Clint Murphy has left The Cult, ladies and gentlemen. And it took a bout with testicular cancer to spur him into reflection. Of course, this comes after Newt Gingrich, who last week said that Republicans had "zero" ideas for a replacement to the Affordable Care Act.
“I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and you say, ‘What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?’ They will have zero answer,” Gingrich told the Boston crowd, said a report from CNN. Gingrich said the party has a “very deep problem” with a culture that promotes negativity. “We are caught up right now in a culture, and you see it every single day, where as long as we are negative and as long as we are vicious and as long as we can tear down our opponent, we don’t have to learn anything. And so we don’t,” Gingrich said, according to video of the event from MSNBC.
Gee, Newt, I've been saying that for...oh...I don't know how many years now...
Mr. Murphy had much more to say. His Facebook post on Obamacare last week, addressed to his Republican friends, was something of a surprise:
“When you say you’re against it, you’re saying that you don’t want people like me to have health insurance.” Murphy would like to call himself a Republican, but has been too dismayed by his party’s cavalier attitude toward the health care debate. “We have people treating government like a Broadway play, like it’s some sort of entertainment,” he said. So call Murphy an independent.
Obamacare isn’t perfect, the former political spear-carrier said. “But to even improve it, to make something work, you’ve got to participate in the process. [Republicans] are not even participating in the process.”
They do a fine job of entertaining all too willing masses and a downright crappy job of participating in the process. Kind of like...oh, I don't know...a lazy adolescent who has problems with this parents?
11 comments:
Firstly, not every problem you see (or as likely imagine) is one for the federal govt to solve.
Secondly, decoupling health insurance from employment would make more sense then requiring every single person to buy coverage. Allowing people to buy coverage that makes sense for them - not one size fits all.
There are two "essential" elements of coverage that I and my wife (both in our 50s) must have under PPACA: pregnancy and pediatric. Under the law we cannot purchase insurance that does not include that coverage. Why don't you explain how that makes sense - that we must have those services available to us?
I agree that the federal government is not the go-to for solving every problem. In fact, I'd be very happy if other sectors of our society would step up and solve them so the government wouldn't have to do so. This would certainly save a lot of energy on those who are extra sensitive about the government. Any ideas as to what entity could pick up the slack?
I have no problem with decoupling it from employment and letting everyone just buy their own. I also don't have a problem with making it nation wide with no state restrictions. That's still not going to lower the price of health care. Everyone has to be insured otherwise there are free riders.
As to your note about pregnancy and pediatric, I'm not familiar with that requirement so you are going to have to fill me in. Please try to do so without resorting to a link to Drudge or Brietbart.
Everyone has to be insured otherwise there are free riders.
No.....
Perhaps you'd like to be the first one on the Right to admit that we should start letting people die, GD.
Appeal to emotion Mark.
Is there a limit to the money you'd be willing to spend to save a person's life?
Will you spend anything and everything? If not, then you are saying you also want to let people die.
Any ideas as to what entity could pick up the slack?
Not every problem you perceive is actually a real problem.
Even if it is a problem, it does not mean it can be solved by some one or thing. Not society, nor "the market" nor govt is omnipotent - that is a realm where you need to appeal to God. Funny how He doesn't solve these problems to your satisfaction either.
That's still not going to lower the price of health care.
Free riders are not the sole or primary cause of rising health care costs. Universalizing insurance - though it does expand the risk pool - does nothing to reduce actual cost of health care services. Ultimately there is scarcity of resources that must be allocated via some mechanism - it simply isn't possible to give everyone everything they might want.
I'm not familiar with that requirement
I trust an Administration site is reliable enough for you.
But at least you admitted your ignorance. Now do something to rectify it. Then explain why I should not be allowed to buy health insurance that excludes coverage for services I am not going to use.
GD, I was speaking of the law that says we have to treat everyone. Now, if we threw that out, we'd save money. Do you think we should do that?
Then explain why I should not be allowed to buy health insurance that excludes coverage for services I am not going to use.
Could you do that before the ACA? I don't know...that's why I am asking.
Could you do that before the ACA? I don't know...that's why I am asking.
Yes. You could buy insurance that excluded things; ACA says "no" you must have all of those things, whether you want/need it or not.
So was I Mark, so was I.
Ah, I see. Now the question becomes how much higher of a rate are you paying? Or are you paying less? Also, does the maternity care go away if your wife applies seperately? Are your kids on the plan as well?
My initial thought on this is that the reason is larger pools of risk, including care you don't need, figure in to the long term plans of lowering costs.
My initial thought on this is that the reason is larger pools of risk, including care you don't need, figure in to the long term plans of lowering costs.
You're getting closer. It isn't about pooling risk (there is no risk that we will need maternity care), but subsidizing some consumers of health care at the expense of others. And that is exactly why the young invincibles are so important to the scheme - they are prime cows to be milked.
Liberals used to be opposed to the govt treating one group of citizens more favorably than another group.
Post a Comment