The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Lipstick on a Hillary on November 13, 2013, 06:07:23 pm
-
http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/13/its-a-trap/
Republicans are walking into a trap and they don’t even realize it.
They are about to consider, in the House of Representatives, legislation by Congressman Upton that would allow people to keep their insurance plans.
There’s a problem though. It is widely acknowledged that Congressman Upton’s legislation is more messaging than substance. His legislation does not have anything in it that can force insurance companies, in the topsy-turvy world of Obamacare, to keep insurance plans going.
But there is a plan than does. Senator Mary Landrieu has written legislation in the United States Senate that the Democrats love. It mandates insurance companies have to keep people on their present insurance. The GOP is supposedly against mandates and against government forcing private businesses and individuals into contracts they don’t want.
Here’s what is going to happen.
The House, with the help of a good number of Democrats, will pass the Upton plan and send it to the Senate. Harry Reid will substitute the Landrieu plan and send it back to the House. The House will be forced to either vote for the Landrieu plan or be characterized as siding with insurance companies against people.
In one fell swoop, the Democrats will have the GOP on record saving Mary Landrieu’s re-election in Louisiana by casting her as the one who saved Americans’ health care plans, and also getting on record as really being in favor of fixing Obamacare with the use of mandates.
The GOP is walking right into the trap.
-
Head's up: Rush is going to be discussing this in the 3rd hour.
-
Erickson's wrong (he's wrong a lot, lately).
First, Landrieu won't be saved by her bill. She voted for Obamacare in the first place.
Second, the Dems are walking into a trap by favoring the return of "current"plans. These plans don't include current mandated coverage, which undermines Obamacare directives. The only people on the exchanges will be the very sick, which will make premiums skyrocket. Even fewer young people will sign up, and Obamacare enters a fatal death spiral.
Keeping the old plans kills Obamacare.
-
I don't know if this is a trap or not. I do know that I, like a lot of other people, am very weary of the constant political gamesmanship. There isn't a darn thing that could happen that the two parties wouldn't politicize and then make a mess out of the situation. No solutions, ever.
The Democrats, the media, (redundant, I know), many GOPe types, and a big chunk of the public want single payer. It's coming, I'd bet money on it. Why not quit dancing and get to it? If we're going to face that firing squad, why not get it over with, instead of making us run an obstacle course before being tied to the post.
-
On Special Report this week the panel with Krauthammer and company said the Landrieu plan is actually not legal since we have "states rights" to consider.
-
On Special Report this week the panel with Krauthammer and company said the Landrieu plan is actually not legal since we have "states rights" to consider.
Legal schmegal, the 546, (100 Senate, 435 House, 2 Executive, 9 Judiciary), don't worry about laws anymore. That's so pre Obama.
-
What we are seeing is a rarity of rarities - a President and a Party painted into a corner with no one but themselves to blame it on. They will be at their most dangerous.
-
Rush talked about this...most of the plans that were cancelled no longer exist....who is gonna make the insurance companies re-write these old policies?....Obama?
-
Rush talked about this...most of the plans that were cancelled no longer exist....who is gonna make the insurance companies re-write these old policies?....Obama?
That's just it... (and BTW the crux of the case making it's way to SCOTUS right now re the photographer in NM who refused to photograph the gay wedding) - can the government force you to sell something you don't want to sell.
-
Erickson's wrong (he's wrong a lot, lately).
First, Landrieu won't be saved by her bill. She voted for Obamacare in the first place.
Second, the Dems are walking into a trap by favoring the return of "current"plans. These plans don't include current mandated coverage, which undermines Obamacare directives. The only people on the exchanges will be the very sick, which will make premiums skyrocket. Even fewer young people will sign up, and Obamacare enters a fatal death spiral.
Keeping the old plans kills Obamacare.
Carney says no to keeping the old plans.
http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016&sitesection=dailycaller&VID=25350226
-
I can't recall a time in recent memory where Erick Erickson was right about anything.
-
Rush talked about this...most of the plans that were cancelled no longer exist....who is gonna make the insurance companies re-write these old policies?....Obama?
Oh the problem is one heck of a lot more involved than that! Let's say that you have had a health insurance policy with XYZ company for 25 years until Obamacare caused it to be cancelled. In the time you had the policy you developed a couple of conditions that you didn't have when you first signed up. Now that you don't have any insurance those conditions become what we call preexisting conditions. Are we going to mandate that private insurance carriers have to sell new policies to people with preexisting conditions for the same price as they were previously paying!
Obamacare is unfixable! It is a giant tar baby and anyone who has or does touch it is stuck!
-
These "You Can Keep Your Old Plan" laws are all window dressing. Like most legislation, they lack real substance but give politicians a "sound bite" tosay they voted for something to fix a problem.
Unfortunately, for the dirty dozen Dem senators who voted for OPapaCare, nothing is going to save them from the wrath of the voters. OPapaCare was one of the few substantive laws passed in the past 5 years, and it is an utter disaster.
No window dressing, sound bite legislation is going to allow any senator to run from his or her record as the last, crucial deciding vote to pass OPapaCare.
