Former NYT Reporter Can't Grasp the 'Moral Compass' of Obama-Care Opponents
Former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse really let her liberal feelings show in her online column Wednesday, “Breaking News: The Civil War Is Over,” in which she linked opposition to the constitutionality of Obama-care to the U.S. Confederacy.
Greenhouse, who notoriously delivered a left-wing commencement speech at Harvard in June 2006, while still a reporter for the Times, was also offended to the core at a bumper sticker opposing national health care: “I don’t understand the moral compass of the owner of the fancy car I saw the other day that sported the bumper sticker: ‘Repeal Obamacare.’”
Judicial opinions on the constitutionality of the new health care law are pouring out of the federal courts. With the general expectation that the Supreme Court will have to resolve what is now a clear conflict between two federal courts of appeals, the individual lower-court decisions have pretty much ceased to make news. By the time the Supreme Court rules, if and when it does, a decision earlier this month by the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., throwing out Virginia’s challenge to the statute without reaching the ultimate constitutional question, will be all but forgotten.
That would be unfortunate, because in its relatively brief 33 pages, this opinion from a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting in the heart of the old Confederacy, offers a powerful reminder of a fact that a dismaying number of folks appear lately to have forgotten: the Civil War is over.
On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, filed suit in federal court to have the law declared unconstitutional. The next day, Gov. Bob McDonnell signed into law the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act. These last two events were inextricably linked.
The Virginia law provides that “no resident of this Commonwealth… shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. . . ”
In other words, a few weeks shy of the 150th anniversary of Virginia’s “ordinance of secession,” the Commonwealth of Virginia seceded from the reach of the federal health care law’s individual mandate.
Greenhouse became moralistic at the end, getting angry at a bumper-sticker.
I have a confession to make. I can describe the legal arguments and the judicial conclusions, but on a fundamental level, I just don’t get the attack on the federal law. I don’t understand people who voluntarily, without claiming poverty, let their children go uninsured. I don’t understand the moral compass of the owner of the fancy car I saw the other day that sported the bumper sticker: “Repeal Obamacare.” I suppose that the self-satisfied and oh-so-secure car owner never met anyone like the healthy 27-year-old man profiled the other day in USA Today who was denied insurance in the private market because his doctor four years ago had ordered a particular heart-monitoring test – which found nothing wrong with his heart. I do know such people. So do you. They are all around you, but maybe such an intimate subject as their inability to get health insurance has never come up in conversation. So as this debate for the soul of the country continues to unfold, I take comfort -- perhaps unduly, no doubt prematurely -- from the reminder from the appeals court in Richmond that the Civil War is over and that p.s., the Union won.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Greenhouse has no
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:45am.
Greenhouse has no Constitutional or economic compass to "grasp"...
Exactly - the constitution
Submitted by Edhenry on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 5:08pm.
Exactly - the constitution would essentially shredded (if this does get upheld by the supremes), and the economic damage will be unprecedented.
But that gets to the moral issue; that socialism, statism and centralized power = corruption, winners selected by the political class/paid back by the selected winners and ultimately a spiral to the bottom where everyone suffers, including the environment and especially the poor.
Where is the moral high ground on that path?
"If you like your stable, you can keep it."
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 9:46am.
.
Bwaahhhh!
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:50am.
Bwaahhhh!
A real civil war could result
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:01am.
I don't understand the moral compass of the half of the country who thinks the other half of the country should work and pay for the aforementioned's living. Or the politicians and 'elites' who believe that also.
Every time I see Greenhouse's pic now, I think of that
Submitted by virginia republican on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:05am.
comment by an NB reader that she could eat apples through a picket fence. Hilarious.
I saw a horse do that once...
Submitted by FishFace222 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:58am.
I saw a horse do that once...
Obamacare is addressing the
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:11am.
Obamacare is addressing the problem of heath care costs from direction. Obama is approaching it from the liberal socialist worldview. It will not work, it will cost too much! Greece is current and good example of why socialism does not work. I believe if we dealt with the obesity epidemic effectively, the rise of health care cost would be slowed considerably. So much health problems are caused by obesity, and by what we do and don't eat.
