Georgia has good options on ObamaCare’s first anniversary
A year ago this week, Democrats in Washington gave us ObamaCare, whether we wanted it or not. I would compare it to a big dose of castor oil, if castor oil made you more sick and its price rose nearly every day.
Little about the year-old health law has turned out as promised. A few of its already apparent shortcomings:
- Just 3 percent of those with pre-existing conditions who were expected to buy insurance thanks to the law have done so.
- The Obama administration has issued more than 1,000 waivers from the law’s requirements to companies and — especially — labor unions that insure their employees, because the president’s “you can keep the coverage you have” pledge turned out to be wrong.
- The 10-year cost of the law’s provisions has been revised upward by tens of billions of dollars — even before Congress eschews the Medicare cuts and new taxes on which projected deficit reductions are based.
- State governments’ health-care costs already are rising by hundreds of millions of dollars — even before the law expands their Medicaid rolls.
While ObamaCare founders, the states are looking for ways to improve their health-insurance markets in spite of the law. Georgia missed one opportunity but may redeem itself yet.
The missed opportunity is one I described at length in this space a few weeks ago: building a health-insurance exchange that works for Georgia, regardless of the federal law. Utah has set an example in this regard, and Georgia was poised to join the Beehive State until complaints from tea party groups gave legislators cold feet.
The tea partyers had good intentions: Like them, I don’t want to end up with ObamaCare in Georgia even if the law is repealed or thrown out by the Supreme Court.
But there’s nothing wrong with a health exchange per se. The devil is in the details, and the Georgia bill (HB 476) would have allowed Georgia to set up an exchange that made sense here. Then, if ObamaCare did hold up, state officials could have dared the feds to tinker with a well-functioning system.
One ObamaCare opponent who debated me on the issue likened that approach to Russian roulette. No, Russian roulette is pinning one’s hopes on either repealing ObamaCare or the prospect that the law will be ruled unconstitutional.
That two-pronged gamble is the real Russian roulette because, if we lose, the feds will come in and build an exchange themselves, without our input.
Gov. Nathan Deal would be wise to proceed with a study of what an exchange in Georgia ought to look like, and to reintroduce similar legislation next year with a clearer picture of where the project is heading.
In the meantime, another state bill would complement those efforts and needs to become law this year.
I’m talking about HB 47, which would allow health insurers in Georgia to sell plans approved in other states. The difference involves coverage mandates — the minimum level of health procedures and services that a plan has to include.
Only 19 states mandate more benefits than Georgia does. Some benefits drive up premiums more than others, and Georgia requires most of the more-costly ones.
But the question is really about choice. Individual consumers in Georgia should have access to a wider array of health plans. (Group plans would be unaffected.)
Some scaremongers warn of an invasion of plans that, to use their examples, wouldn’t cover mammograms or overnight hospital stays for new moms. In fact, those very benefits are among the ones all 50 states require. Let consumers decide the value of other coverages.
States are the right level of government for regulating health markets. Georgia will be better off with these measures even if ObamaCare doesn’t live to see more anniversaries.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter
Or tweet this blog post: Tweet
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
101 comments Add your comment
Bob
March 24th, 2011
2:31 pm
@Ragnar: Yes, yes, yes — anyone who challenges your insults is “whining.” Same old, same old.
Let me ask you this question — do you live on an island in the South Pacific? If so…remember, you can treat monkey bites with coconut fronds. But if you live here, in America, with us, then you’re paying for others in society. You may pay for them in an ad hoc way that allows uncontrolled free riding — or you may pay for them in a less expensive, more fair way. For reasons I cannot fathom, you prefer the former approach — the approach which allows people to leech off society indirectly — apparently because you falsely believe that you are saving money by keeping the costs hidden. It’s like walking into a store, buying an item, and telling the clerk to take the money out of your wallet when you’re not looking — because then you won’t have spent it. That’s not “rightist” logic or “leftist” logic — it’s flat out illogical. (Unless, of course, you are one of those free riders who wants to keep their cushy arrangement going — and then why wouldn’t you?)
