MANDATORY health insurance, part 2 - Page 39 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-26-2010, 05:49 PM   #571
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A stor View Post
Thanks, I didn't know this. I live in the U.S. Have private insurance through my place of employment. I, like many Americans. Are not sure what this new health care bill will cover. And what will happen if you already have insurance. I would appreciate any info.
If you have insurance through your employer, you keep it. No requirement to join the exchanges or participate in anything. No tax increase.

The only thing that will likely change is over time your premiums will be lower, and starting this year, the insurance companies will not be able to drop you when you get sick or set arbitrary caps on coverage you have paid for.

I know it sounds like a partisan thing to say, but if you go on the Whitehouse website, they have a whole section on how the bill will affect different people in different circumstances. It is very user friendly, and it has not been demolished by fact check or any other independent organization yet.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 10:17 PM   #572
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
If you have insurance through your employer, you keep it. No requirement to join the exchanges or participate in anything. No tax increase.
That simply isn't true. If you have insurance through your employer you don't own it and you can't keep something you don't own. If you leave the job or your employer drops or changes coverage... it's gone. Republicans had a plan giving ownership and portability to the individual. Too radical I guess.

Quote:
The only thing that will likely change is over time your premiums will be lower
YouTube - Durbin "Healthcare Bill Won't Lower Premiums"

Quote:
and starting this year, the insurance companies will not be able to drop you when you get sick or set arbitrary caps on coverage you have paid for.
Also in the Republican bill.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 10:27 PM   #573
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

The real thing regarding European care has its good points but ultimately leads to rationing, waiting lines...
Thank you my friend !!
Quote:
Remember, Obama's original plan said nothing of the public option, never mind Euro care
Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."

YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance

Quote:
Indy, I will give you everything I own if a public option even comes up again in the next few years, never mind gets passed. Anything even remotely like Europe will not happen ever, period. Our political culture in the US is way too deeply ingrained, and that is fine by me.
Well... I hope you're right and I'm doing my best to keep it that way.

Quote:
The Congressional Progressive caucus 60 as a whole objected to the lack of a public option. Of those 60, I highly doubt that any more than Kucinich plus 8 or 9 are hard core single payer advocates. Single payer, not the public option, is the European test.
Some of us would argue that the public option is a leg in the door to single-payer. And many liberals are quoted saying as much.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-27-2010, 12:53 AM   #574
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
That simply isn't true. If you have insurance through your employer you don't own it and you can't keep something you don't own. If you leave the job or your employer drops or changes coverage... it's gone. Republicans had a plan giving ownership and portability to the individual. Too radical I guess
.

Yes it is true. There is nothing in the bill that makes you join the exchanges or makes your employer do so. While it is certainly true that you do not own it and in some cases you are subject to loss of said plan should your employer change coverage or you change jobs, there is nothing in the bill that makes this more likely to happen. This has always been true- the problem with full individual ownership is of course the fact that the employer pays some of the premiums, or in alot of cases most of the premiums. If the policy were 100% owned by the individual, it would be a lot more expensive as employers have bargaining power in the market. So that is probably not the best, most cost effective way to go.

Portability of health coverage is hardly controversial, and you can already do it to a great extent. Not a radical idea. It was overwhelmingly a bipartisan idea. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) - Privacy / Data Protection Project (c)2002-2005. Kassebaum-Kennedy act of 1996. Moderate Republican, liberal Democrat and numerous other sponsors from both parties, signed by Clinton.

You successfully changed the subject. The bottom line answer to what A Stor was asking is there is nothing in the bill that either changes your employer provided coverage or makes it more likely than you are now to lose it.


Listen to him carefully. He says and the independent numbers back him up that the rate of increase will be slowed down. So he gets negatives for being honest? Of course, premiums will go up, minimum at the rate of inflation, probably much more as medical inflation has been higher. It is very unlikely that the overall cost of medical care will get cheaper. What we are talking about is making it more efficent and cost effective compared to what is projected out from the status quo. This is why the CBO has said that we will be $143 billion lower on the deficit end than we would be w/o health care reform.

Bottom line, you pay lower premiums than you would have without reform.

While raw premiums will keep increasing, the exchanges and other cost containment measures will ensure the rate is slower. Also, in terms of your out of pocket expenses, many people and especially small businesses will be eligible for subsidies and tax credits and will be paying much, much less as a result.

Take a look at what factcheck says starting at "both men are misleading." The only significant increase in premiums will be from individuals using the health care reform benefits to buy better coverage than they have now. Such subsidies, tax credits, etc will ensure that most of them pay less out of pocket than they do now.

