
Nationwide, families pay an extra $1,100 annually for health care premiums to cover the emergency room bills of the uninsured, according to a study by Families USA, a national organization supporting health care reform.
Economists tend to believe that if all Americans are required to carry health insurance, the way drivers are required in many states to carry auto insurance, costs will be spread more equitably across the system.
“It’s a way to get people to pay their fair share,” Thoma said.
“As a society we’ve decided we’re not going to let people die because of a lack of health care,” he said, referring to the 1986 law signed by former President Ronald Reagan that prohibits hospitals from turning away emergency room patients.
But if people aren’t required to take responsibility for their own care, everyone else foots the bill.
“Your congressman would end up paying the health care costs of the neighbor, and it may be even more costly to do it that way,” Thoma said.
The health care lobby has embraced the individual mandate because it will funnel as many as 30 million uninsured Americans into health care plans, a huge increase in new customers.
Both the House and Senate bills provide subsidies to help Americans buy insurance.
But insurers also say the only way they can guarantee coverage for all — regardless of preexisting conditions or age — is to broaden the risk pool to include those who are less risky.
“The only way the market reforms work is if everybody participates,” said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for the nation’s 1,300 insurance companies.
This leads to another economic theory — the lemons problem.
Insurance is all about risk. If the young and healthy go without coverage, then insurers are constantly left covering the older and sicker — a riskier pool. As the insured require more care, those in the pool pay higher premiums, forcing some to drop out.
Imagine, Thoma explains, if only the sickest — the lemons — are left in the pool. “If you let all the healthy people drop out … you don’t have anyone to pay for the unhealthy people,” he said.
Think of it like Social Security. Ask a group of 25-year-olds if they want to see 6.2 percent of their paychecks siphoned off for their old-age pension, and surely many will say no.
But as a society we have agreed to pay into the Social Security system to take care of old folks, believing that the next generation of young people will follow suit.
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to Social Security, which leads to the Constitutional question raised by Heller. The congressman is right in that nowhere in the Constitution does it say: We the people require everyone to have health insurance.
Many federal laws are not spelled out in the Constitution, from the unpopular and abandoned 55 mph speed limit to the ongoing mandate to desegregate schools.
The Constitution establishes broad authority to provide for the common defense, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, among other tasks. Congress can pass laws. The president can sign or veto them. And the judicial branch will test their legality.
Heller believes the bill as passed by the House would be challenged in court if it were to become law. But he told Ralston he is not yet sure whether he would be party to that claim.
What is certain is the iPod argument has entered the health care debate in Nevada.
Discussion: 52 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Franchione potential early candidate for UNLV football post
- Big fight headed for a New Frontier?
- Las Vegas condo hotels remain a tough sell — just ask Trump
- $60 million to stabilize neighborhoods buys five homes
- Hotels rein in risque advertising campaigns
- LV companies in denial about problem gambling
- Funny Face: Carrot Top’s stage act a mask of contradictions
- Reserve Rebels didn’t have time to panic
- Hospital privacy leak could harm patients
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (1 Comment)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 21 Sat
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
lies, spin, lies and more spin...
typical stupid pathetic lying republican obstructionism...
isn't it funny how clever these clowns think they are...
they think their constituents are stupid...
talk faster...
change the subject...
talk louder...
rattle off nonsense...
and the saddest part of all...
that stupid pathetic lying republican smile...
always that damn smile...
let's knock that smile off of ole deanie boy's face in the next election...
shall we...
The smiling money hustler strikes again!
What this article explains is that included in your insurance premium is a tax to care for others that don't provide for themselves. This is caused by government interference in the market by a mandate that hospitals provide free care to any that walk in the door.
The solution is another government mandate that everyone pay for the first mandate and still keep all the costs called anything but a tax on you to pay for someone else.
It sounds like the government should get out of mandates and if it wants to provide care for those that don't take care of themselves to have the courage to tax people and take the political consequence. Quit playing the games.
"some people want to buy health care, others may want to buy an ipod."
This, on several levels, may be the dumbest statement a politician has made in awhile.
And THAT is quite an accomplishment! Congrats,
Rep. Heller.
.
..