Given how ridiculous that is, it’s no surprise to see that you’ve spent the better part of the day arguing instead about the meaning of the word “is.” But, no, your adoption of an insult does not make any difference. Despite your best efforts to transform words like “liberal” into slurs — and words like “Reagonomics” into positives — the fact remains that you’re just playing at words, trying to use insult and childhood taunts to advance a political position, rather than actually dealing with the merits. You’ve confused wordplay for reality to the point that you actually believe that your own insults are evidence of America’s views on policy. Why do you have to resort to that bizarre argument? Well, I think we all know why.
As to polling…Rasmussen? I ask you to look at a neutral poll, and you pull out a polling organization run by a former columnist for World Net Daily (the home of all our favorite Birthers)? Hilarious. Man, you should have just gone whole-hog and cited Fox News.
Gm
March 24th, 2011
2:32 pm
Thanks President Obama, you just did not talk the talk like so many President did before you, you got it done no matter how un popular it was, this is true leadership. Look at all the Rep got elected on telling the America people they are going to create jobs, 4 mos in and what bills have they passed?
President Obama hate him or not will go down as the greatest President of our life time”””
Bob
March 24th, 2011
2:34 pm
@Ragnar: ““ObamaCare” is an efficient use of syllables. Only nine letters, and everyone knows what we are talking about. Or sneering at.”
What a perfect mental image. On one hand, a group of people trying to improve their country. On the other, a group with nothing to offer but a sneer.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 24th, 2011
2:42 pm
From the Politico today: “Nothing defines Obama’s presidency more than Obamacare. It is the signature piece of legislation….” Brent Bozell.
Fair assessment – does anything define this administration so accurately as the unConstitutional morass we call “ObamaCare?”
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 24th, 2011
2:43 pm
Maybe it’s time to really rattle you guys: “death panels.”
bob
March 24th, 2011
2:45 pm
Bob 10:21, the repubs did have ideas and at the meeting where they were discussing them, Obama threw out the now famous, I won, comment. A repub has just introduced a bill to allow waivers for all citizens, not just some of Obama’s corporate and union buddys.
Bob
March 24th, 2011
2:47 pm
@Ragnar: Yeah, “death panels” is a good one.
And I’ll take the bait, believe it or not — because you’re right that lying offends me. What of it?
More to the point…why doesn’t it offend you? I have enough respect for you to know that you also know it’s a lie — so why doesn’t it offend you to see liars lie?
Bob
March 24th, 2011
2:54 pm
@Lower-case Bob: Their idea was to ignore the healthcare problem and instead introduce tort reform. And that’s a laudable goal — I support tort reform (if done in a way that preserves a functioning tort system, which is a crucial element of a free market). But tort reform wasn’t really an answer to THIS problem — it was just a diversion to allow them to claim that they had some form of alternative plan, even if that “plan” had nothing to do with the problem.
When Obama said that he won, what he meant was that they were going to tackle the healthcare problem rather than the tort reform problem, because his party won and so their platform got to take its turn. The Republicans took the view that Congress should only push the Republicans’ priorities, notwithstanding the election. And they were wrong.
Insurance agent
March 24th, 2011
2:56 pm
Ragnar,
No need for death panels even though we all do know for a fact that they have a formula in the British national health care system to determine whether or not an operation for someone is warranted based on their health, age, expected number of years left to live, etc. Basically just health care rationing.
Also, I spoke with a Medicare consultant who travels around giving seminars on Medicare updates. When he was talking about nationalized health care he mentioned his biggest client- an oncologist in Buffalo, NY. Guess where a third of his patients come from? That’s right. Canada.
Turns out that you can call any American oncologist that works in a border US city with Canada such as Buffalo, Seattle, Detroit, etc. and you will find that frequently patients come down from Canada because if they wait in Canada they will die. Plain and simple.
yuzeyurbrain
March 24th, 2011
3:01 pm
Ragnar, I see you did not contradict the main point re exchanges being the core of the new Healthcare Reform law as well as Romneycare and Nixon’s proposal, not to mention Wingfield and Deal. You prefer to stay down in epithet slinging land and I don’t blame you—when you have no argument on the merits, it is always good strategy to personally attack the contra side. You are obviously smart and have lots of time to play mental games online.
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
3:06 pm
That’s interesting, Insurance Agent, because as you know, Canadians aren’t eligible for Medicare (didn’t you say that this oncologist was the Medicare consultant’s biggest client?).
One-third of his patients, huh? Either Canadians are a whole lot wealthier than we are or somebody is yanking your chain.
