States follow Georgia off the “no mandates” cliff

There are very good reasons for health insurance mandates — or requiring every American adult to  have insurance. One reason is simple finances: Insurance companies need a huge risk pool that spreads costs out among the healthy and the not-so-healthy. Getting more people into the risk pool, especially relatively healthy young adults, helps balance out costs, so that insurance premiums won’t become even more expensive.

The other reason is this: Those of us with insurance subsidize those who don’t have it, which makes our costs go up. No healthy adult knows for sure that he or she won’t suddenly become ill or have a terrible accident that results in emergency room care or hospitalization. Because emergency room care is guaranteed, the rest of us must pay for it through our insurance premiums. (Even if hospitals take a loss, they still try to make up the difference.)

But ultra-conservative lawmakers around the country are following Georgia’s lead, determined to challenge the federal government’s right to impose health insurance mandates. Lawmakers in a dozen states, including Minnesota and Arizona, are considering constitutional amendments to prohibit insurance mandates in their states.

Not that they necessarily expect to win. They just see it as another way to score points with a frenzied political base and to make things more difficult for the Obama administration. “States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a health law expert at Washington & Lee University School of Law.

Sometimes, I wish it were possible to refuse health care to these theoretical libertarians, who claim they don’t want or need any help from the government. I used to think that when I’d listen to the debate in the Georgia Legislature over requiring motor cyclists to wear helmets: Why don’t we just let them bust their heads open and pay for their own round-the-clock care when they’re seriously injured?

But, in a reasonably compassionate society, that’s not going to happen. So everybody needs to have health insurance.

64 comments Add your comment

funnything

September 28th, 2009
1:14 pm

Not true. Seriously, where do you get your facts. First, people that have health insurance are not going to magically drop their coverage when this latest monstrosity gets through Congress, so we are ALREADY subsidizing the cost, i.e. it wont go up. Therefore, this is one alleged cost savings that goes out the window. Second, there are opposing economic viewpoints from leading economists that say that health care costs are actually greater than emergent care costs. In other words, the cost of spurious emergency needs may actually be LESS THAN the cost of requiring everyone to be on health insurance. The reason for that is, among other things, people without health care usually do not tax the system unless it is a real emergency, whereas people with health care go to their doctors every time the have a sniffle.

get a clue. Its not cut and dry like you hope.

Ben

September 28th, 2009
1:44 pm

“States can no more nullify a federal law like this than they could nullify the civil rights laws by adopting constitutional amendments,” said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost
———————————————————————————————————————–
Read the Constitution sometime; there you’ll notice within the the Bill of Rights a quotation(10th Amendment) that states that all powers not designated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. The last time that I checked healthcare was not a constitutional right to be imposed upon citizens through taxation and criminal sanctions(implied or real).

AH

September 28th, 2009
1:49 pm

I thought we had the right to choose what we wanted to do with our body (Roe v Wade) and that the government couldn’t tell me what I can and cannot do with it? If I don’t want to insure it against accidents, disease, or damage that is my right. When did the left decide that the government can dictate what people can do with their bodies?

joe matarotz

September 28th, 2009
2:03 pm

Hey, Cynthia. I just wrote about lemmings the other day in your blog! Does this mean you’re now copying ME!? I am so flattered. How many people can say they’ve had ideas lifted by a Pulitzer Prize winner? You should know that I like pizza. How about a blog about best pizzerias in Atlanta? It doesn’t matter that you don’t live here anymore and can’t offer real insight. It’s just like everything else you write.

As far as the bikers who don’t want to wear helmets; that’s how natural selection works.

AH

September 28th, 2009
2:05 pm

That was rather rude. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if you can’t debate someone on the points of their arguments then please don’t result to insulting them.