...I thought mandates came out of San Francisco...???
..
.
Neiman1,
There is no mandate that hospitals provide free care to any that walk in the door. That is a part of the lies the health insurance companies have spread.
Hospitals bill you (heavily) and can take your house if you don't pay. Don't believe their lies.
The only mandate is that they must stabilize you (i.e. blood pressure and heart rate). They do not have to do more than that, and they have every right to charge you for it.
The problem is that so many people either can't afford the bill and don't pay (which ruins their credit), or they are illegals that can't be found to bill.
I do agree that we need to get rid of the entire current system, and create universal health care. It would cost each of us a lot less than it does right now, if only because we'd take the insurance company profits out of it.
If you're going to wade into economics, please be thorough. "Externalities" that drive the cost up include state mandates that force insurance companies to cover conditions for which their customers have no use. For instance, a young single male who's just starting his career has no need for insurance that covers maternity, but if he chooses to buy health insurance, he has to pay for deluxe coverage he'll never use. Hell, yes, he'd rather have an iPod. Or maybe he'd just like a basic plan that covers him if he breaks his leg snowboarding. But no such plan is available to him.
Before Food stamp legislation was passed in the 60's, while we watched starving people lay in the gutter on TV, the political leaders of the opposition told us that "eating" was optional, that people have to make a "choice". [BTW "choice is good for eating or not dying of illness, but not for a woman's right to choose...] They like Heller will be shown by history to be bizarre, weird, deniers. So unfeeling for their fellow human beings. The funny part is, that nearly everyone making these arguments HAVE health insurance already! Heller has gold-plated, low-cost government health care, and many others have Medicare. So easy to spout this nonsense when you have the care you need. Yes, there are a few who are serious, but when they get sick, well they're the first to demand the government step in for them because "they deserve it." Let Heller and his precious family give up their government healthcare and buy it on the wonderful free market. Here in Nevada that means $17,000 per person per year if they are lucky enough to qualify under HIPAA for continuation insurance. It is obvious he has a pre-existing condition: no compassion, empathy or feeling for his fellow man.
A republican who is incapable of understanding the health care "ecosystem"? This isn't news, its the norm!
The RJ even understood it (even if they didn't directly say it) a few months ago when they talked about the illegals getting dialysis - if you give the uninsured and illegals free, regularly scheduled dialysis care its *cheaper* for the taxpayer than having them come to the ER on an emergency basis and paying for unnecessary tests - UMC said they could cut 20M off their 70M/yr deficit if they could offer regularly scheduled out-patient dialysis to all comers instead of treating them in the ER on an emergency basis.
But the Republicans cant see beyond hating brown people to understand how this could save their wallets.
It comes down to this people:
Congress will still get operations like Ted Kennedy got; YOU WON'T!
Liberals just don't get it. Insurance, of any kind, should be optional to the individual. He and he alone should decide if and when he wants insurance. I don't want to fund that individual's car insurance if he decides he wants to buy a PC or a Mac or an I-POD with his money. Same way with healthcare insurance. If the medical insurance costs 800 dollars a month, it's up to the individual to get a job or be in business to afford that payment. I do. That's why I have premium healthcare insurance. I pay for it, and I pay for life, car, home etc etc.. . . so that I do not bug my neighbor with my burden.
For many, Gov. Forced Health Insurance Costs Could Equal Their Paid Income tax. Obama Forced Health Insurance with or without a Public Option is unaffordable for many Americans. Has Sen. Harry Reid considered the economic damage Forced Health Insurance Costs and Penalties will cause Americans? Millions of families that cannot afford to pay both forced health insurance and their home mortgage or rent, will have to pay Opt-Out penalties with money they might need for medical expenses.
Collected Property taxes will keep decreasing as more middle class home buyers that support housing values find it necessary to either offer lower prices for homes or Opt-Out buying health insurance to eliminate that debt, to qualify for mortgages. Lower home values already have lowered collected property taxes, forcing local governments to layoff workers and ask federal agencies for money; increasing federal deficits. Further decline in home sales and prices will cause more unemployment in construction, manufacturing, and other industries dependent on a stable housing market.
