Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Barack Obama, March 19th - "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."
Associated Press, March 24th - Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
Bonus link: the Ko-Tax! (link fixed)
Is this the same man who, while senator, voted against the Born-Alive Act, thereby legalising infanticide?
is this a sign of something???
http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php/weblog/single/when_it_came/
It's fun when the Executive branch of government gets to say whatever persuasive propaganda it wants, while the administrative branch has to stick to the laws it actually wrote.
Again, it all comes down to the payment of risk. All health care must be paid for, including Canadian, which so many of our esteemed citizens tell us 'is free!'. What has to be dealt with, in an actuarial sense, is the funding of risk. Those are the situations which are infrequent, which are expensive, and which no one individual can readily fund in one blow.
So, you spread the cost. You can do this over time, hoping that you can save up enough now for the disease that won't strike until you are 75..and take the risk that you won't be 35 when it hits. Or you can move into a pool of people and each pays a certain amount to cover the risk of a serious illness among that group. Meanwhile, you pay for your regular health care on your own. That's the inexpensive and reasonable choice.
What the insurance companies didn't want was situations where people refused to move into the risk prevention, where they didn't join that group and pool their money. Instead, they paid nothing. Then when serious illness struck they suddenly wanted to join the pool, expecting other people who had contributed for years, to pay for their illness!
Obama's health care, which isn't about risk situations but about all health care, is going to increase the cost of all health care. Why? Because the use of services will increase? Yes, we know that will happen; people will go to a doctor for every twitch and blink.
But that's not the real reason for the increase.
It's the expansion of the bureaucracy to administer this enormous infrastructure. The govt employment roster will explode; they'll need tens of thousands of high paid civil service employees, all paid above the private sector, all with benefits and pensions and unions.
Then, as we've seen in ALL public employee services, the focus moves from the service, in this case health care, to the benefits of the employees. The high costs of administration will result in reduced services and benefits.
In Canada, because we've been through this experience, what we are now seeing is the emergence of private health care. You pay for the treatments you want and that our health care system won't pay. So, if you want a yearly eye exam and our system won't pay, or special tests, etc.. Or, you don't want to wait six months for treatment, you go to the emerging private clinics.
It's fun when the Executive branch of government gets to say whatever persuasive propaganda it wants, while the administrative branch has to stick to the laws it actually wrote.
Again, it all comes down to the payment of risk. All health care must be paid for, including Canadian, which so many of our esteemed citizens tell us 'is free!'. What has to be dealt with, in an actuarial sense, is the funding of risk. Those are the situations which are infrequent, which are expensive, and which no one individual can readily fund in one blow.
So, you spread the cost. You can do this over time, hoping that you can save up enough now for the disease that won't strike until you are 75..and take the risk that you won't be 35 when it hits. Or you can move into a pool of people and each pays a certain amount to cover the risk of a serious illness among that group. Meanwhile, you pay for your regular health care on your own. That's the inexpensive and reasonable choice.
What the insurance companies didn't want was situations where people refused to move into the risk prevention, where they didn't join that group and pool their money. Instead, they paid nothing. Then when serious illness struck they suddenly wanted to join the pool, expecting other people who had contributed for years, to pay for their illness!
Obama's health care, which isn't about risk situations but about all health care, is going to increase the cost of all health care. Why? Because the use of services will increase? Yes, we know that will happen; people will go to a doctor for every twitch and blink.
But that's not the real reason for the increase.
It's the expansion of the bureaucracy to administer this enormous infrastructure. The govt employment roster will explode; they'll need tens of thousands of high paid civil service employees, all paid above the private sector, all with benefits and pensions and unions.
Then, as we've seen in ALL public employee services, the focus moves from the service, in this case health care, to the benefits of the employees. The high costs of administration will result in reduced services and benefits.
In Canada, because we've been through this experience, what we are now seeing is the emergence of private health care. You pay for the treatments you want and that our health care system won't pay. So, if you want a yearly eye exam and our system won't pay, or special tests, etc.. Or, you don't want to wait six months for treatment, you go to the emerging private clinics.
The Ko-Tax link is broken. I bet it has something to do with the human right to an iPad.
he's an amazing liar . . .
I'm still blown away by the 16,000 IRS agents they're hiring.
That, and Obama isn't using Obamacare.
Health care evolved in Canada a bit at a time. It gravitated toward one big unaffordable mess. It is bankrupting some provinces and we are all tax-slaves to it along with other idiotic government programs such as bilingualism and multiculturalism. Not to mention waiting for care.
The USA is starting with a big unaffordable mess ... where will it lead ... to a revolt.
Ten democratic members have already received death-threats and one act has already been taken without any damage ... ... it's coming folks.
None of this has ever been about health care it is about the war between the Maoists/Marxists to gain their utopia in America against those who prefer freedom, self-reliance and capitalism.
The collective vs the individual.
It is a war, it's going to be quite a show and it's just started. The shooting may well follow.
Got wide-screen?
Well Pelosi said they would have to pass the bill before anyone knew what was in it so Oblamebush wasn't lying - he was simply ignorant.
"It is a war,"
Agreed. I said earlier that as far as I'm concerned the DNS(i think) naming right-wingers a "threat to national security" is a declaration of war.
The vagueness of the law is designed to let HHS issue regulations at will to change anything that they wish without congress.
This is why insurers/providers/businesses cannot actually say what the impact will be, there are far too many missing regulations "to be determined". You can be sure that no-refusal for new insurance applicants will be instituted by 2011 not 2014 and this is apparent from all the moves at HHS and the rhetoric of the President, look for many right around Oct 2010 as "election favours" handed out by campaigning Dems.
"Denying [existing] coverage" and "refusing new coverage" are not the same thing.
"Denying [existing] coverage" and "refusing new coverage" are not the same thing.
While technically correct it has the following effect: once dropped (denied coverage) on an exisitng plan you cannot be refused a new plan with another Insurer.
It's just as well. Who wants some doctor cutting more kid's feet off just so he can afford some fancier car not made by Obama Motors?
Barry didn't read the bill. He doesn't know what's in it. He doesn't -care- what's in it.
He'll just move on to the Next Big Thing, and all the little weevils in that big moldy cracker called the US Gubmint will be scratching away, writing whateve damn thing the want in the regulations.
Like a universal computerized medical records system.
You ever take anti-depressants? Kiss your gun license goodbye.
You take cholesterol medication? Don't ever buy candy again or eat at Denny's, or you'll get a phone call from Big Doctor informing you your behavior is unacceptable and will affect your taxes.
You guys think I'm kidding, but the above is absolutely what these clowns have planned. They really, really, really need to control every tiny thing in everybody's life, because people are stupid and if nobody controls them they'll just f- everything up! Its a sickness liberals have. A really foul mental disorder