Republican Hypocrisy

[osusev]

@westside-steve said:

Wise up Sev.

They did NOT get cross state regulation.

The insurco doesn't want it and Nancy kept it out.

With that they'd really need to compete.

The mandate was Hillarys that hypocrite Obama campaigned aganist.

And you guys barely passed it as it was and wouldn't have with the PO.

So spare us the "you got everything you wanted" snowjob.

Lucky for you Stupak's morals are window dressing.

WSS

you meant EXCHANGES... right

[osusev]

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Just when I though you couldn't be more of a pompous ahole. You prove me wrong again.

from you that child like name calling really hurts my self esteem....... I will be crying all night.

[Mr. T]

This sounds like the author of the article is stretching their imagination on this.

[Westside Steve]

@osusev said:

you meant EXCHANGES... right

No professor.

I meant (maybe I was unclear) that the insurcos are still and will still be regulated state by state.

That means they really don't have to compete on a meaningful basis.

But I'm sure that every rose colored forcast will come to pass just as promiosed.

But for all the screeching over contributions lobbyists and graft it does look like they paid off for the Dems.

WSS

[osusev]

this post was about republican policy hypocrisy.... i am glad you mentioned another different method which was also republican backed.......

stretching the truth T? seriously........... how funny.

[Skinny]

they are both equally worthless...Dems and Reps that is.

[Pumpkin Eater]

I thought the mandate was Mitt Romney's idea from Massachusetts.

[shoot]

What's really funny is how similar this bill is to the "alternative" Republicans+Heritage Foundation et al. pushed to Clinton's HC reform efforts in 1992. But 18 years later, the political discourse has been pushed so far to the right that a center-right policy is considered "socialist" by a sizable portion of the voting public.

[Westside Steve]

@pumpkin-eater said:

I thought the mandate was Mitt Romney's idea from Massachusetts.

It is.

I supported it and still do.

But I realize it isn't going to reduce the cost or improve service much.

WSS

[shoot]

@westside-steve said:

It is.

I supported it and still do.

But I realize it isn't going to reduce the cost or improve service much.

WSS

The point of the mandate isn't improving service, it's to provide universal coverage (which in turn reduces costs in the long term). Of course, this cost reduction is much more effective when you either have competition (think public option, national-level exchanges, etc) or strict regulation (like the Dutch system where everything is private but premiums are capped at a very low rate and subsidized by the govt). But thanks to the slobbering idiots we have in Washington, we only got one part of what was needed. As it is in bare-bones form, you could construe it as a handout to private insurance companies.

[Pumpkin Eater]

@shoot said:

The point of the mandate isn't improving service, it's to provide universal coverage (which in turn reduces costs in the long term). Of course, this cost reduction is much more effective when you either have competition (think public option, national-level exchanges, etc) or strict regulation (like the Dutch system where everything is private but premiums are capped at a very low rate and subsidized by the govt). But thanks to the slobbering idiots we have in Washington, we only got one part of what was needed. As it is in bare-bones form, you could construe it as a handout to private insurance companies.

Right, so, once again, the young, healthy people who are trying to get by without insurance for whatever reason are forced to pay for those who make a substantial amount of claims.