Despite your little anecdote, Canadians are happier with their health care system than we are with ours. One reason, I suspect, is that nobody in Canada ever went bankrupt because one of their children got sick.
retiredds
March 24th, 2011
3:18 pm
How about the unemployment trust fund GA had in 1999, $2 billion. But the great tax reducers, with the inability to even fathom the $$$ might be needed, basically did away with it. The GA legislature is to be congratulated. And these guys are going to be bringing jobs to GA!!! Fat chance.
In 1999, Georgia possessed a flush $2 billion trust fund, so Democrats and Republicans suspended payroll taxes to fund unemployment insurance for most state employers.
The fund dipped to $703 million by late 2003. “Triggers” established to rebuild the fund by raising the state payroll tax, were suppressed time and again by the Legislature. The fund ran dry in 2009. (Dan Chapman, AJC, “Georgia Unemployment Fund Running Dry”. at 2:51 today.
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
3:26 pm
The left refers to certain expenses as investment, while the right mockingly surrounds the word with quotation marks, “investment”, and calls it spending. Of course, many are fooled.
“Cut spending” the fools, primarily from the right, insist without distinction. But there is a difference between spending and investment. Spending refers to expenses that aren’t intended or expected to provide a future return of any kind in excess of the expense. On the other hand, an investment leads to greater revenue than the amount invested or greater savings than the amount invested.
I’ll give you an example of a government investment…”Dr. David Cull, a prominent vascular surgeon in Greenville, S.C., had invented a small valve system that could spare 300,000 dialysis patients across the country enormous suffering — and save American taxpayers billions of dollars in Medicare costs…
Cull got the $249,479 Therapeutic Discovery Grant…under a little publicized part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aimed at encouraging cutting-edge biomedical research.”
Do you see how investment works? Spend $249,479, save billions.
The article continues: “‘This is money that, in my view, was very well spent,’ [Cull] said of the grant. ‘If our valve doesn’t work, the government will have lost $250,000. If it does work, they will have saved a gazillion dollars.’”
One small example of how that horrible health care law “spends” (mockingly quoted) so much money.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/23/110905/sen-demint-chooses-ideology-over.html#ixzz1HXwPftTo
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/23/110905/sen-demint-chooses-ideology-over.html#ixzz1HXvvwbLw
Insurance agent
March 24th, 2011
3:34 pm
Georgia voter,
I didn’t say that Canadians get U.S. Medicare. You inferred that of your own accord.
The consultant was there for a seminar on Medicare updates. Personally I’ve no reason to disbelieve the man. He was very credible and knowledgeable. Also he was a consultant on health care- I’m sure Medicare rules and regs and updates was just one of the things he has expertise on.
And when you have cancer you will do anything to be cured and quickly- use up assets that you’ve saved, take out a 2nd mortgage on your home, negotiate for reasonable rates with U.S. hospitals and docs. And if you knew anything about common demographics you would understand when you get into your 60s and 70s you’ve had a lifetime to accumulate assets for things such as this.
On your analysis that most Canadians are happier with their health care system. partially true- especially amongst younger Canadians that use far less health care resources. Amongst older Canadians where things start to break down?- Not so much.
Kyle Wingfield
March 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
Georgia Voter: Do you seriously believe that, if there’s a new medical device with a potential market of 300,000 people, and all the guy needs is $250,000 — not 250 billion dollars; not 250 million dollars; just 250 thousand dollars — the federal government is the only place Cull could turn for that kind of investment? Even with the new tax that ObamaCare imposes on — wait for it — new medical devices?
Insurance agent
March 24th, 2011
3:39 pm
Georgia Voter,
Nice piece on the investment for a therapeutic diabetic device. Unfortunately that’s one good example.
We could spend all day going over vast sums of money wasted in govt “investment” projects. The sums and sheer number of wasteful projects are too numerous to expound upon. I’m surprised you believe one small success story outweighs billions in wasteful spending such as cash for clunkers, etc.
Insurance agent
March 24th, 2011
3:42 pm
Kyle,
Good point. I didn’t even think about that but if the device could save 300,000 diabetic patients enormous sums of money and pain then there are so many venture capitalists and health care device manufacturers that would be willing to fund the venture that its laughable to think this guy would have to go to the govt. Something aint right here.
Bob
March 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
@Kyle: We’re dealing with a real case here, so let’s ask the questions in the factual rather than the hypothetical.