Moral Compass
Submitted by Specialty Machining on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:23am.
So it's right to force people to do things? Some people "In God We Trust", not insurance. Civil War: So might is right?
Yeah, Linda, it's all about
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:31am.
Yeah, Linda, it's all about the Civil War and States' Rights.
Virginians are still racist!!
\sarc
For Greenhouse, who happily
Submitted by celator on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:33am.
For Greenhouse, who happily accepted a paycheck from the corrupt NYT, to be concerned about anyone's "moral compass", is the joke of the day. Actually made me laugh out loud, and that woke up my yellow lab from one of those happy lab dreams where he's chasing something that is just out of his reach.
Obamacare will accomplish two things:
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:44am.
I do not get the mental disconnect of people like Greenhouse concerning our nation's current financial predicament.
This country is now on the hook for over $132 Trillion.
We cannot afford liberalism anymore.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The hell with affording it!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 1:58pm.
At this point, we should be declaring war on it!
-Jon
To her, a "fancy car" is one
Submitted by Ed Gregory on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:57am.
To her, a "fancy car" is one that has an engine.
What I don't get -- but I probably do -- is how liberals can claim to be for freedom of choice and freedom of speech and freedom of whatever, but then be so willing to give up those freedoms and more in subjecting themselves to the whims of the state when it swings the hammer of "compassion."
She gives new meaning to the term, "Greenhouse Gas".
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:01am.
Linda, if your concern is indeed that the person who had a test five years ago cannot get insurance (I don't believe it, I think she's misinformed), then attack that problem by allowing competition in the market. Honestly, if you were an insurance provider, would you deny a policy to a young customer with no health problems because a doctor tested negative for something??? Insurance companies don't routinely turn down low-risk, paying customers.
But, let's use my example, and ask her to defend this: a young healthy person who can afford insurance chooses not to purchase health insurance. He comes down with cancer. Needs lotsa hospital visits, massive drugs, lotsa money involved. You're telling me that since he didn't value his own life enough to purchase insurance, I'm now morally obligated to pay his bills???
Frankly I couldn't care less
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:14am.
Frankly I couldn't care less what offends Greenhouse in regards to conservatism. In fact, I hope she grows more offended. Her "compass" is too close to the Obama magnet to work properly.
Clever...
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:59pm.
.
I find it both amusing and
Submitted by richflanj on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:19am.
I find it both amusing and disgusting that she is talking about a moral compass when her liberal/socialist/marxist compass has led to the murder of over 100,000,000 people.
How about this: My moral compass points towards PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That means I take care of my family and you take care of yours. DO NOT expect me to help you and yours at the expense of my children and their future.
Get it?
translation
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:30am.
She has no idea what ObamaCare really does but anyone that opposes it is EVIL.
excellent observation
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 1:31pm.
Kat
Angry Liberal
Submitted by Tyler520 on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:33am.
She's just hoping that Obamacare might have a provision that will alow her to get that horse-face of hers fixed
Linda.....call immediately.
Submitted by Herbster on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:58am.
Linda....call home! Your oats bag was found at Belmont Park!
They never change. They never go away. This brood mare just keeps on with the liberal claptrap.
She makes me hot...
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:03pm.
Doncha think?
No big shock here.
Submitted by johnsonl on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:08pm.
Liberals have been comparing conservatives to Nazis, serial killers and the like for years. I just wonder why they resort to name calling.
Oh, yeah. It's because they have no argument.
Fundraising idea for Newsbusters!
Submitted by Lipton on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:09pm.
Put some of your stock pictures up for "sale". Allow donors to pay certain amount to keep some of these pictures from ever appearing on any new posts again.
Yeah, Pretty Hot
Submitted by Schofield Kid on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:20pm.