-
These "You Can Keep Your Old Plan" laws are all window dressing. Like most legislation, they lack real substance but give politicians a "sound bite" tosay they voted for something to fix a problem.
Unfortunately, for the dirty dozen Dem senators who voted for OPapaCare, nothing is going to save them from the wrath of the voters. OPapaCare was one of the few substantive laws passed in the past 5 years, and it is an utter disaster.
No window dressing, sound bite legislation is going to allow any senator to run from his or her record as the last, crucial deciding vote to pass OPapaCare.
Worth repeating! So I did!
:beer:
-
These "You Can Keep Your Old Plan" laws are all window dressing. Like most legislation, they lack real substance but give politicians a "sound bite" tosay they voted for something to fix a problem.
Unfortunately, for the dirty dozen Dem senators who voted for OPapaCare, nothing is going to save them from the wrath of the voters. OPapaCare was one of the few substantive laws passed in the past 5 years, and it is an utter disaster.
No window dressing, sound bite legislation is going to allow any senator to run from his or her record as the last, crucial deciding vote to pass OPapaCare.
Which is why the GOP should walk away like Mel Gibson in the "Payback" (?) promo, turn around and toss the Zippo over the shoulder.
-
Which is why the GOP should walk away like Mel Gibson in the "Payback" (?) promo, turn around and toss the Zippo over the shoulder.
Exactly!~
There is a woman on with Cavuto right now talking about her plan being cancelled and forced to purchase a substandard policy 2 x the former policy and is forced to pay for kids under 12 to have dental, glasses, etc., when she asked to take it off since she has no kids under 12 was told "mam we cannot do that because it is mandated for you to pay for it" She said she told them then give me the number of the people on your plans with kids 12 and under so I can call them to help pay for my kids college education since now that I'm paying for their kids healthcare I can't afford the college tuition on top of it...
-
Rush talked about this...most of the plans that were cancelled no longer exist....who is gonna make the insurance companies re-write these old policies?....Obama?
Uh....this is the USA...not the USSR. At least not yet.
Free market capitalism will find dozens of 'new' companies offering policies identical to the ones that were canceled.
-
What about for pre-existing illnesses? The new law mandates they cover those--that's going to put a big strain on them.
-
Uh....this is the USA...not the USSR. At least not yet.
Free market capitalism will find dozens of 'new' companies offering policies identical to the ones that were canceled.
It isn't that easy. Each state insurance commissioner has to approve any new carriers in each state and the policies they can write have to fit the state regulations - each state has their own unique regulations which is why - unlike auto insurance - they cannot write health insurance policies across state lines. A lot of carrier pulled out of states because they actually made "deals" with Obama... California is a good example of this with companies like United Healthcare (which by the way is affiliated with AARP which I refuse to send one dime to)....
-
What about for pre-existing illnesses? The new law mandates they cover those--that's going to put a big strain on them.
After all the talk about pre-existing I heard something on Greta the other night that there is actually loopholes written into the fine print about pre-existing and some people trying to sign up for O-Care are starting to find out it wasn't what they played it up to be.
-
After all the talk about pre-existing I heard something on Greta the other night that there is actually loopholes written into the fine print about pre-existing and some people trying to sign up for O-Care are starting to find out it wasn't what they played it up to be.
As I understand it, while the insurers are not allowed to DENY coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they can TAILOR coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This means they can limit your access to certain high cost health care providers based on your pre-existing conditions, increase the minimum deductible, and so forth.
In other words, the notion that everyone would be covered equally was largely a scam designed to get support for the law, while the insurance carriers who actually wrote the thing figured out ways to build in loopholes.
It's just another one of those great things we found out was in the law after they passed it.
To this day, congresspersons are claiming that the pre-existing conditions clause protects people from having to give personal medical information when they enroll. That simply is not true.
-
Carney says no to keeping the old plans.
And? Does anyone believe anything Carney says anymore?
-
As I understand it, while the insurers are not allowed to DENY coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they can TAILOR coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This means they can limit your access to certain high cost health care providers based on your pre-existing conditions, increase the minimum deductible, and so forth.
In other words, the notion that everyone would be covered equally was largely a scam designed to get support for the law, while the insurance carriers who actually wrote the thing figured out ways to build in loopholes.
It's just another one of those great things we found out was in the law after they passed it.
To this day, congresspersons are claiming that the pre-existing conditions clause protects people from having to give personal medical information when they enroll. That simply is not true.
Thanks for explaining it, massadjv. Yes, this is exactly how they explained it to Greta,
-
Which is why the GOP should walk away like Mel Gibson in the "Payback" (?) promo, turn around and toss the Zippo over the shoulder.
Your darn right! The republicans voted against the bill, so why in the heck are they trying to mess with it? Leave it alone, and let the democrats drown in their own swamp!
-
Your darn right! The republicans voted against the bill, so why in the heck are they trying to mess with it? Leave it alone, and let the democrats drown in their own swamp!
Exactly. I am sick of the GOP trying to out sugar uncle sugar.
-
Your darn right! The republicans voted against the bill, so why in the heck are they trying to mess with it? Leave it alone, and let the democrats drown in their own swamp!
