Conservatives have spouted off that letting people by health insurance across state lines would increase competition among the insurance companies and would lower cost. They have no idea what they are talking about, as usual, and have completely made asses out of themselves.
Each state decides it’s own regulation of the health insurance markets. In order to get them all the same across the board so that they could sell it in different states, it would take a large gov’t organization and a lot more regulation. Plus, it would take away the right of individual states to regulate a market in their state. Why are conservatives so dumb?
This is only one of their stupid, asinine ideas about health care. My own Representative, Tom McClintock in Ca, said the same thing at a town hall meeting this last fall. This man told a Rheumatoid Arthritis patient that she shouldn’t be denied health care for her pre-existing condition (ok, good), but his solution wasn’t to end the practice of denial by these insurance companies (what?!?!?!) but to allow her to buy into an insurance plan that doesn’t cover Rheumatoid Arthritis, thus allowing her to get emergency coverage and pay for any treatment she might need on her own (WHAT??!!?! We just treat our illness on our own? What the fuck is the point of having Insurance at all, then, you fucking nutbag?!?!?!)
Are Conservatives getting dumber or do they just think they can pass this shit off to an increasingly uneducated base? I think it’s a mixture of both. Conservatives pull their children out of school all the time citing liberal and gay bias by teachers. Oh, and that science stuff they are teaching, who needs that?
My party in Congress looks like it’s falling apart. The President is taking blame for giving them too much leeway and not being more firm in his leadership. But when the base is pissed off, at least it’s because we are informed of their flaws and missteps. It’s because the base pays attention, uses critical thinking, and draws educated conclusions.
So why are Conservatives so Fucking Stupid? Because their is one born every minute, and organizing those idiots with populist anger based on little or no evidence and feeding them ideas that would never work just to counter the ones that would work for the sake of winning elections and staying in power is the MO of their leaders. It’s sad, but in a way, they deserve to be led like sheep. They ask for it.
theothergardener Said:
on February 6, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I’m hardly conservative, but it occurs to me the real stupidity entered the debate when Democrats decided to concentrate on health care during a deep, extended recession. Yes, it is an economic issue, too, but hardly one that grabs the imagination of the young and unemployed. And it is always the young and unemployed who end up making an electoral statement during harsh times. Normally passive, they get fed up with hearing about the issues of the old guard, and react. Even when it profits them to listen, they don’t care. The Democrats need to shut up about healthcare, push it through using “reconciliation,” and get on to dealing with the jobs situation. And enough with trying to turn healthcare into an issue on a par with jobs. Obviously it is not. Enough.
TOG
lunawolf Said:
on February 7, 2010 at 11:15 am
It was a huge selling point in his campaign, so it makes sense that they wanted to move on it as soon as possible. I am disappointed in how the Blue Dogs were handled. Leadership is a key issue in the Democratic congress.
And until the ’08 election and the ’04 election young, eligible voters were the least likely to vote. It’s youth-centered GOTV orgs that have done the work to get record young people out to the polls for said two elections. Before this century, the largest turnout of youth voters (18-25) was the year they gave 18 year old the right to vote.
theothergardener Said:
on February 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Bullshit. They moved on healthcare first because the Clinton supporters were being a bunch of whiny pissy-pants, which was predictable. That’s what they are. There’s no reason for young folks to care about healthcare. It’s a bullshit issue in a recession.
TOG
lunawolf Said:
on February 9, 2010 at 8:32 pm
No, a major part of his campaign was health care reform. He had a 30 page booklet on it outlining how a public option would save money and how lowing the cost of health care would help the economy.
There’s an enormous reason for “young folks” to care about health care. They should have access to it now so we can start practicing preventative medicine in this country. A complete paradigm shift is necessary. You don’t get that preaching to the choir.
theothergardener Said:
on February 10, 2010 at 10:26 pm
This is nice, but the numbers have never supported you. Young people were never plugged into this issue, and the vast majority of folks are focused on other things right now. I have an enormous amount of sympathy—I’ve suffered from a serious chronic illness for years—but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a dud as an issue at this moment. And raising the volume doesn’t change anything.
TOG
Chris Said:
on February 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm
The Dems bet a lot on the success of HCR, and then they decided to dawdle. They’ve failed us to just the same extent as the Conservatives fucked the country before them.
Just goes to show that all politicians are useless in their own way.
lunawolf Said:
on February 7, 2010 at 7:50 pm
“They’ve failed us to just the same extent as the Conservatives fucked the country before them.”
That’s a bit harsh. It would take a lot for them to fuck up as much as the Conservatives.