Dawgdad

September 28th, 2009
2:06 pm

Mandatory health care will be followed by mandatory financial planning, mandatory dietary counseling, and mandatory child safety instruction. Our government knows best, so shut up and get out our Dear Leader’s way.

jconservative

September 28th, 2009
2:13 pm

Ben September 28th, 2009 1:44 pm

The Supreme Court continues to hold that no State statute can nullify a Federal statute. Until that changes States cannot overrule the Feds.

Marc

September 28th, 2009
2:13 pm

Cynthia your “reasonably compassionate society” means I want to control you. You want a nanny state where big government knows best. Compassion is not a function of government it is a function of the people. If you mandate compassion it stops being compassion. Why “don’t we just let them bust their heads open” it’s their choice!!!! Again that’s not compassion that’s control.

jconservative

September 28th, 2009
2:20 pm

AH September 28th, 2009 1:49 pm
“I thought we had the right to choose what we wanted to do with our body…”

Sorry. The State of Georgia says you must have auto insurance, must have a helmet for a motorbike, must wear a seat belt, must make sure your kids get medical care and must send your kids to school.

I can keep keep going if you want me to do so.

It is called living in a liberal society. It has gotten much worse in the last 30 years. Have you been out of country for a long time?

Sunshine and Thunder

September 28th, 2009
2:24 pm

The tenth amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. If the Supreme Court has ruled that the 10th A is unconstitutional then we shoud replace the Supreme Court. Say! Now there’s an idea.

Gawingnut

September 28th, 2009
2:33 pm

Points to ponder: John Oxendine mandated many years ago that ALL health insurance policies contain 1) pap smears testing, 2) mammograms, and 3)prostrate exams.

I’m sure Baronette Cynthia rests better knowing she MUST receieve a prostrate exam, if needed.

Being a male, I rest so much better at night knowing that if I ever did need a pap smear, Sir John the Magnificent has mandated my insurance company give me one.

Then I can be on Oprah.

TheOne

September 28th, 2009
2:46 pm

Oh please, mandating that everybody have health insurance? What’s next? Is the government going to tell me that I must cook my steak until it’s well done because if not, it might get me sick? Every liberal idea seems to grow the size of government and results in one more way to take more and more control over our lives. Forcing a person to pay for medical insurance because it increases funding in the “pool” is as stupid as forcing people to play the lottery because the additional money will provide more funding for schools.

Oh sister, what will you think of next?

happy2bme

September 28th, 2009
2:47 pm

jconservative, thank you for saying what I was thinking. How about all the mandatory shots or the hearing and vision test just to get a child in school in GA? If my gets sent home for a “fever” she must see a doctor before returning to school. Some people think just like Bush that you can Fool most of the people most of the time.

TRUTH

September 28th, 2009
2:53 pm

I can’t wait to get away from you crazy ReTHUGLICANS. You’re just a bunch of sore losers and you have no plan. You clearly don’t have any sensible arguments. Just insults and name calling. But, since you all seem to have the answers, put your collective azzes on the line and run for office. If not, yelling from the sidelines is just noise. Why not yell at your ReTHUGLICAN congressmen and women or your ReTHUGLICAN senators to provide a plan that is thought out and through out. Not the Boehner approach of saying “Well, here it is Mr. President!” and have nothing in it. Ever wonder why you dimwits got voted out?

happy2bme

September 28th, 2009
2:57 pm

How about all the mandatory shots or the hearing and vision tests just to get a child in school in RED GA? If my child gets sent home for a “fever” she must see a doctor before returning to school. You felt comfortable enough mandating that. Most likely because it was to the benefit of the doctors and insurance companies. Like Auto Insurance, we all have to have it big INDUSTRY. No problems mandating that. But a big problem with health insurance? Only because an alternative to BIG INDUSTRY is being offered with the mandate. YOU can’t make the money. Some people think just like Bush that you can Fool most of the people most of the time.