Like most liberal women (other than vapid actresses) she's mentally and physically ugly and badly confused. Why does she assume the guy in the "fancy car" doesn't have insurance? Most of us working full time, and here legally, have healthcare provided by our employer or the option to purchase it. If you are young and healthy and don't want to pay that's your problem, not mine. I guess we all pay in the end though because no one is turned away from the ER for lack of insurance. However, we simply can't afford the trillions this debacle will cost.
That 27 year old in USA Today? Michael Cantone.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:27pm.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2011-09-09/health-...
Michael Cantone of Florida? Wouldn't be this Michael Cantone of Florida, would it?
++++
Michael Cantone http://organizeflorida.nationbuilder.com/311
Progressive Politics - it's my life, my job, my passion :) Along with good times and good people! P.S. Hillary Clinton is my hero!
@mikecantonehighly influential mentioned @OrgNow14 hours ago
Pink Slip Rick & @OrgNow protest 2012 GOP presidential debate in Orlando
@mikecantone tweeted. 1 day ago
time of death 11:08 #RIPTroyDavis
@mikecantone tweeted. 24 days ago
Florida Consumers rally for enforcing #hcr insurance reforms now http://t.co/Sd1WpAc
@mikecantone tweeted. 29 days ago
Rachel @Maddow takes on Rick Scott again, disproving his LIES about drug use & welfare recipients http://t.co/imIHNIo #pfla #awakefl
++++
I have to go to sleep. You guys figure out what this little progressive's game plan is. What is a 25 year old man getting heart monitored for days anyway?
Yes. It is that social justice loving progressive M. Cantone
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:39pm.
++++
I'm featured in this #hcr story about ins companies denying coverage (& a pic running my dog!) http://t.co/kjX8dNL #p2 #pfla
http://twitter.com/#!/mikecantone
++++
I'm surprised you didn't look up
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 12:52pm.
Amanda Hite. 15 yrs in the hospital industry. Same person? I suppose there could be other 34 yr old Lexington KY women of the same name.
A liberals ability to
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 1:23pm.
A liberals ability to "sympathize" with those unfortunates among us is completely dwarfed by their inability to "understand" those of us that don't like to have our hard earned money "confiscated" by the government to supposedly lift up those less fortunate, in vain attempts that never succeed.
(How's that "war on poverty" working out?)
The reason they can not understand is that they simply can't admit that socialism has failed, completely and utterly, just about everywhere it has been tried. They remain wedded to the liberal mantra that it WILL work if only we do ...(insert silly liberal notion here)
They "believe" that it will work.
They exhibit a "faith" in their beliefs as fixed and unwavering as any religious zealot.
The "believe" in the face of unquestionable empirical evidence showing them the utter fallacy of their 'beliefs".
They "believe" that ANYONE that doesn't hold to their beliefs are "immoral" or, for lack of a better phraseology, just plain evil.
And like all zealots they are exhibiting a growing tendency to "demand" adherence to their beliefs or "suffer their wrath".
I was going to say....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 1:39pm.
..that anyone who with her looks better be really smart. But, apparently, she lacks the intellect to conceive that there could possibly be a reason to oppose the take-over of 1/6th of the private market GDP of the United States and place the greatest health-care system the world has ever known into a gov't run bureaucracy.
She'd better be able to shift through 18 gears for her next job.
Of course you don't understand
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 1:52pm.
"I don’t understand people who voluntarily, without claiming poverty, let their children go uninsured."
Of course you don;t understand. Personal choice, and personal responsibility for your choices, , you see, is way beyond your comprehension. You believe that it's far better that the federal government make those choices for you. This is because you don't have any type of "compass" yourself, moral or otherwise. You abdicate those types of "compasses' to the various governments. That makes it very easy for you to deny personal responsibility for anything you do.
It's not your fault if the federally (or even personally) selected insurance policy you were mandated to purchase won't pay for your child's reconstructive surgery if, say, an animal bites off one of his or her fingers. It's the fault of the insurance company, or the hospital, or society in general. It's anyone else's fault but your own. Of course, you could pay for that surgery yourself, but that's the responsibility of that same insurance company, is it not? So, dang it, why doesn't the federal government DO SOMETHING, right? That way YOU don't have to get personally involved. And that lack of personal involvement, especially in the financial burden, is what you truly desire.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobraman, about the insurance thing
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 2:23pm.
