Reaction to Pawlenty executive order swift

At least Palin had the grace to resign when she decided to focus on ideology instead of governance.

I can hardly wait until we get a governor that works for the good of the citizens.

Good. The people didn’t want the democrat’s version of health reform and it should be resisted on all fronts.

An insurance exchange run by the state that provides more choice and portability is bad policy? Requiring individuals to have insurance so the rest of us don’t have to pay for their hospital care is bad policy? Decreasing the deficit is bad policy? Yeah Kip, the current policies are all working so well for us right now.

Matt, “the people” fell for the GOP twisted version of the Democrat’s health care reform. What “the people” didn’t get is that much of the Democrat’s “version” are things they previously supported. Why would they oppose things they previously supported? Gee, maybe it has something to do with wanting to obstruct anything and everything that the Democrat’s proposed just like they said they would. All politics, nothing whatever to do with governing. That’s what the GOP does and that is what Pawlenty is doing now.

Glynis – exchanges add more buraucracy and cost. People will theoretically have more choice (at least those who are allowed to purchase insurance through the exchanges)of a flawed product – private health insurance. The trend of people purchasing low benefit plans that pay for 60-70% of covered medical costs will continue to leave people vulnerable to bankruptcy if they have serious health needs. Mandating people to purchase private insurance and using public dollars to subsidize the purchase of private insurance further empowers the industry that is a major part of the problem. And this legislation is not expected to reduce the deficit. A recent review by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services predicts that health care costs will rise faster under the new legislation than they would if nothing had been passed.

While their were some positive provisions in the bill, such as increased funding for community health centers, I have to agree with Kip that the central planks of PPACA are flawed, particularly when compared to the guaranteed universal affordable care that can be achieved at a cost-saving if we passed a national single payer health plan. I do support health reform and recognize the urgency of it. I advocate for evidence-based reform: improved Medicare for all.

Glynis,

You stated that “Requiring individuals to have insurance so the rest of us don’t have to pay for their hospital care is bad policy? ”

So, using your logic, requiring people to buy a house will decrease homelessness so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for public housing and shelters?

Sorry, fromo, but that is not a valid counter-argument. The mandate is targeted at those who can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it. There is an economic hardship exemption for those who cannot afford it even with assistance. I think you will have a hard time finding anyone who is homeless by choice.

Zera Lee,

So, using your logic, forcing those who ride highly taxpayer subsidized public transportation to buy a car (those that can afford to ) will reduce the cost to the rest of us who do not use it?

Also, There are many people who use an excess amount of public healthcare based on their personal choices – what should we do with the obese,the smokers, and druggies, and the drunks? Should we fine them?

Should we ban all processed foods, cigs and alcohol? Should we mandate that all people eat five servings a day of fruits vegetables and have the IRS fine them if they can afford to but do not?

No, it’s forcing those who drive cars to buy insurance. When uninsured motorists get in accidents, it drives up the insurance rates for those of us who do have insurance. Now, since everybody has a life, maybe you can follow the logic there.

And by the way, insurance companies will already punish people for bad choices, such as smokers. You’re really not all that bright, are you?

You’re just flailing around for an analogy, fromo. The concept behind public transportation could be developed into a relevant analogy, but not the way you present it. Nor would it produce the results you desire. Your arguments do not demonstrate a reasonable understanding of what you are trying to object to, or even the right-wing talking points you are trying to apply.

Your new talking points are as cynical and irrelevant as they are silly. Stop embarrassing yourself.

When Kip says it’s bad policy, he means it would have been better to move to a single-payer system instead of reforming health insurance. That doesn’t mean the reforms won’t help a lot. People who were unable to buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions will now be able to, people who couldn’t afford insurance will be able to, insurers will no longer be able to cut people off after they get sick, and that’s all good. We’ve established the principle that access to health care is a right, and the federal government has the role of guaranteeing that access. This is all good. It doesn’t mean a single-payer system wouldn’t be even better.

If it was just up to me, I would let anyone buy into Medicare, with subsidized premiums for anyone who couldn’t pay. There’s a single-payer program that’s already established and popular. It was a mistake to try to create a new “public option” when one existed already.

Eric,
Is Medicare in the red or black? Does it pay for itself or add to the debt? I honestly do not know the answer, do you?

[...] becomes the Iowa Frontrunner, but Keep an Eye on the Back of the Pack The Minnesota Independent: Reaction to Pawlenty executive order swift Office of the Minnesota Governor: EXECUTIVE ORDER 10-12 DIRECTING STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES [...]

“The trend of people purchasing low benefit plans that pay for 60-70% of covered medical costs will continue”. No Margaret it won’t. Low benefit plans will no longer be available because there are basic benefits that are now required that is more than just catastrophic coverage. Doing away with private insurance, as you seem to be advocating, is a pipe dream. So it’s better that the uninsured have nothing? I don’t think so.