Ben

September 28th, 2009
3:02 pm

Jconservative, the federal government gains the compliance of the states by threatening to withhold federal funding to them which would make operating their governments much more difficult fiscally(example; 55 MPH national speed limit, don’t do it and multibillion dollar highway funds will be withheld). There is no constitutional mandate to obey the feds unless the words are in the Constitution and though the states cannot “nullify” a federal law they do not have to enforce them and since there is no “national police force” to enforce compliance of those laws the feds rely upon the states to honor those statutes(Example, the drug law conundrum in CA with the DEA facing off against the state).

As far as the other “mandates go; one does not have to wear a seat belt if you are riding in a pick up truck, you don’t have to wear a helmet or have auto insurance if you are on private property, you can educate your children at home without the interference of the state if you want to and you may or may not refuse medical care for your children if the procedure runs contrary to your religious beliefs.

yuck

September 28th, 2009
3:07 pm

One day Ms. Tucker will read this trash and realize she was wrong about a lot of things, including her unjustified distrust against the common practices of independence that this country is based upon. Just because you disagree with someone Ms. Tucker, does not mean they’re doing it just to spite the democrats and Obama. Open you mind a little.

jconservative

September 28th, 2009
3:07 pm

The 10th Amendment. Read it carefully. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”

What the court has held is that the Constitution delegates virtually all power to the United States. There is hardly anything left over to reserve to the States.
Unfortunately, the present court is tending to increase the central government power.

Morehouse Guy

September 28th, 2009
3:09 pm

There sure are a lot of constitutional scholars in here. Firstly, Roe v. Wade did not create a blanket right to do as you please with your body, AH (for instance, the Supreme Court has invalidated state laws that would have given us the right to physician-assisted suicide). It found that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed a right to access an abortion. It might help to have read the actual opinion.

And for those folks who like to point to the Tenth Amendment, I’ll point to two equally relevant provisions — the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. The former takes care of these senseless attempts at nullifying federal law, and the latter vests in the federal government the right to regulate insurance (which would include a federal mandate to purchase insurance). Again, we saw in the wake of Brown the attempt by states to nullify federal law and Supreme Court interpretations of what the Constitution requires of States of the Union. It didn’t work.

Now, this right to regulate insurance is not exclusively the province of the federal government as we too have our own Insurance Commissioner, but the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence would most certainly allow an individual mandate (see: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/09/is-an-individual-health-insurance-mandate-constitutional.html — from real constitutional law professors as opposed to the armchair constitutional lawyers on this blog).

The individual mandate is not only constitutional, but the vast majority of economists will tell you that an individual mandate is indeed one of the best ways to pool risk and avoid any expansion of insurance through health care reform from suffering from the spiraling costs that would surely ensue if any reform lacked an individual mandate. This is what economists call “adverse selection” The mandate attempts to avoid adverse selection issues.

What amazes me to no end with the responses to the Cynthia Tucker op-eds (from both ends of the ideological spectrum) is the vitriol and ad hominem attacks that have replaced civil discourse in this country and on this website. And to add insult to injury, much of the “debate” that takes place here is downright misinformed. Folks, please read the links, and try to actually understand the Constitution as opposed to spouting off as to what you believe to be the rights its creates.

ck hall

September 28th, 2009
3:12 pm

Ms Tucker,
You sound like a broken record. How boring can one get..It is interesting that you are writing something almost everyday in DC–You seldom wrote an editorial in Atlanta(maybe once or twice a week)..Did your new bosses tell you to get off your duff and write something?(OR) Are you are trying to bombard us with Left-wing rhetoric to help sway the masses in Obamacare’s favor?

PeachtreeMatt

September 28th, 2009
3:15 pm

Wow, you republicans really are crazy…

It’s really quite simple. Currently, stupid people are allowed to run around without healthcare, then they get in a car crash on I-85 and they are airlifted to Grady, where they receive top trauma health care and everyone else has to pay for it. I guess you crazy republicans would rather leave their rotting corpse on I-85? Well, that would certainly cause one terrible traffic jam. Dead bodies laying on the streets will really slow down traffic.