Reid and Obama Will Need Your Assets:
Reid' latest salvo to pay for subsidized government health care is to lay new payroll taxes on higher income Americans. The Reid tax would not generate enough money to pay the enormous costs of Democrat government health care. Reid and other Democrats will find it necessary to sharply raise income taxes on real estate and stock share gains, inheritance and profits made on other assets; effectively confiscating Citizens' assets that otherwise would be invested in the economy, business expansion and new employees. Socialism will work for the Obama Government only as long at it can use other peoples' money to pay for its programs. Socialism like cancer; cannibalizes its host, the people to pay for its programs and salaries of government bureaucrats.
Although I often identify with the economic arguments of Republicans, I am aghast and embarrased by Heller. What a moron! Expanding the risk pool is the only way that "more or less universal" health care can be achieved without a European style single payer system. Not only was the "i-pod" example stunningly stupid, his insistence upon using that hackneyed "strict constructionist" constitutional view adds insult to injury. If I were a registered Republican, I'd start searching for another candidate for his seat!!!
From the article...
"The congressman is right in that nowhere in the Constitution does it say: We the people require everyone to have health insurance.
Many federal laws are not spelled out in the Constitution, from the unpopular and abandoned 55 mph speed limit to the ongoing mandate to desegregate schools.
The Constitution establishes broad authority to provide for the common defense, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, among other tasks. Congress can pass laws. The president can sign or veto them. And the judicial branch will test their legality."
...for gmag and burnemandturnem;
I'm not going to argue with you whether Heller's remark about ipod's is stupid or not, but the gist of what he says is correct! Congress does NOT have the authority to require a private citizen to purchase health insurance. It will be ruled unconstitutional. No problem, Congress will get around that by just providing the health coverage itself, ie. public option, and then taxing everyone to pay for it.
Typical conservative hypocrisy. Protect the unborn, but once you're born, you're on your own. So much for the "right to life".
Tort reform fixes health care.
ipods are not that expensive but I see a lot of 20 something young men out there driving expensive 4x4 trucks towing big boats and ATVs and all other sorts of expensive toys. If they do not have healthcare through their exployers, I bet they don't have any. It is a well established fact that many younger people would rather purchase toys than health insurance. i see no reason whatsoever that the taxpayers should pay a dime toward these people and many others that have no insurance. Mr. Heller is much more intelligent than the two fools, Titus and the other ugly one whos name I cannot remember.
Ms. Mascaro,
This isn't an example of market failure. The private sector is providing as much of health insurance as it can given the incentives under which it operates. Those incentives are created by government.
Government mandates increase the price of health insurance.
Government restrictions on competition increase the price of health insurance.
Government tax law puts health insurance purchasing in the hands of your boss.
This isn't a free market - this is a government/boss managed market.
But Heller is right. Many people who rather buy other things than pay for health insurance at this point. All government will do is penalize them and still leave them without coverage (the penalty is $1,000 while coverage is $12,000 for a family of four - you do the math, what would you do?).
Oddly enough, I sort of agree with Mr. HappyHairHeller. A mandate to buy insurance without strong public option is a horrible, horrible idea.
So why don't we stop screwing around and pass universal/single payer health care. Nobody should have to go broke because their appendix goes out.
I wish the Las Vegas Sun would spend more time scrutinizing the Obama Administration instead of the biasis reporting. There are so many mis-truths being perpetrated by this admisinstration that goes unreported or under reported. The paper's Liberal bias is so obvious.
Dean Heller is an idiot. I'm sorry but everyone should be required to buy health insurance so that we dont get stuck with the bill when they get sick. Period.
leesa and neiman1;
You are both confused/wrong; here's what the article says...
"As a society we've decided we're not going to let people die because of a lack of health care," he said, referring to the 1986 law signed by former President Ronald Reagan that prohibits hospitals from turning away emergency room patients."
...it's the Hill-Burton law and it guarantees access to the ER for an emergency medical condition, not free care for that emergency medical condition. And if they, the hospital ER, determine that one does not have an emergency medical condition, and the definition for that is contained within the bill, then they can refuse any further treatment (but in reality they almost NEVER do that but instead they just provide the same diagnostic/therapeutic procedures that they would do on an insured patient and then bill you, and yes, later, take your house). You're both not far from correct but the distinction is important!
vc,
Like I said in an earlier post, DH may be an idiot, but he is correct about the unconstitutionality of the mandatory health insurance provision.
