Not really. It's rhetoric associated with conservatives. They want stuff decided at the state level when they think they'll win at the state level; they want stuff decided at the federal level when they think they'll have more advantage there in a particular case.

Republican reactions to states voluntarily instituting "the horrors of socialized medicine" should be to pass their ideas in reliably "red" states -- confident in the knowledge that their free-market ideas will beat any Socialist nonsense in "blue" states.

What, like literally with a stick? Of course Republican status-quo "ideas" outperform "the horrors" -- at advancing Republican goals. This country has a highly disproportionate number of the world's richest rich people, and one of the highest Gini coefficients outside southern Africa. What more could we ask?

But tolerating state-by-state creeping socialism makes no sense: how are you going to keep 'em down on the old plantation, after they've seen Vermont?

puzzle sat?? dükkan?
http://www.puzzledukkani.com

Looking at the list of requirements that's been put out, I doubt it, since that would probably fall foul of the requirement that coverage be as comprehensive (which I doubt "basic" coverage would satisfy), and would almost certainly fall foul of the requirement for it to reduce out of pocket expenditure (since the "elective" stuff could be subject to deductibles).

If, however, assurances that such a scheme would, in theory, satisfy, as long as it meets the metrics set out regarding quality of care, then Wyden-Brown is a bill that the Republicans should support.

Living in a hurricane prone area as we do, maybe we should adopt the SAR mentality. If people are stoopid enough to stand in the way of a Cat 5, they don't deserve to be rescued...

But you do raise a good point about people putting themselves in mortal danger. But I don't think we are talking about those kinds of people. Sure, if a race car driver or a skydiver doesn't carry health insurance and they are medically tended to on the public dole, I would agree with your assessment.

But what about the people who just don't think they will ever need medical help..

You know young people. They think they are going to live forever and never need to see a doctor...

They have the right to feel that way, to be sure.

And what about those who truly DO never see a doctor or need medical attention. Why should THEY have to pay for someone else's health care??

There is no easy solution... But violating the US Constitution is NOT the way to go...

This abomination should never have seen the light of day.. It's a gift to the GOP that just keeps on giving...

Time will tell if the GOP can come up with something better...

Michale......

Touche' :D

But Medicare and Medicaid are government programs like SS... I don't like that my paychecks are garnished, but have little choice over that..

But why should people have to pay even more, ON TOP of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security??

Why not just invoke a system where people give all their money to the State and then the State will take care of all their needs....

That's what it all boils down to.

The mandate is simply un-Constitutional.

I think we can agree on that...

Michale.....

Um, here in America, paychecks are docked every single week for Medicare and Medicaid. How, exactly, is that different?

-CW

So we are back to the idea that people MUST pay money based on the POSSIBILITY that they MIGHT get sick and they MIGHT need medical treatment..

That's not America....

Michale.....

i thought your first argument was better. someone who doesn't have health insurance, goes to the hospital and cannot afford to pay, IS a liability on the hospital, the state, the country and all the other taxpayers who were more responsible. the only other option we have is to let the person die.

why, did you have anything new to add?

In a way...

Many people still buy into the fallacy that, because a government entity can force someone to purchase Auto Insurance, they can also force someone to purchase Health Insurance....

The difference is that the forced purchase is for LIABILITY... That's a whole different kettle o' fish than what CrapCare forces...

Michale.....

i agree with you regarding the best course of action, "basic" universal healthcare by a flat tax, and all "elective" stuff by private insurers. if states would step up and try, i bet that would meet the requirements.

michale,

we've already hashed out our differences over the distinction between mandatory auto insurance and health insurance. you can take the bus instead of driving, but unless suicide becomes legal there's no choice about owning your body. why, did you have anything new to add?

That's simply illogical, and has never been claimed by free-market proponents.

That's a good point.. Any comparisons must be of a "what's available" variety, as opposed to what people actually purchase..

The Federal (or even the State) government cannot force people to buy a product that only serves themselves..

Go ahead..

Someone bring up the mandatory auto insurance requirement.. I double dog dare ya!! :D

Michale.....

I'll start with the most obvious argument why that's true. In order to get a waiver from the individual mandate, states must show that, in a free market, as many people would buy health insurance as would under a law which forces them to. An administration that felt the need to implement a mandate is hardly likely to accept that a free market could do the same, otherwise why have a mandate at all?

In my opinion a free market proposal could create a situation where as many people have access to care as would do under ObamaCare. Yet it cannot, without the mandate, create a situation where, people being free to spend their money as they like, as many will buy health insurance as they would if forced to.

That's simply illogical, and has never been claimed by free-market proponents.

Beyond logic, there are constitutional issues at stake that would prevent this from working too. Republicans have long argued for reform of the tax exempt status of employer-based insurance. Yet this cannot be achieved on a state-by-state basis, because this would fall afoul of Article I of the constitution. Without changes to the tax code, Republican proposals would simply not work.

One of the major criticisms of ObamaCare is that it goes beyond merely ensuring all Americans are covered, it has generous benefits that go way beyond basic coverage, and it will fall under HHS's discretion as to whether individual states' proposed coverage is "as comprehensive" as that offered by ObamaCare.

As you know, I've long argued on this site that it's an awful state of affairs where the richest country in the world cannot provide basic coverage for all its people, and I've advocated for universal basic coverage. Yet such an approach, where basic coverage was universal, but where elective healthcare procedures (such as orthodontics) required the use of HSAs or non-subsidised insurance would fail to meet the criteria of "as comprehensive", because it wouldn't be open to all.

Then there's the provisions on out of pocket spending, which would put paid to any high deductible HSA-based proposals, as they are predicated upon the idea that if people had to pay more out of pocket for trivial stuff, they wouldn't burden the system where there's no need and that would bring costs down.

HHS retains the final say-so on any waiver applications. There's no way a member of Obama's administration will allow Republican states to prove just how badly he botched healthcare reform by letting them implement better proposals.

Good for him...

I agree completely. As you have explained it, the GOP would be fools not to get behind this bill..

Michale.....

wow. brilliant move, and perhaps the timing is a good thing. if people are focused on other issues, congressio­nal republican­s might have some cover to let the bill pass quietly.

What a great idea ... Thanks for posting, Chris!
-David