1. Did he need only $250,000? No. He needed that in addition to private investments. All the other investors for whom investment made sense were already on board — we just got on board, too.
2. Will it save money? Yes, if it works. But for whom? That’s the rub — it will save money for the taxpayer, mainly, for reasons having to do with how dialysis treatment is covered (hint: we cover it). So why did we want to get in on that investment? Because we’re the ones who will benefit from it, and it therefore made business sense.
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
4:01 pm
The answer to your question, KW, is in the McClatchy piece.
Insurance Agent: Nobody, left or right, denies that there is government waste. Such waste is well documented by the GAO (both parties are guilty of ignoring many, if not most, of the GAOs recommendations for eliminating government waste).
On the other hand, unless it helps their political benefactors, the right is seemingly unable to distinguish between investment, spending, and waste.
I’m curious, Insurance Agent. Were you opposed to cash-for-clunkers when the first President Bush proposed it?
“‘This is just one example of the innovative, market-based approaches to pollution reduction that have been pioneered by our Environmental Protection Agency,’ President Bush said in a statement. ‘The result is a cleaner, healthier environment and a more competitive economy.’”
Market-based? How do you like that?
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/19/business/president-s-plan-seeks-to-create-a-market-for-cars-that-pollute.html
Michael H. Smith
March 24th, 2011
4:03 pm
@Debbie Do Right
What the Federal Government has done with healthcare is unconstitutional: For no where in
the U.S. Constitution has the Federal Government been given Authority to mandate/nationalize healthcare.
Speaking of the Constitution, could you please show me where in the constitution the words “healthcare” appear? I’ll wait.
The words health care do not appear in the U.S. Constitution and they only have to appear enumerated to the federal government, because any right, power or authority not enumerated to the Federal government, is a Right of the States. That is why a State governments can act on health care, whaereas the federal government cannot.
Read the tenth amendment and the federalist papers numbers 41 and 45. The federal government has less rights than do the States under the U. S. Constitution.
Kyle Wingfield
March 24th, 2011
4:16 pm
@Bob: Sorry, but I still find it hard to believe that he couldn’t come up with that last $250,000 from private investors. I don’t think we have the whole story here.
And in any case, this story is a great example of why the entire budget-cutting debate is off in the weeds. It is positively silly to be talking about a $250,000 grant when the real issue is that we have added a trillion-dollar new entitlement on top of the other, multitrillion-dollar entitlements we already can’t afford. You can put the puny discretionary cuts that congressional Republicans and Democrats have been arguing about so passionately during the past couple of months in the same category.
Whatever you or I think about the value of this particular $250,000 expenditure, it’s a distraction from the real conversation. And to be quite frank, the multitude of equally distracting stories makes me wonder whether their purveyors just don’t get it, or rather don’t want everyone else to get it.
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
4:37 pm
No distraction. I’m making a distinction between spending and investment, and given the topic of the thread, I thought that an example of investments resulting from the health care law would be apropos. The McClatchy piece goes on to say that doctors and biomedical firms have obtained about $1 billion in grants through the program, sometimes with the help of Senators who opposed the health care law.
It also says, “The grant Cull got from the federal government supplements money from private investors.” It didn’t state the amount of private investment.
I agree with KW that the discretionary cuts are a distraction. The real cause of our future deficits is the fact that health care in America costs about twice as much as it does in other industrialized countries. Even if we cut benefits to Medicare, then the enormous cost of health care will just be shifted from the government sector to the private sector (higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket payments, higher doctor and hospital bills, lower salaries, etcetera).
The health care law has several provisions seeking to reduce the cost of health care in this country…the provision described in this McClatchy piece being one of them. These provisions haven’t been reported nearly enough, and unfortunately, the law doesn’t go far enough to reign in such costs. But it’s a start.
Bob
March 24th, 2011
4:40 pm
@Kyle: So in the face of facts, you simply refuse to accept the facts? Well, I guess that’s one way to go through life.
Now, of course $250,000 isn’t the entire U.S. budget — this is what is known as an “example.” Respectfully, you’re off on a non sequitur. Discussing examples to help understand an issue is different in kind from the obfuscation going on with respect to the actual budget cuts.
Here we’re considering small, manageable examples to help us understand the larger, general principles. That’s a reasonable way to understand an issue — particularly one as large and complicated as healthcare.