You can also look at what Ezra Klein of the Washington Post wrote regarding CBO's projections. Then look for any demolition of it on a fact check site, you won't find it. Ezra Klein - To repeat, the CBO found that premiums go down under health-care reform


Quote:
Also in the Republican bill.
Oh, no, no, no. That was one of the biggest myths of the entire debate.

GOP Alternative Will Not Bar Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions – Talk Radio News Service

The expansion of high risk pools is a brain dead idea that in no way addresses the prolfieration of pre existing condition denials. If you have a pool just for those people, it will be a train wreck, as they would either be prohibitively expensive to cover the constant pay outs or go into the red permanently. Any economist will tell you that, in order for health care to work and be cost effective, you need the high risk people in the same pool as the low risk people. They counterbalance eachother- the plan has a few high risk who need alot of paid out services, yet they have a bunch of healthy people paying premiums but not taking a hell of a lot more than routine visits and procedures out. Of course, John Boehner does not have an economics degree and shows no interest in listening to people who have them(CBO, health economists, etc).
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-27-2010, 01:22 AM   #575
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Thank you my friend !!
You are more than welcome. Glad we've called eachother friends now. I really, truly do not want to come across as an angry red faced jerk.

Quote:
Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."

YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance
All you really have to do is look at the placard on the podium. It is something called pandering, and all politicans do it almost daily, the President I support included. AFL CIO has long been active in Democratic primaries, and have a long standing position in support of single payer. It was also a women's and human rights forum, these kind of activists would tend to be more pro single payer.

Where is the reality of his position, then?
1.)Lets have a look at the video. Obama had much less gray hair! He looks pretty damn young. Then there is that little thing about how we need to take back the White House AND take back Congress. So one does not have to be in the CIA or be a detective to figure out he was speaking around 2005 or 2006.

2.)His health care proposal that he unveiled in 2007 in Iowa City said nothing of single payer or even a public option. In fact, commentators left and right noted how centrist it was compared to Hillary and Edwards. The health care plan he ran with in the campaign came from Kerry, who actually stole it from Biden. Biden is not a lunatic liberal.

3.)Have a look at what Obama said as he was running for President:
Obama health care ad casts him as offering the moderate choice -- Eye on Ohio | Openers Archive Site - cleveland.com

4.)The principles he set forth for Congress upon being elected drew some lines in the sand, but none with respect to single payer or the public option. The Public option was almost entirely a project of the House Liberals, Pelosi herself really not too enamored with it but rolling with it to keep a part of the caucus happy.

5.)His position has been pretty damn consistent since at least 2007 on health care. Even before that, we have one speech before a biased interest group versus some 2004 policy papers and 2005/06 Senate statements that make plenty of mention of the reforms in the bill, but no mention of single payer.

6.)Everthing Obama has proposed or enacted has reflected statements, web sites and policy papers Obama has put out in support of moderate health care reform since 2004. Nothing making it to a campaign proposal, a bill or a law has ever reflected the statement he made in support of single payer. I am not denying the video you posted, that would be lunacy, maybe there are similar ones out there. However, I submit that, given what he has formally proposed and enacted, you could find him giving statements that are the opposite of what you posted to the AARP or business groups or conservative Dems in downstate Illinois or town halls in Iowa in 2004-08.

Quote:
Well... I hope you're right and I'm doing my best to keep it that way.
It is a concern of middle class and wealthy people to have to pay a tax for government health care when they already have good health care from a competitive private sector. Competition and private enteprise are pretty ingrained in our culture. Besides, I have not done a poll, but I would not imagine that single payer plays well with independents, the people who decide who sits in the oval office.

From an individual rights and social justice standpoint, I really do not see Americans, with their inherent sense of opportunity and fairness, going for a system where the guy working at Burger King pays a tax to cover Bill Gates' health care.

I honestly do not think you will have to worry. Obama just yesterday told a kid who was yelling for a public option that the votes were not there in Congress, that it was the idea of some in Congress and that there was "no need to shout young man." Obama really is not as far left as people think he is.
Quote:
Some of us would argue that the public option is a leg in the door to single-payer. And many liberals are quoted saying as much.
Very true. But again, even the public option had nowhere near enough votes in a overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and almost no appetite in the Senate. Even if the public option were passed, it really resembles private plans more than it does single payer. Additionally, the vast majority of its proponents argued for it not as a foot in the door, but as a check on private insurance and a means of competition.

The people who would argue it as a foot in the door are much fewer in number, and their arguing this way is playing to the base and a testament to the existence of wishful thinking. They are the same pundits, activists and Congressional Progressive caucus members who did not even have the votes for Public Option, never mind single payer.

It is unlikely that, with the positie effects we will see from this bill, there will develop a major movement for single payer that picks up momentum in Congress.

