Your right that one could use it to try and get a states rights bill passed. But the Dims are going to see it coming a mile away with how it could affect their Health care mandate. They would be more incline to do a pot bill then a states rights bill.
None of your points address the real issues. Healthcare costs have risen, but not because of insurance companies. The real reasons:
- Consumers do not pay for the services that they contract. People who pay for services with their own money seek out the best bargains. People who spend other people's money have no incentive to economize. They accept more services than they need, because they are not out of pocket. This is especially true of illegal immigrants. Which leads us to...
- Illegal immigrants suck down medical services, but pay nothing for them, not even Medicare or Medicaid taxes. Border states are footing the bill for these services, and they are forced to do so by the federal government.
- Government mandates on insurers force them to provide coverage for conditions whether the consumer wants them or not. This drives up the cost of insurance.
- Malpractice suits force doctors to engage in practices which do not benefit patients, but which protect them from legal reprisal. They order unnecessary tests, and act in view of how a jury will view their actions.
The solutions for these problems are very simple:
- Employer coverage occurs because the tax code doesn't treat medical benefits as income, while permitting employers to deduct the cost as a business expense. This results in people seeing health care as something to be provided, rather than something that they pay for. It also has an impact on portability. The fix is to gradually phase out the tax incentives for employers to provide healthcare, and to treat it as income. Thus, if I want to keep more of my income, I have to shop around for a better plan than my boss provides.
- Too easy. What part of illegal do the courts not understand? If you are here illegally, you don't have the right to demand services from those of us who aren't. That includes medical care, welfare, food stamps or any of the other things that liberals demand that we shower illegals with. This will save billions.
- Remove the mandates and allow consumers to tailor their plans to their needs. A twenty-year-old needs catastrophic coverage, while an older person might want something more comprehensive. Make insurance as responsive to individual preferences as cable TV, and you reduce the costs. Also, allow out of state purchases of insurance.
- Restrict awards in malpractice cases to actual damages and treatment costs, and ensure that the damages are used for treatment (Terry Schiavo's husband blew through her settlement and then sought to get the courts to kill her for him). This would also eliminate contingency fees, since the awards would not exceed damages. Attorneys would either be paid for their services the way that they are in other cases, or they can work pro-bono if they are genuinely committed to the case.
No, Mr. Boehner, the Constitution is the Law of the Land
Yesterday, Diane Sawyer asked John Boehner in an interview if he planned to push for repeal of Obamacare. He responded that “the election changes that” and “Obamacare is the law of the land.”
No, Mr. Boehner, the Constitution is the law of the Republic.
In April 2011, following the failure of Republicans to defund Obamacare during the first budget battle, I wrote the following at Red State:
Well, they said all along that we’d wait until 2012. They were sure we’d win the election. Ironically, by running away from the Obamacare issue, they ensured that we would not win the election. Now that they lost, they say tough luck on Obamacare.
If it is reckless to shut down the government over Obamacare, then there is nothing in the budget worth fighting for. Due to the degree of entrenchment of the existing entitlement, even Paul Ryan’s plan will not balance the budget for another 26 years. If Obamacare is not defunded within the next year, it will be virtually impossible to completely repeal and will make a balanced budget an impossibility.
Yes, I know what you’re thinking: “if we create gridlock over Obamacare, we will…..” We will what? We will risk political reprisal? Then what are we fighting for in the first place? If we are unwilling to fight the implementation of a 4th entitlement program, how will we ever have the moxie to fix the existing ones? >>> Every intervention, program, and mandate prescribed under the 2010 healthcare law, if left intact, will limit freedom, increase insurance premiums, create more dependency, and lead to rationed care.
>>> Aside for the policy disasters that will arise from the beast of Obamacare, the permanent implementation of Obamacare will create enough new dependency across all demographics that we will never be able to win an election anyway.
This is it, folks. If we are unwilling to engage in a fight to the death of Obamacare, there is nothing worth fighting for. And frankly, there will be nothing to fight for.
Many say Boehner is right, but he is only right because he is making it so.
Boehner, the coward of DC county. The dems to their credit, nominate FIGHTERS to be their leaders. Whack jobs yes, but fighters. We on the other hand seem to nominate men with a high estrogen count. He's the perfect blathering wretch for the radical left with an R after his name. Talk about a historical coincidence. It just couldnt come at a worse time.
I picked the first two results which seemed to have a good chart and information, not simply ones which I think support my case. As it happens, they are two sources which one might consider politically apart. In one, you see only the chart for colorectal cancer in women, but it shows that the top five is close, and the US and Canada are neck and neck. Now, I will allow that even a neck and neck between the US and Canada is a win for the US because our American demographics include two large populations which are notoriously uninsured, unhealthy, and short lived which Canada doesn't have on nearly the same scale.
The point being, that the top five countries are very close in such comparisons and the other four countries have universal or single payer systems. If indeed our way of doing it (which you have to also allow includes a great deal of government health care already in the aged, the military, the poor, etc..)_ were so vastly superior then you would expect our "win" to be by a greater margin.