Yes, of course you’re right that when it comes time to actually act, it would be insanity to only deal with the $250,000 example — as Congress is now doing with its budget antics. But that’s got quite a lot of nothing to do with this conversation, the issue before us, or the use of examples to understand larger issues.
DawgDad
March 24th, 2011
4:53 pm
“Criticism of “ObamaCare” is criticism for the sake of criticism. It’s not hate for ObamaCare. It’s hate for the Democrat, any Democrat, in the White House. ”
You are entitled to your opinion, but on the basis of fact you could not possibly be more wrong.
Just because some inane law requires the government and taxpayers to pay for entitlements does NOT waive the constitutional rights and protections afforded to citizens. The Federal government has NO RIGHT to limit my access to health care and health care insurance, period. This law is unconstitutional. If it is not, might as well burn the Constitution because moving forward it will be rendered meaningless.
People have fought and died for our rights. There is NO room for compromise on Obamacare. Repeal.
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
4:57 pm
Love the health care law or hate it, you’re going to laugh if you watch this video called “medieval help desk”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
Michael
March 24th, 2011
4:58 pm
Mr. Wingfield: I assume when you’re talking about “ObamaCare,” you actually mean the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which, as best I can tell, was not authored by Mr. Obama. In essence, it is the legislation presented by Republican Bob Dole a number of years ago. Given the history of the issue, the legislation and its original sponsorship, I have to wonder about your confederates and your repeatedly referring to this legislation as ObamaCare. Why not call it DoleCare? Exactly what is it you all gain by identifying a piece of legislation with someone who had virtually nothing to do with it except putting his paw print on it at the end of the melee? I do, indeed, wonder about that.
In any event, despite so-called conservatives (I say so-called because, with each issue, with each utterance, it becomes less clear exactly what you are conserving) proclaiming the bill is a disaster, there is some evidence not only that the bill is showing some successes–remarkable in itself because of the endlessly parlous opposition to it–but that some of those successes are actually being enabled by people such as Jim DeMint even as they publicly proclaim their unconditional opposition to it. Look here for information on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/67jfyyb.
If the American people ever wake up and realize just how completely the “conservative” arm of politics is betraying their interests, I shudder to think about the pandemonium that will ensue as the party faithful scramble to gather their treasures and get out of town.
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
5:18 pm
If a Republican had been elected president, and if he had enacted cap-and-trade and health care mandates, as Republicans previously proposed and advocated for as “market-based” alternatives to Democratic proposals, then Republican pundits and sympathizers would be singing his praises today.
But if President Obama thinks day, the truth must be night. If the White House believes up, the best move is to believe down. It doesn’t matter what one says or does before; as long as you’re saying the opposite of whatever the administration is saying today, you’re doing the right thing.
But such shallow and pathetic laziness can only go so far. Eventually, the knee-jerk rhetoric starts to look ridiculous.
Kyle Wingfield
March 24th, 2011
5:34 pm
@Bob: How much private investment was there already? $10,000 or $10 million? Why couldn’t the original investors — including our successful cardiovascular surgeon — pony up the last bit? Did they consider a government grant chiefly to be an “in” later on when they’re trying to get a government contract? The story explains none of this, and doesn’t really give a clue as to whether any of these questions and others were ever asked.
Something about this anecdote just doesn’t smell right.
Kyle Wingfield
March 24th, 2011
5:38 pm
Excuse me, Cull is a vascular surgeon. Fingers got to flying there.
Insurance agent
March 24th, 2011
5:51 pm
“I’m curious, Insurance Agent. Were you opposed to cash-for-clunkers when the first President Bush proposed it?”
Georgia voter,
Absolutely I would have opposed it. There is waste under republican and democrat administrations and the whole reason many conservatives lost faith in the conservatives in general in 08 was the spending problem. So what did Obama do? He made it even worse.
Cap and trade- I studied this issue specifically in college. Republicans may have initially thought it would be a good idea but most backed off when realizing the devastating effect it would have on the U.S. economy.
Your comment that if Obama says its day the repubs must say its night is a 2 way street. If a Republican invented a way to make cars run on air then dems would oppose it for the simple reason that a Republican came up with the idea. Its seems to me that moreso with Dems than Repubs that most ideas and programs from Dems come with the sole purpose of vote buying and creating dependency- the most obvious being the health care law recently passed.
