Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Call Obama's bluff

I read an interesting commentary this morning over at CNN by Gloria Borger. In it, she says the GOP should "call Obama's bluff" on bipartisanship. He says he wants a BiPartisan bill, and both sides say they agree on around 80% of the bill, so why not draft up their own bill on the 80% they agree on? The GOP would look like heroes, and they would be calling Obama's bluff, essentially forcing him to cave.

The GOP's bill should get rid of the mandatory coverage thing. That's stupid, just as comparing it to auto insurance. You are only required to carry auto insurance coverage for your car if you own and drive it, and you only nare required to carry liability insurance. There really isn't a valid comparison to be found here.

The GOP bill should keep other parts of the Senate's bill, such as barring insurance companies from dropping a policyholder in the event of illness as long as that person had paid the premium in full. That should be illegal.

It also should bar insurance companies from refusing to pay for procedures if the policyholder has paid. I know this one from experience: my sister's doctor recommended an MRI because of my sister's dizzyness and chronic earraches. The insurance company denied the claim, saying an MRI was "experimental." My parents paid for it anyway, massively increasing their debt. Good thing they paid for it. The MRI found a life-threatening condition just in time to get her treatment. If they had not, she would have died months ago. And that is unacceptable.

In the current bill there are other things the GOP should keep, such as making it illegal for insurers to have annual caps or lifetime limits. If you pay your premium, the insurance companies need to provide the service you paid for. Period.

There are other things in the new bill unveiled today that the GOP should keep, while they throw out other things that cannot be agreed upon. Call the President's bluff. Stop acting partisan, and do what is best for us.

12 comments:

TAO said...

Obviously, after the last 29 years since the Reagan Revolution has it become that bi-partisanship means giving the Republicans what they want? Or doing it there way?

If they have an 80% agreement factor then let the Republicans and Democrats meet at 90% of what the president laid out.

That way the Republicans swallow 10% that they do not want and the Democrats have to lose 10% of what they want...

So, what is it the the Republicans don't want that you believe they should accept?

James' Muse said...

The whole immigration part. They want to incumber the whole process by requiring multiple steps to prove citizenship, even more than medicare already has. There isn't anything in the bill giving benefits to illegal immigrants, but because these extra checks aren't there the GOP is accusing ObamaCare of giving it to them, which is a far cry from the truth.

Susannah said...

"The GOP's bill should get rid of the mandatory coverage thing. That's stupid, just as comparing it to auto insurance."

"In the current bill there are other things the GOP should keep, such as making it illegal for insurers to have annual caps or lifetime limits. If you pay your premium, the insurance companies need to provide the service you paid for. Period."

Bravo, JAMES!! BRAVO!

re: immigration -- "but because these extra checks aren't there the GOP is accusing ObamaCare of giving it to them, which is a far cry from the truth."
Beg to differ. Consider public education: my children's public school is FORCED to carry the burden (& believe me, it's a bruden) of educating illegal aliens' children, due to a Sup. Ct. case yrs. ago...consider the implications of the precedent set by that case --- all 'residents' should have the benefits afforded to the citizens of this country, etc.

Now, consider that rubric being superimposed on the health care issue by a liberal activist Supreme Court (which it will be, if BHO gets another nomination to it)...Legislation is re-written by the court & voila: health care for all illegals...

Either way, Obama gets his way. This is a HUGE problem. HUGE.

Otherwise, very NICE post imo, James! ;)

James' Muse said...

I'd have to say, Susannah, that if I had to pick anything (as Tao asks me to) I'd still pick the illegal immigration part. What about you? If you had to pick something of the democrats part, which part would you pick?

As for schools, I'm okay with the illegal immigrants' children being included. They are children. They didn't ask or have a choice to be brought here. Many of them are "illegal" but have been here since they were babies. They know nothing of their "home country." Same with healthcare. Let the children come. Get them healed. Fine. But the adults? I don't wanna pay for 'em.

TAO said...

"Now, consider that rubric being superimposed on the health care issue by a liberal activist Supreme Court (which it will be, if BHO gets another nomination to it)...Legislation is re-written by the court & voila: health care for all illegals..."

IF the current Supreme is activist anything it is conservative activist and it will stay that way as long as Obama replaces new liberals for old liberals...you will still have your conservative activist court Susannah until Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and or Roberts...

So, sleep well Susannah whatever activism you see from the supreme court is from those who profess to believe as you do...IF THEY ARE LIBERAL TOO YOU THEN YOU ARE JUST ABOUT AS FAR RIGHT AS YOU CAN GET...

TAO said...

Immigration, well start an amnesty program and then put the issue to rest once an for all...

Some of these illegals own homes and businesses...

So build a BIG PERMENANT fence and then grant amensty to those who have done something with themselves and end it once and for all.

THEN make everyone document themselves for every service provided via taxpayer dollars....

Jennifer said...

Good ideas all, James. I am in the process of trying to fight a claim that denied me for "pre-existing" conditions. I don't currently have insurance but when I did, they didn't pay the claims anyway so what's the point of having it?

I don't like the condition that everyone has to have it. If they don't the burden should be on them.

Something I don't understand.....I currently don't have insurance and am now responsible for any medical bills that come my way. How are all these people getting out of paying their bills?

Susannah said...

James~ IMO, the Reps. should absolutely NOT accept that illegal aliens should be included. That would be insanity. Why not invite the whole world to walk into our hospitals...sure! Come on! We'll pay for it!

Also, citizens should absolutely NOT be forced to buy insurance. It boils down to confiscation of citizens' $$ for the purpose of redistribution. Again, insanity.

TAO~ "So, sleep well Susannah whatever activism you see from the supreme court is from those who profess to believe as you do..." yeah, yeah, yeah...I have 3 phrases charged w/ judicial activism: 9th Crt. Ct. of Appeals, Mass. Suprm. Ct., Roe v. Wade.

Conserv. Justices - activists? Please.

Jenn~ I've had my rounds w/ insur. Co.s too. Changes must be made, but NOT the way BHO is forcing them.

James' Muse said...

Susannah, in that case, what part of it would you pick to keep that the Republicans don't want?

James' Muse said...

Also, I don't think it should be mandatory. BUT, in order to get any services, one should need to have insurance. Otherwise, they'll go to the ER, and we'll end up paying for it anyway.

James' Muse said...

Susannah: There is a such thing as "conservative activist judge." Scalia is one. Example? His "interpretation" of the 11th amendment is appalling:

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.

Source: Judge Scalia's Activism

Anonymous said...

Obama and Congress should put themselves behind Obama's statements. The Federal Employees Health Care program is a GOLD program, but by eliminating waste, and more efficiency, and decreasing to a basic plan, they can save the taxpayers 10 billion. That way they will not need to cut Medicare, since the Seniors only have a basic plan as it is. Congress and obama need to apply their numbers to the Federal Health Care program and then everyone wins, right? We can use those yearly savings to insure the uninsured.