So why can’t we require people that can afford health care pay for it themselves?…Its a no brainer…

TheOne

September 28th, 2009
3:20 pm

Hey TRUTH: Ironic you call us ReTHUGLICANS; don’t you realize that Obama came from Chicago which is one of the dirtiest political machines in our country? You ever hear of Obama’s ties to William Ayers, ACORN (an organization full of nuts)? His whole administration is full of thugs. So you chose a great word. Oh, and by the way, we aren’t just “yelling from the sidelines”. Have you heard of the tea parties? Ms. Cynthia Tucker-McKinney will probably tell you all sorts of negative things about those but what can you expect from someone having a love affair with the Messiah.

TheOne

September 28th, 2009
3:23 pm

Peachtree Matt: Perhaps you should re-evaluate who the dimwit is. If peole are “required” to get health care, you can do that with the current health care system. However, to rip it all up, make it government-run, then require everybody to pay for it, is not only dimwitted, it’s just plain stupid. The have’s will continue to pick up the tab for the have nots.

PeachtreeMatt

September 28th, 2009
3:31 pm

Wow, “the one”, your intelligence certainly is underwhelming. Have you read a book recently?

Nowhere, and I repeat, NOWHERE, is anyone asking for the entire healthcare system to be “ripped up” and be “government run.” The president does not support it and neither does congress. Your argument only makes you sound naïve and foolish.

Chris Broe

September 28th, 2009
3:31 pm

The states can always secede if they dont like it. It’s what the states did in a little thing called the Whiskey Rebellion. Or was it the Ox Bow Incident? Darn it! I always get my Henry Fonda movies mixed up.

Anyway, I defy the Born-Again Birthers to refuse the antidote from the government apron when they catche the flesh eating airborne ebola virus, or the common cold…or hives…or any redness and swelling that cant be written off to the usual weekend debauchery we all commit. okay?

Just take the rx and stfu. Patient, dont be a heel, thyself.

PeachtreeMatt

September 28th, 2009
3:34 pm

Yep, Dussqe. President Carter was right. This debate is all about race. Why can’t you republicans see that you are being fooled and mislead?

csense

September 28th, 2009
3:38 pm

Which do you think is more likely to require round the clock care? Motorcyclist who has an accident without a helmet or with one? Stats show those without a helmet are usually dead?
For arguments sake, lets say they do require round the clock care…SO! Those few are the least of our worries. Why not just outlaw motorcycles? Ooh, cars kill over 40,000 folks a year. Outlaw cars, think of all the lives you could save.

James

September 28th, 2009
3:40 pm

There was a comment that “people without health care usually do not tax the system unless it is a real emergency, whereas people with health care go to their doctors every time the have a sniffle.”

In other words, the writer was saying that if you’re too poor to afford health insurance you’re screwed and should tough it out or just die in an emergency room.

I’m shocked that anyone would be OK with letting their fellow Americans get sick and die early due to a lack of affordable health care.

I don’t have a problem with Glenn and Rush who have untold millions invested in insurance companies. However, I am amazed at how many people are fighting for the insurance companies but don’t actually own ANY insurance company stocks or bonds. I thought the Pied Piper was a fairy tail – guess I was wrong.

The Snark

September 28th, 2009
3:47 pm

All the Constitutional experts here amaze me. I’m sure none of you has ever spent thirty minutes actually studying the history or development of the Constitution. You’re probably the same people who grab the odd sentence out of context from the Bible to justify whatever position you’ve already decided on.

By the way, the motorcycle helmet laws are not there to protect the motorcyclist, but to minimize the liability of the guy who hits him (and said guy’s suto insurance company.) How do I know that? Because every year when the bikers try to get it lifted, the insurance lobbyists are there to oppose them.