1.)Democrats who voted for a very moderate bill are already literally in the crosshairs just for that. You think they will go for single payer, especially when it would put many campaign contributors out of business?

2.)One would think with all the stories of cancer patients dropped and left for dead, the 60% premium increases, the 50 million w/o health care and the record profits of insurance companies, that single payer support would be at its highest point right now. Probably is... and guess what, it did not even make the most partisan bills this year.

I doubt ,with companies better regulated and more access to the quality of care we already provide to those who have it, that we will see a massive outcry for single payer any time soon.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-27-2010, 11:00 AM   #576
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That simply isn't true. If you have insurance through your employer you don't own it and you can't keep something you don't own. If you leave the job or your employer drops or changes coverage... it's gone. Republicans had a plan giving ownership and portability to the individual. Too radical I guess.
This falls under the "well no shit Sherlock" category. If you know how employee set up insurance works you know why it's not portable after you leave or get fired.

Did you read their "portability" plan, it was basically Cobra, it was crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."

But U2387 was correct it was never found in the original plan, so once again reality vs quotes. Reality will win.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 07:21 PM   #577
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
This falls under the "well no shit Sherlock" category. If you know how employee set up insurance works you know why it's not portable after you leave or get fired.

Did you read their "portability" plan, it was basically Cobra, it was crap.
Even that may have been window dressing as we at least know how Jim Bunning and now Tom Coburn feel about COBRA benefits! They're something to obstruct.

Bottom line is if you lose your employer provided health insurance in 2014 once the plan has been phased in, you lose it the same way you lose it now. By getting laid off, fired or if the employer drops coverage.

The bill creates no new means or incentives through which employers will drop coverage.

If there exists a plan to provide real portability or ownership(setting aside the wisdom of such a policy) I have not seen it and certainly not from the Republicans. I think Kassebaum-Kennedy was the last bit of progress made on this issue.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 09:52 PM   #578
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Sometime around 2014 one of the multitudes of new commissions, boards, agencies or panels will issue mandates that ALL health insurance policies must comply with. If yours does not... you will lose your current coverage. Assuming, of course, your employer has not already chosen to pay the minimal tax fine and dropped health care insurance for its employees.

Unintended consequence # 35 of Obamacare.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 10:03 PM   #579
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:33 AM
So weeding out inferior plans = bad thing?

Is this what I'm hearing?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 10:17 PM   #580
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So weeding out inferior plans = bad thing?

Is this what I'm hearing?
Who said anything about weeding out 'bad" insurance. Maybe if you're 28 you want a high deductible plan. Maybe if you're a practicing Mormon or Baptist you don't need coverage for alcohol & drug abuse treatment.

That's one of the problems with Romneycare and why premiums have soared in MA. People had to buy more insurance then they want or needed because they were mandated to and couldn't buy (cheaper) insurance from another state.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 10:21 PM   #581
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Sometime around 2014 one of the multitudes of new commissions, boards, agencies or panels will issue mandates that ALL health insurance policies must comply with. If yours does not... you will lose your current coverage. Assuming, of course, your employer has not already chosen to pay the minimal tax fine and dropped health care insurance for its employees.

Unintended consequence # 35 of Obamacare.
All plans will have to cover a minimum set of procedures, abide by a minimum standard, etc. That includes employer sponsored plans. That is if they want to participate in the exchanges, which every insurance company will have finanical incentive to do so beacuse of all the now uninsured or underinsured people who will be buying in them.

There is no "does not." They comply at the policy level, the employer does not factor into the decision to comply with the minimum coverage standard. The employer doesn't say "hell no, I can't comply with that" and then Obama drops your employer's coverage. At the same time, the insurance policy originator(the insurance company) has every DISINCENTIVE to not comply as they would miss out on some 30 million customers with a conservative estimate.

The employers will have very little incentive to drop coverage they are currently providing as workers will just go work somewhere else. It will be easier, not harder for employers to provide coverage under this bill. Also, unlike the token Massachusetts fine on employers who do not comply, the fine in the health reform bill actually has teeth. Dropping coverage and paying the fine is not a very attractive alternative,especially given the fact that the fine buys you nothing and the health care plan buys you a healthy and loyal workforce. I am sure you understand that employers do not provide coverage because they are boy scouts, they do it to attract the employees they need to get their work done and profit. They don't just drop coverage becuase a fine that gets them nothing in terms of workforce productivity is cheaper.

What is the fine or tax for not providing coverage right now if you are an employer?