For now, absolutely. Let Barack, Nancy and Harry "find out what's in it".
The bad part? At some point, the Republicans will need to engage. I have little confidence they will be able to muster a sensible response.
-
Ever see that cartoon with the fellow stepping on rakes?
Well that reminds me of our republicans.
-
Ever see that cartoon with the fellow stepping on rakes?
Well that reminds me of our republicans.
Good one, rusty! I wonder how many rakes will it take before they realize their missteps?
-
I hope you all realize this is all about Party politics and little else. Neither party answers to "the people" as they are purported to. They answer to their own internal leadership and the interests of "the Party", and 100 years of this nonsense is exactly the problem and the cause of why we are where we find our selves today.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
It’s Not a Trap
By Jeffrey H. Anderson
November 13, 2013 6:09 PM
Writing at RedState, Erick Erickson argues that, in championing the Upton bill—which would make millions of Americans’ health-insurance plans legal again for the next year — “Republicans are walking into a trap.” He writes that the bill, proposed by Representative Fred Upton (R., Mich.), “does not have anything in it that can force insurance companies . . . to keep insurance plans going.” Meanwhile, Senator Mary Landrieu’s bill, which, Erickson writes, “the Democrats love . . . mandates [that] insurance companies have to keep people on their present insurance.” He then predicts the following result:
The House, with the help of a good number of Democrats, will pass the Upton plan and send it to the Senate. Harry Reid will substitute the Landrieu plan and send it back to the House. The House will be forced to either vote for the Landrieu plan or be characterized as siding with insurance companies against people.
In one fell swoop, the Democrats will have the GOP on record saving Mary Landrieu’s re-election in Louisiana by casting her as the one who saved Americans’ health care plans, and also getting on record as really being in favor of fixing Obamacare with the use of mandates.
In truth, Obamacare is not fixable. The only solution is to fully repeal it. The Republicans should not be helping Democrats with their re-election plans, which is all the are doing with Upton/Landrieu.
Erickson is certainly right that Obamacare is not fixable, that Republican shouldn’t be trying to fix it in any event, and that the only real solution to Obamare is to repeal it (which can’t happen until President Obama has a complete ideological or psychological conversion, about 40 percent of Senate Democrats jump ship, or we hit January 20, 2017 — whichever comes first). He’s also right that the Upton bill won’t bring back to life all of the plans that Obamacare has already killed off with its coercive mandates. But he’s wrong that it’s a trap. Or, rather, he’s wrong that it’s a trap for Republicans.
The Upton bill helps put Obama’s oft-repeated “you can keep it” lie even more front-and-center. More important, it puts red-state and swing-state Senate Democrats in the position where they have to decide between defying Obama on his centerpiece legislation or else saying that they don’t think their constituents who like their plans should be able to keep their plans. In short, it puts them in an impossible place and helps solidify their status as sitting ducks a year from now.
Moreover — and important — the Upton bill would not help fix Obamacare. To the contrary, if it were to become law, it would badly undermine Obamacare’s exchanges, which would then be drained of millions of (previously insured and hence generally healthier) people whom Obama wanted to compel to buy exchange-based plans by banning their preferred plans. In short, Upton would hurt Obamacare, not fix it — which is why Obama opposes it.
As for Landrieu’s bill, if Republicans can’t successfully argue that Congress has no constitutional power to compel commerce (the basic point of the successful — in that vein — challenge to Obamacare under the Commerce Clause), if they can’t argue that Congress has no power to compel anyone to sell an insurance plan, or, by extension, to compel a doctor to see a patient, etc., then we’re in sad shape.
Obamacare made millions of people’s plans illegal. By passing the Upton bill, House Republicans would be striving to make them legal again for the next year. If insurers nevertheless choose to stop offering those plans, it will still be Obamacare that set that trend in motion. What’s more, the GOP would then be free to criticize those insurers and remind voters that, over the next decade, Obamacare would funnel a stunning $1 trillion from American taxpayers, via Washington, to insurers (according to the Congressional Budget Office). Meanwhile, Landrieu’s bill is more of the heavy-handed, coercive model of government that gave us Obamacare to begin with, and Republicans should say so.
Finally, Landrieu’s bill would undermine the Obamacare exchanges at least as much as Upton’s bill would. So the Democrats certainly don’t love it, and it’s highly unlikely they would ever pass it. But if they did, and if the House and Senate ended up reconciling Upton and Landrieu in conference, the clear loser would be Obamacare — whose exchange population would just have gotten older, sicker, and costlier.
And then around October 2014, all of those notices about losing your health plan because of Obamacare would start being mailed out again, just in time to help voters make an informed choice on November 4.
House Republican should pass the Upton bill and let Senate Democrats decide what to do with it. The range of bad options facing the party of Obamacare will further illustrate that, just because they like their government takeover of health care, they can’t necessarily keep their government takeover of health care.
— Jeffrey H. Anderson is executive director of the newly formed 2017 Project, which is working to advance a conservative reform agenda.
-
[[ I wonder how many rakes will it take before they realize their missteps? ]]
How many rakes ya got?
I guarantee you, it ain't enough!