Joan

September 28th, 2009
3:56 pm

My compassion is draining away with my life savings. When do I get to keep some of the money I made for myself? And why is it that those people who are uninsured are worth saving anyway? I mean, if they are working, they should buy insurance. If they aren’t, well, then, I fail to see how their health is my problem.

Marc

September 28th, 2009
3:58 pm

James can you substantiate this “I don’t have a problem with Glenn and Rush who have untold millions invested in insurance companies.”

Andrew

September 28th, 2009
4:16 pm

ad hominem: Latin for “to the man.” An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

September 28th, 2009
4:21 pm

It is not like car insurance, where the need to purchase insurance is triggered by the intent to operate a car, rather, the need to buy insurance would be mandated merely by living.Clearly, an individual’s constitution right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness protects him against such a government mandate to buy life insurance.

On the other hand, no person is protected against taxes, so the government would have the right to tax everyone equitably to pay for insurance. Why Obama is letting this red herring of an argument go on is beyond me, if he wants universal health insurance he needs to tax everyone to pay for it rather than tearing up the constitution.

Eight months of Obama and we have learned: 1) he isn’t very smart; 2) he spends more time on trips and vacations than any other president; 3) trips, vacation, and golf take precedence over dealing with important domestic and foreign policy; 4) he lacks the courage of his convictions, which really doesn’t matter because he lacks convictions; 5) he is every bit the poor leader than one would expect after reviewing his thin resume; 6) he is a liar; and 7) he places his personal interests above America’s.

2012 – Palin and Liz Cheney change that will fix what went wrong

Repuzbozotard

September 28th, 2009
4:21 pm

Keep the government out of my body!

Cynthia is HOT!

Kevin

September 28th, 2009
4:28 pm

I am sorry but I am a simple accountant. Where does the federal government get the right to impose health insurance mandates? Is that in the Constitution?

Also, everybody should have health insurance but who foots the tab??

I have an idea, Cynthia!! How about Mr. Obama specifically identify the $500 billion of fraud and waste in the Medicare and Medicaid systems and have the independent Congressional Budget Office agree with the SPECIFIC savings. If that were to be done AND if every member of Congress would agree to give up their health plan and be covered under whatever is passed, than I would support Mr. Obama.

That is fair, isn’t it??

MawMaw

September 28th, 2009
4:30 pm

Enter your comments here
From reading these vents, now we can understand why the southern states are low on the totem pole in education and high in obesity. Open up your minds instead of your mouths. It appears that most of you don’t even have 10% of our President’s brainpower. Palin and Cheney do not represent the intelligent American female.

Chia Hair Plugs

September 28th, 2009
4:37 pm

The AJC is to the left of Pravda now.

Come all ye children

September 28th, 2009
4:37 pm

Why are we talking healthcare when millions are out of a job. If you do not have a paycheck it does not matter how cheap your health insurance rates are. Unless the government pays for it. Hey thats it! Obama does not want the economy to get better if it stays like it is the government can take over people’ lives. NO jobs no problem Obama will pay for you!!!

Merill

September 28th, 2009
5:05 pm

MawMaw — and 10% of zero is ???? It’s not our minds we’re worried about opening, it’s our “fair share” which seems to be an open season target!!

Josh

September 28th, 2009
5:28 pm

No OBAMACARE next thing they will tell us where to eat, how to eat and where to send our kids to school, socialied medicine will NOT work in my country. This country is a free market get off your ass and work country. This is not a give this to everyone country. Why should I have to pay for someone else. Why should we tax the rich if they earned that money with their own two hands I may be a middle class guy but I respect that if people did it the hard way, let them keep their damn money. This is not just socialism it’s STUPID we won’t have to pay for this but our children and our children’s children will have to. Not to mention that there is a clause in the bill that says they will use federal funding for abortion(hell no) ABORTION is murder 101 look it up in the dictionary taking the life another human being. that baby has a heart,brain,lungs, feet, hands, eyes, it is breathing and grows everyday and that is MURDER 101. You spread your legs you must cary that baby maybe then maybe you’ll find something you can truely love and care for when you lok into the face of a newborn child. If this is truely the will of the PEOPLE of the USA why not have them put it on the 2010 mid-term ballot and let them vote for if they want this BIG Government health bullsh*t care bill and then let it rest Obama just knows America will have none of it so he won’t let you vote for it and I fear when he tries to take away our guns it will be the worst mistake a president can make, the poeple vs the police family against family, friends against friends, a second Civil War, We must fight for a free America again or we will become nothing more than another two-bit military dictatorship. NO OBAMACARE.. PERIOD!!!!