As for your reasons why we supposedly spend twice as much on health care than most other countries there are a myriad number of reasons behind this if your stat is factually true- an ageing population, obesity-lazy- fat Americans, jackpot justice lawsuits and the ensuing defensive medicine, the burden of treating illegal aliens, and the simple fact that Americans demand and use more health care services. Let’s face it- how many people do you know that will take their kid to the doc for a freaking cold. I know a few.
And btw it may cost more but we by far have the best health care system in the world and easily the most innovation and medical discoveries.
Rafe Hollister
March 24th, 2011
5:56 pm
Why is Obamacare an epithet? Probably because it is a budget busting, unaffordable, job killing, mandatory or freedom killing, rationed care, health insurance scam forced on the American people by President Barack H Obama and the Democrat Congress. Is there anything else to say?
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
6:03 pm
I really hate to say this, KW, but something about your skepticism doesn’t smell right. You’re the journalist, but I found out that the grant is limited to relatively small businesses and amounts to 50 percent of the investment. I’ll give the link in a separate comment.
Also, using an everyday search engine, I was able to find this link: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=229013,00.html
This particular link shows all Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Grants for the State of South Carolina. You’ll see that, in SC, the amounts of the grants vary from $2,700 to $245,000. You’ll also see the grant to CreatiVasc Medical LLC for “Heparin-infused Valve System to Assure Access for AV Graft Dialysis Patients”. Amount: $244,479.24
The IRS site also has a main page describing the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project and breaking the grants or credits out by state. The IRS site also has a page called “Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions” which includes, among other things, the “Qualified Therapeutic Discovery Project Program”
Georgia Voter
March 24th, 2011
6:06 pm
Insurance Agent,
They-were-for-it-before-they-were-against-it Republicans didn’t back off of cap-and-trade “when realizing the devastating effect it would have on the U.S. economy.” They backed off AFTER McCain/Palin, who ran on cap-and-trade, lost the election.
KW, here’s the other link I promised you: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-45.pdf
Bob
March 24th, 2011
6:09 pm
@Kyle: These questions weren’t asked because they’re irrelevant — you may as well ask “what did they know and when did they know it?” Saying “well, they didn’t ask this irrelevant question, so something’s fishy” is an old game, but a pointless one.
But how much private investment was there? The amount the market felt appropriate given its potential upside and risk for those investors. But not everyone’s upside is the same. When you’re the one footing the bill for millions upon millions of dollars of treatment, your potential upside is different from, say, a medical device manufacturer’s — and quite large. It therefore made sense to invest.
There’s no real mystery here, as much as you want to try to make one. When things make business sense, they make business sense — sometimes the questions just aren’t that hard.
Bob
March 24th, 2011
6:10 pm
@Rafe: Nope, that pretty much covers all the lies told about the plan.
Insurance agent
March 24th, 2011
6:16 pm
Georgia Voter,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I follow politics a lot also and frankly I don’t ever remember cap and tax being a particularly popular idea among republicans. Ever.
There might have been some cursory interest in it by some Republicans but I seriously doubt the majority of the Republican party viewed cap and trade seriously as a matter of policy.
Anyway, gotta go. Yall have a good evening.
What Goes Around Comes Around
March 24th, 2011
6:34 pm
@Gm March 24th, 2011 2:32 pm
The Republicans said that they would create jobs. However, they are more concerned with abortions and “Obamacare”.
They have BAMBOOZLED the people who voted for them. They do not know how to create jobs so they take the focus off of that issue and talk about everything but jobs.
Those of us who voted for Obama don’t give a rat’s behind what they call healthcare. IT IS HERE TO STAY. THEY SHOULD GET OVER IT.
Rafe Hollister
March 24th, 2011
6:36 pm
@Bob, ok your turn, give me some positive things that are going to endear Obamacare to the taxpayers.
Bob
March 24th, 2011
7:27 pm
@Rafe: Millions of uninsured people are able to obtain health insurance, those of us who already have health insurance continue to have the same options we’ve always had with very minimal change or interruption, you can no longer be dropped for becoming sick, an insurer can no longer exclude a child’s pre-existing conditions on the parent’s plan, and (most importantly for me) taxpayers are able to pay for uninsured peoples’ medical costs through insurance rather than on a costly and inefficient ad hoc basis as we have been. Just to name a few.