Nothing, while health care is expensive. So even with this equation, 98% of employers offer coverage. Now, think of an individual mandate, which will only increase the attractiveness of a firm providing health care to a job applicant and a fine per employee if you do not offer coverage. The incentive is much greater for the employer to offer coverage under health care reform, and for this reason, employer provided coverage has expanded in MA.

Even in MA, where people thought this would be a major issue, we have not had the unintended consequence you speak of.Consumer Reports Health Blog: Will my employer drop my coverage? Unlikely.

The bill owes alot of the reason it is a net positive to Massachusetts. We did it first, and I feel Obama took the positive aspects of our plan while also making sure to point out and not repeat the numerous mistakes that were made. Romney and the 2 dingbat Democratic leaders(one of whom is on his way to jail) wrote far from a perfect bill, and Obama made sure to hammer home that point in the primaries. For example, MA mandated coverage without addressing costs, this bill has alot of cost containment measures in it.

The whole reform is mostly a set of incentives, and it was thought out alot better than detractors claim. Peter Orszag, the OMB director for Obama is probably the foremost health economist in the country. I have heard alot of doom and gloom predictions from the likes of Palin, Beck and O'Reilly but among the people that actually have credibility in the area, nothing. Groups representing employers, doctors, health care providers, nurses, small businesses, etc almost unanimously say that a)they were listened to and b)the bill is, on balance, a positive.

You can find your group here and there that opposes it, just as you can certainly find groups and people supporting it that have squabbles with individual provisions. Myself included. No bill is perfect, given the fact that they are written by 535 humans who have all the same flaws and competing desires and interests as the rest of us.

Indy, just as you certainly would not have written every provision in there, neither would I have.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 10:28 PM   #582
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Who said anything about weeding out 'bad" insurance. Maybe if you're 28 you want a high deductible plan. Maybe if you're a practicing Mormon or Baptist you don't need coverage for alcohol & drug abuse treatment.
I said inferior.

Once again, you don't think this happens now? Why do you pretend this isn't the case now? Denial, denial, denial...

Have you ever seen an insurance package(especially employee provided) that priced alcohol and drug seperately? Most of the time it's packaged in with a lot of other psychological coverage. And those that aren't it's seriously like a few dollars difference.

Why do you believe age won't play a factor anymore? What are you basing this(or anything else for that matter) on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
because they were mandated to and couldn't buy (cheaper) insurance from another state.
We've talked about this ad nauseum, I'm sorry you don't get it.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 10:40 PM   #583
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Who said anything about weeding out 'bad" insurance. Maybe if you're 28 you want a high deductible plan. Maybe if you're a practicing Mormon or Baptist you don't need coverage for alcohol & drug abuse treatment.

That's one of the problems with Romneycare and why premiums have soared in MA. People had to buy more insurance then they want or needed because they were mandated to and couldn't buy (cheaper) insurance from another state.
You want a high deductible plan, you've got it. They're not outlawed unless I missed that memo. Alcohol and drug abuse treatment is not what they had in mind when they say minimum standard. Think the policies that make you pay $400 out of pocket for an allergic reaction to bee sting, and will not help out at all. Or the ones that don't provide specialist care, even though their premiums are the same or comparable to companies that do. The basic standard is really not forcing Cadillac plans and "vice lifestyle" plans on anyone.

Romneycare, while far from perfect is certainly not the reason premiums have skyrocketed. That has been a national trend, and you can find the same or greater increases in other states since 2006. Premium announcements were just made about a month ago by most companies and I think the biggest percentage increase both as an average and for 1 company's individual policy was in California. People in MA have more insurance options than they did before our health bill passed. Everyone will have even more in 2014.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 09:18 AM   #584
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 02:33 AM
Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans – the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits – two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received – by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage.'"

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products – and providing subsidies worth billions – insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

"In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-30-2010, 06:16 PM   #585
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced this afternoon that he will join a lawsuit with other state attorneys general, challenging the new federal health care law.

Zoeller said last week that he and attorneys general in at least 13 other states were pondering the legal challenge, but today said that he has reviewed the new law and thinks it is unconstitutional. He says the law requires people to buy health insurance and encroaches on states’ sovereignty by forcing them to set up health insurance exchanges.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Dog Lovers.... Part 3 U2Fanatic4ever Lemonade Stand 1019 05-19-2012 04:35 AM
Hell-th Insurance WARNING: LONG POST! BluRmGrl Zoo Confessionals 7 10-26-2006 10:04 PM
On (not) having health insurance wolfeden Zoo Confessionals 14 03-24-2004 12:15 PM
White House seeks control on health, safety Scarletwine Free Your Mind Archive 1 01-13-2004 05:54 PM
Bono today at the conference in Africa U2Kitten Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 9 01-15-2002 10:29 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com