Pete

September 28th, 2009
5:40 pm

Funnysomething wrote: “…whereas people with health care go to their doctors every time the have a sniffle” Really? Do you REALLY think that or was it just for some sort of funny effect? I know far too many people who have/ had health insurance they didn’t use to get yearly checkups and now some of those people are no longer with us, some are dealing with things like cancer that if caught earlier could have been dealt with far easier.

As for the debate of Georgia having the right to say no to the mandate that IS their right… unless Obama manages to put the right to mandatory health care in the Constitution, then it is the right of the states to decide if the mandate goes through. Honestly while I do believe that every single American does have the right to healthcare, I disagree with adding the illegal immigrants to the mandate. And really this mandate is nothing more than a bandaid on the true issue here – what has been raising the costs of healthcare? Malpractice insurance. We do not need the mandates yet, what we need is more attention on the root causes of the economic collapse, more attention to fixing those root causes, then go to the root causes of why medical malpractice insurance is so expensive, and in the process institute decent iron-clad tort reform to keep the frivilous lawsuits out of our courts… like the “I put hot coffee between my legs and spilled it on my crotch and now I’m suing” McD’s lawsuit…

So, fix the economy, fix the loophole-ridden legal system, fix the red-tape filled tax system, reform welfare, get rid of the illegal immigrants who are leeching our system – which should have the end result of many more Americans working and not sitting at home,and then look at mandatory healthcare of our citizens. By that time more Americans are paying taxes and then our government should be able to foot the bill for mandatory health care better than right now.

Lukas

September 28th, 2009
5:42 pm

How are the people that already cannot afford to purchase health insurance going to purchase the same on limited funds? How can we mandate the purchase of health insurance with a steep fine, when a large number of the population CANNOT afford it? Additionally, it seems like another scam by the insurance industry to pad the bottom line.

Pete

September 28th, 2009
5:49 pm

MawMaw wrote: “Enter your comments here
From reading these vents, now we can understand why the southern states are low on the totem pole in education and high in obesity. Open up your minds instead of your mouths. It appears that most of you don’t even have 10% of our President’s brainpower. Palin and Cheney do not represent the intelligent American female.”

Why you are absolutely right, Palin and Cheney do NOT represent the intelligent American female… Cheney would need a lot of surgery for that one BTW… yeah sorry to burst your bubble here MawMaw but Cheney is a man. And BTW I AM from a southern state and yet somehow with my “low totem pole intelligence” I didn’t miss that one. And if you are not smart enough or observant enough to catch that very obvious fact then it seems that YOUR own intelligence resides somewhere even closer to the bottom of that totem pole. And you were not even smart enough to get rid of the “Enter your comments here” part of the comment box… And yet according to you southern people are obese and not smart… yeah, and it looks like you do not even have 10% of OUR brainpower. Go troll elsewhere MawMaw, your comments have no relevance here.

And as far as Obama’s intelligence, he IS a very smart man but at the same time he seems to be going about this all wrong – as per my post above as I see it the economy should be fixed first, our citizens put back into the workpool which in turn would bring in more taxes to allow the government to be able to pay for the mandatory healthcare. But I guess that makes too much sense.

GADinos

September 28th, 2009
5:59 pm

The GA lemmings —

The House voted 345 to 75 to withdraw federal funding for scandal-plagued ACORN, after a similar measure passed the Senate 83 to 7 on Monday.

