Posted on 11/15/2013 11:18:24 AM PST by jimbo123
Goooood politics. I’m 90 percent sure it won’t pass, but last week I would have told you I was 100 percent sure. At the rate O and his boondoggle are melting down on the Hill, there’s no down side to trying to force Democrats to vote on all sorts of bills that would chip away at parts of O-Care. Worst-case scenario: They fail but with some Democratic support, which means a rolling PR disaster for the White House and a very small margin of error going forward lest the Democratic turncoats in Congress start thinking maybe it’d be better to repeal this thing and be done with it.
How about it, Mary Landrieu? Yes or no to tossing billions in hard-earned tax money at insurers to clean up the gigantic mess you, they, and Obama have made?
Obamacare includes a provision that allows the federal government to funnel taxpayer dollars to insurers that face the prospect of losing too much money under the new health care law, and conservative critics want to repeal it.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the provision could amount to a bailout of the insurance industry, which stands to lose if the troubled Obamacare exchanges fail to enroll enough people to make the system financially viable. Obamacare enrollment has already been stymied by glitches at the healthcare.gov sign-up site and it could be dampened again under an administrative fix President Obama proposed this week to resolve problems with millions of cancelled policies…
“We need to protect taxpayers from having to bail out anyone as a consequence of Obamacare,” Conant said in an email exchange with the Washington Examiner. “Rubio’s bill will fully repeal the ‘risk corridor’ provision in Obamacare, preventing a bailout.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The obvious solution is very painful for all:
1.) Abolish and destroy all of Obamacare, the IRS data files and all ancillary parts of Obamacare.
2.) Pass a Congressional Law with a veto-proof majority that stipulates that it shall forever be illegal for the US Federal Government to ever again legalize mandatory purchase of any insurance product related to the medical or health insurance industry.
3.) Appoint by Congress ONLY a top Private Insurance Executive to work with Congress to legislatively restore the excellent US Medical System that will soon be freed from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal entanglements.
4.) In return for the Liberals, RINOs and other supporters of Infinite National Debt agreeing to the above termination of Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid, the Conservatives would agree, when ALL Federal Laws have been passed, to approve the US Federal Government to absorb the cost of the damage done to the cancelled policy holders by the Obama Socialized Health Insurance Tax.
Right on. No bailouts! No backroom deals! Expose and jam the bastards.
progress needs to be monitored...
Under this provision, insurance companies are set to collect 2 - 2.5% of every group health policy, beginning in Dec 2013.
Tell us again how this is done with a Dem majority in the Senate.
I understand that insurance companies bought into ObamaCare because they had a windfall of new customers being forced into coverage by the government.
I have no sympathy for them.
Mitch McConnell has sympathy for the ObamaCare insurance companies.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=n00003389&type=I
Senator Mitch McConnell
Kindred Healthcare $76,300 $66,300 $10,000
Humana Inc $45,550 $40,550 $5,000
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $41,450 $24,450 $17,000
Aetna Inc $38,450 $28,450 $10,000
Mitch McConnell criticized for taking money from firm tied to health website
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3091467/posts
Mitch McConnell is a major contributor to the current state of our nation.
Some Incumbent Senate and House Democrats actually like the idea of being re-elected in 2014.
And the rail cars continue to pile up ...
Does anybody remember an article from a couple of days ago where this whole provision (which amounts to bribery, unlawful influence or even kickbacks) is being challenged in court or may be challenged in court by some organization, not a political org, IIRC?
The Dems would do well to support Rubio’s bill.
If the insurers go under, don’t we end up with single payer? The industry is extremely concentrated as it is. Is further concentration better or worse for the consumer?
repeat after me “NO MORE BAILOUTS”
Aetna,WellPoint, UHC, Oxford - this means you!
Maybe the House can refuse to fund the bailouts.
This should be raised at every Republican primary.
Make the big-cat insurers sweat blood.
while principles would suggest that the idea is right
but if the impact were analyzed
is it possible that this will mostly hurt the smallest insurance companies and might not hurt the biggest ones too much
don’t forget, as we learned with regard to immigration, Rubio chief of staff used to work for a Soros funded outfit
No way the Federal Government could stand up a single=payer system. Can you imagine the chaos if they tried to extend Medicare to everyone? NHS was erected with some difficulty after WWII because no country in Europe was so used to regimentation as Britain was in 1946 and so beaten down. A teacher for the DoD overseas schools I knew was in both Germany and England around 1950 and said she could hardly tell which country had suffered more, the “victor” or the “loser,”
There's this populist misunderstanding that insurance companies have tens of trillions of dollars of accumulated treasure salted away somewhere. The reality is that insurance profits are less than 5% of the premiums paid, a fair chunk of which is paid to shareholders, typically getting a 1-3% dividend yield. A couple of years of 10% losses will send them into liquidation. Which will result in a single-payer system.
Rubio is a cunning simpleton. He cunningly supported amnesty out of tribal solidarity, after deceiving conservatives who trusted him. He's trying to bankrupt the insurance companies because he's too stupid to understand the endgame. This is a guy who accumulated $100K in student loans going to low-tuition state schools in the 1980's and early 1990's, despite the wide availability of Hispanic quota scholarships, which he took advantage of.
The UK had the enormous burden of simultaneously maintaining the forces necessary to maintain its empire and fight insurgencies (in some cases Communist) that cropped up as local elites in its African and Asian colonies rose up in order to get a bigger share of the spoils available to political decision makers. Germany did not. The UK repaid the Lend Lease loans. Germany not only had no war loans to pay back - it kept a fair chunk of what was confiscated from the conquered nations it occupied, without having to pay reparations. Ultimately, the UK recovered by ditching its imperial possessions, which were mostly a breakeven economic proposition, and its economic output per capita and standard of living skyrocketed as a result of a drastic reduction in defense-related taxation and expenditures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.