IA-02: Constitution is focus of Archer's second tv ad

sorry, (0.00 / 0)

do not see Loebsack campaigning for hcr w/ a bullet-pointed list prepared by Dem staffers.

Public opinion has been very consistent and clear: while certain benefits enjoy majority support, the majority still wants to see parts or all of hcr overturned.

On this blog, there were tens of diaries warning against the evil health insurance industry. Now you demand that everyone get in line to purchase insurance from the same. This is why hcr is unpopular: the bait-and-switch, and the "we know what's good for you, anyway" attitude. Saying "it's deeply flawed, but you hafta" is not a winning argument.

Progressives yelled bloody murder during the campaign that purchasing insurance was not the same as purchasing health care. Now you want to claim that it is equivalent, and thus, since everyone will have to use "it" at some time, you win.  

---

by: albert @ Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 12:48:06 PM UTC

maybe not (0.00 / 0)

but Loebsack definitely will run as the protector of Medicare, and Archer wasn't specific about which kind of "government-run health care" isn't in the constitution. If I were Loebsack, I would try to pin the "wants to end Medicare" label on Archer. There's no way to describe Medicare as anything but a government-run health care program.

The Supreme Court is going to throw out the whole health care reform bill anyway (even though the constitutional arguments against the mandate and the Medicaid expansion are a joke). I've said many times that I thought the law should have included a public health insurance option or Medicare buy-in option rather than forcing people to buy private health insurance or pay a penalty.  

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Apr 24, 2012 at 22:55:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I expect (0.00 / 0)

The Supreme Court is going to throw out the whole health care reform bill anyway

the Medicaid provision to stand, since state participation is voluntary.

As far as "the mandate" is concerned, this is a federalism issue, not an "individual rights" issue -- that is, whether Congress is infringing on the states, which is why the MA mandate is in no danger.

My objection to the mandate has little or nothing to do with what is before the USSC, and I'm guessing that most out there aren't caught up in these parlor games. I recognize the mandate as an actuarial necessity for the community rating and guaranteed issue features, which are "politically popular." Where I balk (and this is after examining the actual legislation) is that the legislation does not deliver the benefits as described by politicians. For example, by design, there are numerous loopholes to get around community ratings, including premium kickbacks for the healthier within a demographic (age, gender etc) class.

There is a bigger issue that I alluded to below on whether demographics and trends support this kind of risk management model, but that's for another day.

I would support a mandate for catastrophic coverage but not the "package of benefits" as currently proposed. I find it regrettable that politicians and their health insurance industry donor allies have used the misfortunes of a minority to sell insurance. In fact, should hcr be repealed based on the USSC's verdict, high-risk pools and catastrophic coverage should be more than adequate while revisiting the nature and scope of hcr.

I 100% object playing the electorate for fools by campaigning on "personal stories" -- a constant for the past three years. Kudos to the DMR for checking on the latest Potemkin "personal story."  

---

by: albert @ Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 10:24:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the benefits (0.00 / 0)

favor those who already have good health insurance. What doesn't get discussed is all of the people who don't want to purchase sub-par insurance that will do little or nothing for them to subsidize the more affluent keeping their kids on insurance until age 26.

Numerous Dem pols are coming out now and saying that this package was not a good idea, and not just the usual suspects from conservative-leaning districts.

Even Elizabeth Warren is now calling for partial repeal -- specifically the medical devices tax, because all of those companies are in MA. That's how craven this all is. The bills are getting sent to those who can least afford it.  

---

by: albert @ Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 13:42:50 PM UTC

true (0.00 / 0)

though that depends on your definition of "good insurance." I know people whose kids would be excluded from all or most coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and I know people who have run up more than $1 million in expenses from cancer or other expensive diseases. They will be screwed when the Supremes throw out the law, even though their employer-provided health insurance is "good" compared to what roughly 50 million Americans have.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Tue Apr 24, 2012 at 22:58:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

almost four years ago (0.00 / 0)

at this blog, I predicted that the immigration "problem" would solve itself -- by people using their feet. That day is here. The WP and USA Today headlined yesterday that we've reached the point that more immigrants are leaving than arriving. People just aren't interested in bad deals.

Some things haven't changed over the years. Yesterday, Michelle Obama trotted out another "personal story" of someone who couldn't get health insurance "at any price" but is now grateful to hcr -- insurance is now available thru a pool. Of course, it was available before hcr, but nobody mentions this. It was undersubscribed then as it is now, but that doesn't rate much scrutiny, either. The DMR did raise the issue of lack of coverage for HIV+ Iowans and criticized the pool's administrative board, made up of health insurance industry professionals for lack of transparency and garden-variety corruption. The lack of regulatory teeth in hcr does not inspire confidence in a new enlightened attitude and neither does the track record at the state level.

I also mentioned recently that another "problem" would be taking care of itself as fewer women opt to have children, a very clear trend. Like the Mexicans voting with their feet, women are not looking to the political class for solutions but fashioning their own.

One problem -- it is immigrants that have been responsible for maintaining the population replacement rate in the US. For a brief moment, the rate slipped below replacement, which had Democratic think tanks in Washington squawking about promoting pro-life policies.

My question to you is where is your limit on supporting poorly constructed policies? What I gather is that while you claim the reform is "deeply flawed," the rest of us need to get on board, anyway, and you largely cite "personal stories."

There is no practical difference between the subsidies and the vouchers that the Dems/progressives rail against because they're a Republican-inspired term. "Vouchers won't cover the real costs." Right. Neither will the subsidies, and it's been a steady progression of rollbacks on revenue sources for hcr. Candidate Warren promoting a rollback on the medical device tax is just the latest.

But fundamentally, the scheme relies upon mandating the purchase of health insurance by younger and healthier members of society who hopefully won't use it. It also relies on the purchase of health insurance by persons who can't use it due to the associated costs beyond their reach.

Where will you stand when the US is not achieving population replacement? How can this scheme work when it was already deeply flawed while under the assumption of population replacement and "paid for?" Will you become an advocate for forced pregnancy to keep your hcr going by any means necessary? Will the unborn become potential "young invincibles?" It seems that if you insist on the implementation of deeply flawed programs, there's no limit to the rationalizations.

It is not a remote possibility. On constitutionality, what happened to "reasonable minds can differ?" I am not taking a strong position either way at this time, but Congress has never used its commerce power to mandate that an individual enter an economic transaction with a private company (and to boot, in a loosely regulated industry). Perhaps when the "problem" of insufficient childbearing to feed this industry rears its head, it might be more obvious that there are legitimate issues concerning individual autonomy at stake. Did the US mandate that citizens buy bonds during WW2?

---

by: albert @ Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 16:57:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]