But two of Georgia’s 13 members of the House saw fit anyway to continue giving federal funds to the outfit: John Lewis and David Scott.

Ms. Tucker – care to ask them or offer an explanation why they voted this way???

Dave

September 28th, 2009
6:15 pm

Ms. Tucker that’s also why we need those who have a pre-existing condition to make the pool bigger so the risk will be spread around. Where do you come up with the logic?

Ben

September 28th, 2009
6:16 pm

What the court has held is that the Constitution delegates virtually all power to the United States. There is hardly anything left over to reserve to the States.
———————————————————————————-
In reality federal law does supercede state law but if the feds want to have the cake and the party too they would be prosecuting bank robbers and murderers 100% of the time and the federal government would be the begin all and end all, but they don’t have the resources nor the inclination to cover and regulate everything. This situation with health care falls into that category.

The feds have the authority to trim a few limbs off of the health care hydra but they can’t bridle and control it without creating an opposing entity(public option) of equal or superior size to force the insurance companies to get in line. Now consider that problem plus politicians getting reelected next November; it doesn’t matter if the Dems have a majority on paper. Each of those voting representatives have to go back and answer to their constituents.

The countdown has already started for them because if they don’t get anything passed before Thanksgiving or Christmas; nobody’s going to be sticking their necks out during an election year and it will be a dead issue.

barefoot girl sittin on the hood of a dodge drinkin warm beer in the soft summer rain

September 28th, 2009
6:17 pm

MawMaw seems to be a pretty bright guy.

TheOne

September 28th, 2009
6:27 pm

PeachtreeMatt: I couldn’t even classify what you have as underwhelming intelligence.

If you are fooling yourself to believe that Obamacare is not government-run health care, then rather than reading all of the liberal media outlets, try using a little bit of thought. Public option = government run. Pelosi said the bill won’t pass without out it. Obama wants the public option but from a political sense is now backtracking and supporting this “trigger” option.

Oh my, ignorance abounds! Wallow in it; it is even better than wearing rose colored glasses.

Ben

September 28th, 2009
6:36 pm

The individual mandate is not only constitutional, but the vast majority of economists will tell you that an individual mandate is indeed one of the best ways to pool risk and avoid any expansion of insurance through health care reform from suffering from the spiraling costs that would surely ensue if any reform lacked an individual mandate. This is what economists call “adverse selection” The mandate attempts to avoid adverse selection issues.

What amazes me to no end with the responses to the Cynthia Tucker op-eds (from both ends of the ideological spectrum) is the vitriol and ad hominem attacks that have replaced civil discourse in this country and on this website.
——————————————————————————————————-
Number 1, economists aren’t elected to run this country; it is the elected representatives of each individual state and they may not sometimes be the smartest people but they do respond to what the people that they represent want and I doubt if the majority of their constituents want another “mandated” federal tax. What do you think?

Number 2, if you can’t handle the verbal attacks, keep your mouth shut because once you open it what you say or write is fair game.

Tom Middleton

September 28th, 2009
7:00 pm

Monday, September 28, 2009

As usual, Ms. Tucker, your logic is flawless and values true-blue American. It’s difficult to be a citizen of this greatest country in the history of humankind and watch everyday as other citizens are booted off their health insurance and die from lack of care.

I believe in the profit motive and being rewarded for our own efforts and innovation, but there’s a point at which this becomes greed and begins weakening our national foundation and near-sacred constitutional principles.

I don’t believe “freedom” means the freedom to die because of greedy insurance companies and those of their Republican supporters still healthy enough to have not been tossed from the rolls.

Republicans have good ideas sometimes, but blocking health-care reform is not one of them. When it comes their time to get the boot, they’ll begin looking at becoming Democrats – that’s if they can remain alive long enough to fill out their near-sacred registration cards!