That’s not to say it’s perfect — but you’re acting like it’s some hideous monstrosity or radical change. And it’s neither.
Evelyn
March 24th, 2011
7:39 pm
45, 000 people die a year because they were not allowed access to health care insurance. Georgia is one of only few states that never set up a high risk pool.
And, it has one of the highest mortality rates in the country. Go figure!
The State of Pennsylvania, which decided to run its own high risk program, rather that letting the feds do it, has the cheapest rates in the nation, and the highest participation of any state. Again, go figure!
One last comparison: Pennsylvanians are only charged $283.20, a month for high risk insurance, even at the highest level (someone 55+ years old, with a $1000 deductible), whereas, Georgians are charged $749.00 for the same coverage, in part, because the state (Gov. Perdue, and the former insurance commissioner) decided not to run its own program. They feared Georgian taxpayers would take the huge hit, but they were wrong. Only 399 Georgians have signed up for the federally run high risk pool program (PCIP.gov). And, the $177M allocated to Georgia to supplement the losses, cost above the premiums collected, is going to be way more than ample to get to 2014.
Had Georgia administered its own high risk pool, more lives could have been saved. At this point, Georgia needs to understand it has responsibilities to its taxpayers. And it needs to stop the political game playing, cuz it is killing us.
Rafe Hollister
March 24th, 2011
8:15 pm
Bob, you sure have bought in on Obamacare. BTW, I have a slightly used 96 Subaru Outback driven only by my little old mother back and forth to church on Sunday, that I can let you have for a ridiculously low price. It still smells new, believe it or not. Interested?
If not I have a beautiful bridge and some great coastal acreage in Florida, I’m also trying to market.
Bob
March 24th, 2011
8:18 pm
@Rafe: I love when I win an argument.
You know how I can tell when I’ve won? When the other person can’t respond substantively and instead has to resort to ad hominems.
Thank you for your concession — and better luck next time.
Michael H. Smith
March 24th, 2011
8:25 pm
To: UIC
March 24th, 2011
8:05 am
By now one would have thought no one would use the fatally flawed argument of comparing auto insurance to health care insurance. The two are so far apart in logic it truly is silly to give you a dignified reply. Individual endangerment is nowhere near similarities to public endangerment at large and that is the substance of your argument. One other point that you didn’t quite seem to focus on was the term “Conditional Waiver”: Which means the State would set the standards that must be met in order to receive a waiver. The reasoning behind this was to remove costs to the State and taxpayer; and, to eliminate the objectionable part that is seen in ObamaCare which the government forcing an individual to buy something against their will. As long as a person has available an option there is no government force being applied by the police powers of the State. Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that there are some people – though I’m certainly not one of them – who don’t buy healthcare insurance because they are wealthy enough to pay their medical expenses without any need of health care insurance and these were the targeted group of people I had in mind. For they would likely be able to met the kind of terms and conditions the State would require.
Michael H. Smith
March 24th, 2011
8:40 pm
To : Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 24th, 2011
8:13 am
You are correct as long as the healthcare exchange is not government owned, controlled and administered, such as would be the case in a mutual healthcare insurance Co-Op where group members have voting rights retain ownership, control and administration responsibilities. Governments roll would be relegated solely to oversight, as public money to some extent would likely be involved.
The biggest problem in this continuing healthcare debate is the two polarizing either – or groups where one says it has to be government and the other says it has to be a private sector. There are a few of us in a group that are saying to both of them we want neither – nor which fits perfectly into mutual healthcare insurance Co-Op exchanges.
Kyle Wingfield
March 24th, 2011
9:41 pm
@Georgia Voter: Thanks for the research. It only strengthens my argument.
So, what we have here is an alleged breakthrough treatment for 300,000 people that needs, at least at this stage, a $500,000 investment, right?
If all that is correct, then if the surgeon didn’t want to invest his own money, couldn’t hit up some of his fellow surgeons for some of the money, couldn’t get a bank loan for the money, and couldn’t find a private medical-device company that wanted to pay for the project, all it would have taken is less than $2 apiece from the people who would have benefited from the new treatment, with money to spare.