Chris Said:
on February 8, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Not really. Give them a supermajority and what do they do? Squander it. Inaction can be just as bad as malignant action.
lunawolf Said:
on February 8, 2010 at 10:10 pm
As you sit on the side lines and skip political meetings and generally don’t get involved with anything…………
Chris Said:
on February 9, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Honestly think it would have mattered either way? Didn’t think so. Failure at the top is not effected by the bottom…. trickle-up fail?
lunawolf Said:
on February 9, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Most of the work is done on local levels, my dear. I can vouch for that because I’ve actually done something for Dem campaigns and the local party.
lunawolf Said:
on February 12, 2010 at 9:10 pm
“This is nice, but the numbers have never supported you. Young people were never plugged into this issue.”
You’re statement was that there was no reason young people should care about this issue. My argument was that they should care, not that there are numbers that say they DO care. Outreach and education could change that. If that doesn’t work, however, age will, when they start needing the services. This wasn’t a “numbers” statement, simply my opinion that young people SHOULD care about health care, so I don’t really get your point at arguing with me over it.
Health Care was a big issue in the campaign, it was second to economy in the exit polls on election day. The reason it seems to be a dud doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that its needed or wanted or not, it’s that it has been stalled by a lack of Democratic leadership against a strong, unified Republican opposition. It did pass both houses, after all.
lunawolf Said:
on February 12, 2010 at 9:57 pm
The other sad thing about the fact that some people think this issue is “dead” or should be tabled is that it has been tabled and put off for so many years now. Blue Cross in CA is raising their premiums by an average of 39% this year. If we keep putting this off, when our children our in their 30′s and 40′s they will wonder why we never took the opportunity to do anything about it.
AngelaTC Said:
on February 23, 2010 at 11:42 am
I’m thinking that maybe the education needs to begin with your definition of insurance. It was never supposed to be used to pay for illnesses you already had. Duh.
Health care costs are skyrocketing because the deep pockets of other people ( see – ‘the government’) already foot more than 50% of the bill.
Socialized medicine will involve rationing by necessity, rather than ability to pay. I’ve not seen any argument that sways me away from the fact that this is morally repulsive. Ultimately, it has to mean that the older and the sicker you are, the less likely you will be provided access to the system. The resources will be channeled away from the very people that need them in order to support the workers.
That’s socialism’s only pure interest – the workers.
You can’t rewrite the laws of economics with good intentions.
lunawolf Said:
on February 23, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Where do you get your information? There are wonderful examples of “socialized” medicine that are far better systems than the one in the US. France, for example. I think the education should start with your own. Hawaii is another one.
I love how conservatives always fall back on ideology when they don’t have FACTS to back up what they are talking about. Instead of looking into the practices of health insurance companies, you just write health care reform off as socialism and call it “morally repulsive.” Not only that, but the “moral repulsiveness” you see when you hear the Right’s typical scare tactics like “Death Panels” and the idea that age or sickness would prevent someone from getting care is exactly how the insurance companies operate. What’s repulsive is that you yourself say that health insurance shouldn’t cover illnesses you already have. So you would have it that people not have access by the mandate of the insurance companies and fend for themselves rather than let the gov’t help people secure their own health with a public option or even single payer (which, btw, single payers HAS NOT been put in any bills and is really the only true definition of a Western Socialist-like policy).
Yeah, repulsive, I agree. Like your ignorance of the gravity of the situation.
Chris Said:
on February 24, 2010 at 12:25 pm
“It was never supposed to be used to pay for illnesses you already had. Duh.”
Foolish, for a start. Health Insurance has become the only feasible method for paying for care for most people. The fact is health care does not lend itself well to a capitalistic system. A socialized system – of the kind you’re so deathly afraid – is the only effective method for solving our problems. That’s why every other successful western power has a socialized system: it works.
When you talk about “socialism’s intent,” you let your ideology cloud reason. That’s about what I expect from Conservatives, however.
John Said:
on September 20, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Well, the thing is, their argument against health care makes sense. You have company A with a policy for $50. Company B has a policy of $50. Company A is located in the next state over. Company B is located in your state. Company A decides to lower prices so that people in your state will buy the insurance. Company B responds and lowers their prices to Company A’s. Because of the state line taxes, people will buy Company B’s policy. This continues until the cost cannot go down any further. Therefore, you get the best prices for your policy.
lunawolf Said:
on October 3, 2010 at 9:13 am
First of all, what you state is not an “argument against healthcare.” It’s an argument for selling insurance across state lines.
Second, you are mistaken as to how the market really works. Look at the average income of each state in the US. Five of the six lowest have no minimum wage whatsoever. Imagine an influx of Californians buying from a state such as Alabama. The increased demand would actually raise the prices in Alabama, leaving the residents of that state even less equipped to purchase health insurance.
If you want to get around this, you can mandate coverage, which the new health care law does and you create regulated coops, which the health care bill also does.