There is no doubt about you though, you are a socialist/communist. We have rights in this country, rights guaranteed by our constitution, rights that you would like to abrogate. That makes you anti-American. Please move to Russia/China/Cuba....thank you!
I don't see Heller giving up his government run health care that WE THE PEOPLE pay for.
Come on, Heller. Put your money where you mouth is.
You can't. Selfish, huh?
And everything thing you say against health care proves how empty the your soul truly is.
I suggest that the writer of this article first, completely and carefully read the bill. It's obvious to the most casual observer that has a brain in the right part of the human anatomy that she has not. I agree that there is and should not be a Healthcare Bill passed without Tort Reform which is a huge contributor to our present costs and has made many lawyers super rich. The most important objection that I have to this bill is that it violates our constitutional rights and makes us a socialistic nation. But of course the path to socialism is thru liberlism of which the author is a dues paying member.
Cignettis, are you really Cigna in disguise? well we have tort reform in Nevada and we have the highest rates for insurance in the USA. and those poor slobs who were tortured by Desai and the contaminated syringes are limited to a few buck for having their lives ruined.
The Budget office says that we spend less than 10 billion a year on torts. if they all went away [and quite frankly, most would not], we would save a few percent of our annual costs. So do the math, and admit that the problem is that you don't want OTHERS to have care that we all pay for. You, I'm sure already do, probably from the government [you know, military, Medicare, government job local state or fed.] You are already subsidized by the government. your employer get tax credits/deductions. individuals don't, or are miniscule due to low incomes. There is something wrong with society when the supposed "richest" country in the world allows its citizens to walk around sick, hungry, & homeless. Remember, every time you drive on a Nevada or federally paid-for road, you are benefitting from what you call socialism, and the rest of us call government services.
Anyone can buy an ipod
Not everyone can buy health care insurance.
What a putz.
Dean Heller is very popular among the conservatives, and it's not hard figuring out why that's true.
Heller is overly simplistic with his answers which appeals to many on the right who had rather take a "flogging" than be forced to do a little critical thinking....
For what ever it's worth, Heller doesn't appear to be much of a critical thinker himself. Is that a case of "birds of a feather, flocking together?" I'll allow you to decide that for yourself....
I agree that no place in the Constitution does it talk about health care, or Social Security, or Medicare, or segregated schools, or extending citizenship to Native Americans, but the Supreme Court has consistently backed legislation dealing with all those issues.
In other words, under the "general welfare clause" of the Constitution the government has done many things that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Hundred's (maybe thousand's) of federal laws are not spelled out in the Constitution, but they are very much part of our system.
Hmmmmm... I hope I haven't forced some of the conservatives on this board to perform a little mental gymnastics that they're probably not use to.....
I apologize if that's the case...
Below is an excerpt from the Congressional Budget Office regarding H.R.3962.
Private-Sector and Intergovernmental Impact
CBO and JCT have determined that the bill contains several private-sector and intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The total cost of mandates to the private sector, as estimated by CBO and JCT, would greatly exceed the threshold established by that act for private entities ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). The most costly mandates would be the new requirements regarding health insurance coverage that apply to the private sector. The bill would require individuals to obtain acceptable health insurance coverage, as defined in the bill, and would require employers to either offer health insurance to their employees or pay an excise tax to the federal government. The bill also would impose other mandates, including requirements on issuers of health insurance, new standards governing health information, nutrition labeling requirements, and limits on certain agreements between drug manufacturers for settling patent infringement claims.
CBO estimates that the total cost of intergovernmental mandates would be small and would not exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for state, local, and tribal entities ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). The new standards governing health information and nutrition labeling that apply to private-sector entities would also apply to governmental entities. In addition, the bill would preempt state and local laws that conflict with or are in addition to new federal standards established by the bill. Those preemptions would limit the application of state and local laws, but CBO estimates that they would not impose significant costs.
