Comments on: Testing the Gag Reflex of the American People http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/03/04/testing-the-gag-reflex-of-the-american-people/ The unfiltered goodness that you have come to expect from Jay Kersting. Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:53:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Joe Reimers http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/03/04/testing-the-gag-reflex-of-the-american-people/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Joe Reimers Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:10:02 +0000 http://jaykersting.com/blog/?p=333#comment-234 One other thing worth noting here: the comparison between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance is not really accurate. For starters, if you don't drive, you don't need auto insurance. It's the cost associated with a privilege (admittedly, one which is necessary for many people.) Secondly, the required auto insurance essentially covers harm to others caused by you. It does not address comprehensive care or coverage for costs you incur when the other person is uninsured/underinsured. Basically, in Indiana, the state requires you be able to pay up to $50,000 if you cause an accident while driving, but that has nothing to do with your own car. Mandatory health insurance would be the equivalent of requiring people to purchase auto insurance with very high comprehensive and uninsured/underinsured levels, with riders that also provide coverage for oil changes, inspections, tire rotations, etc. One other thing worth noting here: the comparison between mandatory auto insurance and mandatory health insurance is not really accurate. For starters, if you don’t drive, you don’t need auto insurance. It’s the cost associated with a privilege (admittedly, one which is necessary for many people.)

Secondly, the required auto insurance essentially covers harm to others caused by you. It does not address comprehensive care or coverage for costs you incur when the other person is uninsured/underinsured. Basically, in Indiana, the state requires you be able to pay up to $50,000 if you cause an accident while driving, but that has nothing to do with your own car.

Mandatory health insurance would be the equivalent of requiring people to purchase auto insurance with very high comprehensive and uninsured/underinsured levels, with riders that also provide coverage for oil changes, inspections, tire rotations, etc.

]]> By: Administrator http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/03/04/testing-the-gag-reflex-of-the-american-people/comment-page-1/#comment-227 Administrator Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:03:37 +0000 http://jaykersting.com/blog/?p=333#comment-227 The costs will lead to higher taxes, out of necessity. It is part of the Cloward-Piven model to eventually force a national salary to everyone. It is the pathway to enslavement. What was the saying from one of the Star Wars movies about the end of liberty being created by thunderous applause? That is what this is. The costs will lead to higher taxes, out of necessity. It is part of the Cloward-Piven model to eventually force a national salary to everyone. It is the pathway to enslavement.

What was the saying from one of the Star Wars movies about the end of liberty being created by thunderous applause? That is what this is.

]]> By: Topher http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/03/04/testing-the-gag-reflex-of-the-american-people/comment-page-1/#comment-226 Topher Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:53:14 +0000 http://jaykersting.com/blog/?p=333#comment-226 Looking over the President's proposal (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal), it's not nearly as offensive as I thought. I am concerned about some of the mechanisms needed to implement this, but much of it seems to be a step in the right direction--especially with some of the Republican-suggested changes. I am concerned that there doesn't seem to be any provision to allow insurers to set higher premiums for people with high-risk lifestyles (smokers, heavy drinkers, etc.), but I'm not sure insurers are prohibited from doing so. The only thing that really offends me is that the proposal would force all Americans who can afford health insurance to purchase it, but I don't see that being different from states requiring auto insurance. I'd also like to see a "Most Favored Nation"-type provision, so that individuals would pay the same amounts for medical services that insurers pay, instead of insurers receiving heavy discounts. I am a bit confused by your post though. What exactly is in the proposal that is so evil? Is it mostly the Medicaid for Working Families provision described here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleii/medicaid-working-families because many believe that the cost of implementation will be much higher than Obama represents? Thanks! Looking over the President’s proposal (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal), it’s not nearly as offensive as I thought. I am concerned about some of the mechanisms needed to implement this, but much of it seems to be a step in the right direction–especially with some of the Republican-suggested changes. I am concerned that there doesn’t seem to be any provision to allow insurers to set higher premiums for people with high-risk lifestyles (smokers, heavy drinkers, etc.), but I’m not sure insurers are prohibited from doing so. The only thing that really offends me is that the proposal would force all Americans who can afford health insurance to purchase it, but I don’t see that being different from states requiring auto insurance. I’d also like to see a “Most Favored Nation”-type provision, so that individuals would pay the same amounts for medical services that insurers pay, instead of insurers receiving heavy discounts.

I am a bit confused by your post though. What exactly is in the proposal that is so evil? Is it mostly the Medicaid for Working Families provision described here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleii/medicaid-working-families because many believe that the cost of implementation will be much higher than Obama represents?

Thanks!

]]> By: Administrator http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/03/04/testing-the-gag-reflex-of-the-american-people/comment-page-1/#comment-222 Administrator Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:03:23 +0000 http://jaykersting.com/blog/?p=333#comment-222 Joe - Bingo! I actually remember talking with Bill Frist at the time that the Republicans were considering this same tactic. I got the impression that I would not want to play poker with Dr. Frist, because I think he was bluffing...but we'll never know. I do think this was the right move then. I have no cofidence in the Democrats and little in the Republicans. Let's see how this plays out. Thanks for posting here. Joe – Bingo! I actually remember talking with Bill Frist at the time that the Republicans were considering this same tactic. I got the impression that I would not want to play poker with Dr. Frist, because I think he was bluffing…but we’ll never know. I do think this was the right move then.

I have no cofidence in the Democrats and little in the Republicans. Let’s see how this plays out.

Thanks for posting here.

]]> By: Joe Reimers http://jaykersting.com/blog/2010/03/04/testing-the-gag-reflex-of-the-american-people/comment-page-1/#comment-221 Joe Reimers Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:59:47 +0000 http://jaykersting.com/blog/?p=333#comment-221 Good thoughts, Jay, if strongly-worded. I do think this runs deeper than you write, though. Obama has invested so much political capital in this venture already that he needs something - anything, really - so he can hang his "Mission Accomplished" banner and salvage some shred of credibility. And his willingness to use procedural means to block the Republicans from having a say is a strong indicator that he's willing to exercise the Nuclear Option for the looming fight over the impending SCOTUS vacancies (Stephens only hired one clerk, and Ginsburg is making lots of noise about retiring this year.) Congressional Democrats are on their heels right now, and the loss of that precious 60th vote means Sotomayor will likely be the only SCOTUS appointment to go through without a ton of hoopla. During the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings, the GOP were talked down from exercising the nuclear option. As things stand right now, I have no confidence the Democrats will exercise the same prudence. Good thoughts, Jay, if strongly-worded. I do think this runs deeper than you write, though. Obama has invested so much political capital in this venture already that he needs something – anything, really – so he can hang his “Mission Accomplished” banner and salvage some shred of credibility. And his willingness to use procedural means to block the Republicans from having a say is a strong indicator that he’s willing to exercise the Nuclear Option for the looming fight over the impending SCOTUS vacancies (Stephens only hired one clerk, and Ginsburg is making lots of noise about retiring this year.)

Congressional Democrats are on their heels right now, and the loss of that precious 60th vote means Sotomayor will likely be the only SCOTUS appointment to go through without a ton of hoopla. During the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings, the GOP were talked down from exercising the nuclear option. As things stand right now, I have no confidence the Democrats will exercise the same prudence.

]]>