I repeat: Do you seriously believe the federal government was the *only* or even *best* place for him to turn? That this treatment wouldn’t come to pass if the feds weren’t prepared to step in with $250,000? Because, frankly, whether the government would save money from the creation of this treatment is really beside the point — there are lots of inventions from which the government benefits without bankrolling them.
While I still think these sorts of “spending” versus “investment” stories are a mere distraction given the bigger fiscal picture, from a philosophical standpoint they make matters perfectly clear. The question is not whether the new treatment is worth some investment. The question is whether it is the federal government’s role to fund it and thousands upon thousands of other equally worthy projects.
And my answer is: no.
@@
March 24th, 2011
10:10 pm
It’s funny watching the left protest the cognomen, Obamacare. He’s failed them so many times, perhaps they realize how little he does care. Even his efforts to reform health care isn’t what they were expecting. So what…
they don’t like being reminded?
the cog fell out of their machine?
he left ‘em feeling toothless?
he’s gummed up the works?
I can’t say that I blame them. A huge disappointment, but then I wasn’t expecting a transformer. A shapeshifter’s more like it. A mere shadow of the man they once adored.
O-BA-MA
O-BA-MA
O-BA-MA
Bob
March 24th, 2011
10:52 pm
@Kyle: Yes, it is — that’s what good government is about. We should do things that will save us money, so that the government can take less of it. This was clearly an example of doing that. Nonetheless, you try very, very hard to ignore the question of whether it was a good investment — because you have no argument there. Any time the government can save money, we should do that — these questions aren’t that hard.
Instead you fall back on your old argument that there must be someone, somewhere who would have funded this. As has been shown over and over again, your argument is counter-factual — they got the investment that they were going to get from private sources. This isn’t really surprising — as much as you seem to think that the economic incentives are evenly distributed across all types of investors in this type of situation, that’s rarely true. And since we have the benefit of reality in this case, we can see that it wasn’t true here. That much is no mystery — why you’re so resistant to the facts is.
But I want to focus on one of your arguments — because it’s astounding, really. You point out that if this helped 300,000 people, each would need to contribute only $2 apiece. That’s true — and if each person was otherwise paying for their treatment, they’d each presumably be glad to make that investment (with one fatal caveat I’ll discuss below). So, great, let’s get the money that way. Oh, but those people are scattered all over the place, and transaction costs will eat up all the money before we collect it — listing each person as an investor, assigning them a miniscule stake, etc. We need some sort of administrator to gather this money and also receive and distribute the benefits — someone that can stand in for all those thousands of people. But, of course, that’s a waste, too — what are we going to do, hire a $50,000 a year administrator to run this? And although everyone has an incentive for the overall project to work out, it’s going to be hard to get these people to actually send in their money — everyone has an incentive for it to work, but also an incentive to free-ride. So that administrator is going to need some sort of power to make people send in their money. And it would make more sense to have that administrator cover a lot of different, similar investments rather than just this one — it would be a lot more efficient.
In other words, it would make a lot more sense if we assigned that role to…drumroll please…the government.
DebbieDoRight
March 25th, 2011
9:45 am
The words health care do not appear in the U.S. Constitution
Thank you. I rest my case. SIDE: The rest of the stuff you typed was irrelevant but I hope it helped to exercise your fingers……..
DebbieDoRight
March 25th, 2011
9:46 am
I can’t say that I blame them. A huge disappointment, but then I wasn’t expecting a transformer. A shapeshifter’s more like it. A mere shadow of the man they once adored.
You mean Dumbya?
Peter
March 25th, 2011
9:57 am
Kyle ……..when are you going to start talking about the Republican Governor Anniversary here in Georgia ?
Seems we have had a Republican Governor, a Republican lead house, and a Republican lead everything in Georgia for some time.
What has that gotten Georgia ?
We have lousy schools, high unemployment, Fake taxes, a Ga 400 toll that we got lied to us about.
We have new information about mismanaged funds daily…..for instance.
Georgia has no plan to fully repay $670 million unemployment fund debt
Georgia’s fund that sends checks to the unemployed is nearly empty, and legislation in the General Assembly won’t refill it. And the state may take money from Medicaid and job-creating budgets just to cover the fund’s $24 million interest payment due in October.
Bob Andres, bandres@ajc.com So far, the state has borrowed $672 million from Washington to pay tens of thousands of unemployed Georgians. And the tally rises daily.
Please if Republican’s are so good at being “Conservative” why is all this going on ?