ABC Warns Republicans Against Challenging ObamaCare

I would rather see the Supreme court repeal it.

But Yes, have a quick and simple yes/no symbolic vote in the House and lets move on. With Obama around it is not going to be over-ruled.

Repealing this over mandated federal takeover is not saying no to increasing insurance coverage in the US. There are many other ways to do it without destroying consumer choices and bankrupting the federal govt. Why is it this way or nothing? Programs for the poor and high risk pools have always been available, it is rising costs, funding and personal responsibility that are the issues.

If health-care is not generally affordable individually, then it is not affordable collectively either.

Joe wrote: I would rather see the Supreme court repeal it.

But Yes, have a quick and simple yes/no symbolic vote in the House and lets move on. With Obama around it is not going to be over-ruled.

Repealing this over mandated federal takeover is not saying no to increasing insurance coverage in the US. There are many other ways to do it without destroying consumer choices and bankrupting the federal govt. Why is it this way or nothing? Programs for the poor and high risk pools have always been available, it is rising costs, funding and personal responsibility that are the issues.

If health-care is not generally affordable individually, then it is not affordable collectively either.

The canary in the coal mine of Obamacare is the Massachussets Romney-care, and it looks sick, although MA is a rich state, they can't keep up with the increased costs of this program. Even the Left must realize this is going to cost a lot more than the first estimates, and provide a lot less.

archer wrote: the new healthcare bill is hardly "socialized" health care.....far from it. But you do love that term, and use it everytime you want to scare people. I don't disagree with any of your suggestions....if you look back at the healthcare debate those are some of the very suggestions that democrats proposed and were shot down by Republicans. Perhaps if we put an R after the suggestion they will vote for it, as they surely would not when it had a D after it.

Tell me archer, why should an insurance company be required to issue a policy, health or life, to the woman who is trying to eat her way up to 1000 lbs, to someone who tries to do backflips with a snowmobile, who enjoys the thrill of BASE jumping, or an alcoholic, or a smoker, or a heroin addict? Why should the insurance company be required to pay 100% of the cost of you going to the doctor for your annual check up? What business is that of the general government to begin with? Since the law requires it be provided, why does it also then not require it be consumed? Put more bluntly, if they can require you to have the insurance that pays 100% of the cost of your annual checkup, how long before they require you to have that annual checkup in the interests of providing for the "general welfare" of the nation?

Must issue, community rates for premiums. All the current legislation is intended to do is bring about the failure of the system so that the progressives can get a majority of the people to ask the government to take the system over. That's all it is, all it was ever intended to be. The current law is nothing but the first step towards the single payer system the progressives want instituted. The intent of Obama is as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was.

Since preventive care has been shown to save both lives and money.....I would have thought you would be all in favor of those provisions PrintSmith.

I hope so... Single payer is where we should be...

Ohhh! PrintSmith. you've hit the nail on the head. How long will it take to move from a simple mandate to purchase healthcare insurance to a mandate to buy an eco-friendly, ecologically mindful car, which by the way, is manufactured by your NATIONAL GOVERNMENT?

This has all occurred previously, and curiously within the former Soviet Union. The USSR also produced automobiles and provided healthcare to every citizen/comrade of the nation. In turn, the citizens laughed at the automobiles manufactured by the union members of the governmentally owned and regulated automobile manufacturer, in favor of Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen and Volvo. The Government provided healthcare insurance tremendously aided in the USSR's total economic collapse. As the auto manufacturer repeatedly failed, auto workers were regularly guaranteed incomes and benefits which far outlasted the viability of the manufacturing entity. The governmentally provided heathcare eventually collapsed within total corruption and repeatedly failed to provide any meaningful patient care.

Please acknowledge, everyone of you, that the Socialzation of services and the Nationalization of America's industry, will never resolve our nation's problems. While we fear for the loss of our jobs and fear our loss of independance, it is only through these socialist measures, all guaranteed by the government, that we will in time, lose all of which we hold sacred and dear.

Not to overstate the point but, all of this has been attempted before and all like attempts throughout the history of mankind, have ended in failure. Social democracies such as Communisim, Marxism, Socialism, Communal living, Economic redistribution, Equality of life and ownership; virtually all forms of mutually shared ideological and financial living agreements have inevitably failed.

Man, by his very nature is an independant being. The only form of government which can inspire him to his greatest achievement and likewise curtail him from producing the greatest evil, is our Republican form of Representative Governance.

In favor or choosing them for myself perhaps archer, but I wouldn't dream of making that choice for you or anyone else and compelling your compliance simply because I think you'll be better off if forced to do what I think best.

The best way to lower the cost of health insurance, and of health care, is to have the insurance model conform to insurance in general. Individual policies, the cost of which is derived from the particulars of the individual involved. There is a reason that the cost of Lasik surgery has gone down in the last few years while the cost of an MRI continues to increase. With the Lasik, the entire cost must be borne by the patient, so they have an incentive to make certain they are spending their money wisely. With the MRI, their cost is set regardless of whether the provider of the MRI charges a reasonable fee or an extremely expensive one. Since they are only paying $50, or $100 for the MRI, they really don't care if the provider of the MRI charges $50, $500 or $5K.

The other problem is all of the coverage that is mandated to be included. I have no need of coverage for substance abuse addiction coverage. I have no need for maternity coverage. I would really prefer to limit the items covered under my policy to perhaps hospitalization and surgery. I am more than willing to pick up 100% of my annual physical myself, along with the entire costs of the blood workup I might wish to have done, and 100% of the one, perhaps 2, trips to my primary care physician that I might need outside of my annual physical. But thanks to government mandates, both at the local and the federal level, such a policy is not allowed to be sold to me by any company and I must therefore purchase at additional expense an insurance policy that is more expensive than I would otherwise choose and that ends up costing me more than a catastrophic care policy plus the annual expense that I would incur at the doctor's office. In addition to the increased cost of the policy, I have the cost of any copays that I am obligated to by the terms and conditions of the policy.

Why is there no policy for me to purchase that suits my individual needs and wants? Quite simply the answer is that the government has driven up the cost of my care and my insurance with their legislative mandates. When the government gets around to requiring Lasik surgery be covered on every policy sold, the cost of Lasik surgery will escalate just as the cost of every other procedure included by legislative mandate has escalated rather than diminished. An MRI would cost less than an X-ray if it wasn't covered by insurance and the X-ray was. Open market principles result in lower costs. Not sometimes, always. Government mandates result in higher costs. Not sometimes, always.

PrintSmith wrote: In favor or choosing them for myself perhaps archer, but I wouldn't dream of making that choice for you or anyone else and compelling your compliance simply because I think you'll be better off if forced to do what I think best.

With that statement you totally missed the point....no one says you have to get preventive care....only that it should be available to you. One thing that has driven up the hospital costs is emergency care and people who cannot pay.......it is far more cost effective to catch disease early with good preventive care than to treat it in it's later stages. One example......my previous health insurance would not pay for a preventive colonoscopy till last year.....I had put off the expensive procedure partly for that reason, had it been free I would have had it far sooner and most likely saved myself and my insurance company the cost of surgery and chemotherapy.....which to date has run over $100k. They chose to save $3,000 and it ended up costing them $100k. Where is the cost effectiveness in that?

If people have preventive care available to them, and basic health care, emergency rooms might once again be just for emergencies, saving us all some dollars.