Hmm, an un-funded mandate to the private sector that greatly exceeds 139 million, and they want to preempt state and local laws that conflict with the new federal standards.
There has to be a better solution.
What has happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happeness? Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Communist; These are the self proclaimed names of most of our Government leaders and czars, Mr. Obama included. The more Rights given to, or taken from the people by the Government, the less freedom the people have. Once, We The People, allow our Government to control our health care, We cease to be free. READ the health care bills. Do you want to be called 'Comrad Citizen'; were headed that way.
Soon, you, belivers in the mandatory health care (if passed), will also be speachless when the Government says: the news people are saying and printing hate speech by informing the public about Government controls/takeovers. Does 'USSR' history remind anyone of anything or was that history left out of the history books. Obama health care is about power and control.
BarryS.....
Thank you....I love your answer to Cignettis. Especially the part where you said:
"There is something wrong with society when the supposed "richest" country in the world allows its citizens to walk around sick, hungry, & homeless. Remember, every time you drive on a Nevada or federally paid-for road, you are benefitting from what you call socialism, and the rest of us call government services."
Thank you.....you successfully stated what many of us have tried to say on several occasions but have often come up short...
tvegas said...
"Anyone can buy an ipod
Not everyone can buy health care insurance.
What a putz."
...turns out you're the putz, tvegas. According to the health care reform bill that Heller is opposing, not only CAN everyone buy health care insurance, but they also MUST buy health care insurance or be fined/imprisoned by this government. My suggestion to you would be first that you learn to read before you put into words, evidence that you are indeed a putz. You're welcome, by the way.
Tvegas,
Its not just the ipod, its the iphone, apple computer, tattoos, fancy close, nice car, lcd tv, ps3, blueray movies.
All of those little things add up. Some people would rather have them than health insurance.
Eitherway, most of you need to get real. The average person without health insurance can afford it - they just don't want it: http://reason.tv/video/show/get-some
Heller gets his health care through the government. Talk radio host Rusty Humphries, who used to live in Heller's district, filed BK on his wife's medical bills. Who pays? The hospitals and health care provides raise prices to make up for what people like Humphries weasel out of paying. Insurance companies raise rates to cover their losses.
In a letter dated Nov. 2 the Director of the Congressional Budget Office responding to a request for analysis of what premiums will cost under the public option sent Rep. Charles Rangel the following linked on CBO's Blog.
As an example -
"CBO also estimated the sum of enrollee premiums and average cost-sharing amounts for the middle of each income band and the average share of income that such spending would represent. For single enrollees, premiums plus cost-sharing payments would range from about $1,200 for those with income of about $14,700, to $6,300 for those with income above $34,000. For families, premiums plus cost-sharing payments would range from about $2,900 for those with income of $30,000, to nearly $20,000 for those with income above $96,000."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=363
this guy must have gone to school locally - goodness, give him a one way ticket to Vegas with no return to Washington!!!
Some people would rather have a computer and internet connection than health insurance...
This bill has some familiar aspects to others. When the income tax was first passed it was only to be collected from those earning more than $1 million. Well we know how that worked out. When Medicare was passed they said it would cost X dollars when in reality the cost was 9 times that. Social Security....well we all know how much money is there (none). Just ask your legislator to show you where they keep all the money. It'll be in a shoebox of IOU's partially written in Chinese.
So what makes you think that the government has any grasp on the cost figures in this legislation. I mean people you have to use common (ok, not common any more but "good") sense when you look at these things.
If that's not enough remember that if you fail to comply with the requirement to purchase the insurance you'll be fined and jailed. At least at that point you'll be fully vested in the government health plan and provided your new living quarters thanks to Obama/Reid/Pelosicare.
And if you aren't po'd enough yet just think that wheelchairs and joint replacements for folks like our veterans will now be taxed to provide abortions. Hard earned money that you pay in taxes will go towards care for illegal aliens.
What's not to love about the plan?
"What are you in for Slim?" asks Rocco.
"Murder," says Rocco, "What about you?"
"I willfully failed to purchase healthcare insurance," says Slim.
"Wow, you are doing HARD time."
It is obvious that the far right conservatives and the majority of Republicans could care less about anyone but their selves. They are self centered and care only about their own self interests. As it was stated previously they are concerned about the unborn, but don't care about the born. I have good health insurance, I would like to see everyone to get the same in this country. We can spend billions on needless wars, but can't assure everyone decent health care. A sad commentary for the country I have served for many years.
"It is obvious that the far right conservatives and the majority of Republicans could care less about anyone but their selves".
jemester2
Excuse me Jemester2, but while you were venting your spleen you may have missed this.
The Democrats are sandbagging the left who support and vote for them.
---------
Cost of health insurance premiums under the Public Option
In a letter dated Nov. 2 the Director of the Congressional Budget Office responding to a request for analysis of what premiums will cost under the public option sent Rep. Charles Rangel the following linked on the CBO's Blog.
As an example -
"CBO also estimated the sum of enrollee premiums and average cost-sharing amounts for the middle of each income band and the average share of income that such spending would represent. For single enrollees, premiums plus cost-sharing payments would range from about $1,200 for those with income of about $14,700, to $6,300 for those with income above $34,000. For families, premiums plus cost-sharing payments would range from about $2,900 for those with income of $30,000, to nearly $20,000 for those with income above $96,000."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=363
I guess I must be thick headed because it is not obvious to me that the far right or the far left, conservatives or liberals and the majority of Republicans or Democrats only care about themselves.
There is a thing called tough love where a parent has to send their children out into the world to make it for themselves. By not allowing their children to make it on their own, they are making them dependent on their families or others.
As it is now, everyone in this country has access to decent health care. They will not be turned away if they are injured or in need of medical care.
There needs to be health reform in this country to get insurance coverage for those without it. But we do not need a federal government takeover of our medical system.
jemster 2
I cannot agree more with your statement.
Well said
Jemster,
That isn't really true. The book "Who Really Cares" actually showed that people who believe in individualism - rather than government coercion (welfare state) gave more money to charity and volunteered more of their own time.
As it turns out, volunteering and donating your own money means you care.
Voting for a politician to take other peoples money by force doesn't mean you care.
I agree LarryVegas.
I think it would less expensive and better for all if we just subsidized/paid insurance premiums for those truly at lower income levels.
Also tossed in tort reform and cross state competition.
The current legislation is about a government takeover of our health care system not health care reform.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=363
HELLER IS DOING WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING: HE IS SERVING HIS CONSTITUENTS IN NORTHERN RURAL NEVADA, WHO ARE AMONG THE DUMBEST, THE MOST DISCONNECTED AND CLUELESS BAND OF COWBOYS EVER TO RIDE RANGE.
JUST DOING HIS JOB. JUST DOING HIS JOB...
Would somebody please pay for BIRDIE'S much needed lobotomy. Maybe then she can work and pay taxes like most of us.
I want Bud Light, burrittos, and a stripper mobile in my neighborhood.
My luck the stripper would end up being "Birdie."
By the way there bandit, I had two burritos for lunch with two Bud Lights for desert...
Have you, Las Vegas Sun, read the House health care bill that just past? Why don't you investigate and report? I hear the bill says, if you don't buy health care insurance, you'll be put in prison.
Your/our First Amendment is next to go, speak (write) now or live in chains. A czar is working on controlling talk radio.
$1100 a year? I don't buy this...but for the sake of expediency lets go along.
What are the insured and uninsured currently receiving for $1100?
Insured and Uninsured get "IMMEDIATE CARE"...and no one is DENIED CARE
and via NHC?
Delayed care and possibly non care. (example one to three month waiting lists. "DENIED" care due to 'REGULATIONS'
And what will be our annual cost of NHC? Could be the same but likely more but to save $$ the only option is RATIONING CARE to ALL or possibly "selected" Citizens.
Sumary..."both groups" get screwed with RATIONING and possibly NON CARE. What a deal...and no mention of "illegals??
What the heck is "liberty" in our Constitution?...I can read: the General Welfare and Blessings of Liberty....keep it that way... Is General Welfare of our citizens enhanced by "limiting or rationing access and services"?? What "arrogance".
Politicians are busy with their campaigns for 2010.
Watch this promo for Harry Reid.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-l...