Sometimes it's not always about the personal responsiblity thing. Sometimes it's just bad luck. For reasons I won't go into (unless pressed) I had to make two car insurance claims in one year that were not my fault.Later when it came time to renew my car insurance, they dropped me. So I phoned around and found that serveral 'large' insurance companies would not insure me. (they wouldn't even listen to the details.)
So here's my point. What happens to people who may have a pre-existing medical condition when they apply for health insurance?
Mandrake writes: "What
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:10pm.
Mandrake writes: "What happens to people who may have a pre-existing medical condition when they apply for health insurance?"
They are denied and rightly so.
This idea that it is somehow a private companies "duty" to take on even losing propositions i.e. "pre-existing conditions" is just ludicrous from the jump.
They are in business to make money. They make money by playing the percentages and betting that they will make more money on investing your premiums than they will have to pay out in claims. This only works when you don't have the Government telling them they have to "bet" on what is essentially a losing hand.
While I am not opposed to "taxpayer assistance" and providing for those TRULY in need of help, I stand firmly against the idea that you or anyone else somehow has the "RIGHT" to have me pay, by virtue of either my tax dollars or higher premiums, for services rendered to someone else.
Here's the thing
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:33pm.
I am now 60 years old and estimate I have paid well over a million dollars in taxes over my lifetime. I don't begrudge that any else might benefit from that just as long as the Canadian health care system takes care of my leg in my old age (long story)
I agree that 'private' companies have no obligation other than to their shareholdholders..but there are other options. (oops.I've said a bad thing)
You are in the position of
Submitted by ThePickle on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:47pm.
You are in the position of having payed into the system (Canada) for the majority of your life and in such an instance have every right to expect to receive benefit from said system. My mistake if I was misunderstanding your earlier comments.
As to those "other options" you mentioned I would be interested as to what you believe those "options" to be.
Other options
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:57pm.
That's kind of dicey to go into. See, I beleive in the Canadian health care system. And under Stephan Harper it has actually been getting better. But it is kinda socialist, and if Unsane reads this he going to go all..well Unsane on me. (you know, the whole nanny state routine)
Good grief, Pickle...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:15pm.
"They are denied and rightly so."
Even the staunchest GOP opponents of the Health Care Reform bill support revisions which would include coverage for pre-existing conditions. Their proposals which are generally predicated on high-risk pools are flawed, but they at least agree with the concept that insurance should also be available for those who have been unable to secure coverage or have been dropped because of PEC.
Jer
If my car has a "pre-existing condition" of a smashed in
Submitted by no tingly legs on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:57pm.
front end from a collision when I didn't have collision coverage, should I be able to get a new policy with collision coverage and make a claim for that prior accident? Actually, in the case of health insurance, perhaps insurers should make policies available with the proviso that no claims related to the pre-existing condition be honored, i.e. if i have a heart condition, no coverage for future heart problems, but cancer would be covered.
Ok, just for fun
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:21pm.
I'll share one of the incidents that led to my car insurance company deciding I was "uninsureable". My neighbour and I shared a common driveway and one day I knew he would be leaving in the morning before me. So out the goodness of my heart I parked on the street outside. That morning he proceeded to back out into my car. Bad luck, yes but insurance company didn't see it that way. I wonder how they view people who have bad luck with their health?
Bad luck
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:42pm.
Bad luck with their health? Hay, welcome to the human condition!
Look at it this way: Should household insurance companies be forced to pay for a pre-existing damage to property? Should those insurance companies be forced to pay, say, for the damage a fire (more bad luck) caused prior to you purchasing an insurance policy? Of course not . So, why should health insurance be any different?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No
Submitted by Mister Orange on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:21pm.
And they shouldn't drop you because a tornado keeps ripping your roof off either. But they do. And they're coddled for it.
Coddled?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 7:32pm.
How?
By whom?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You think the government would act in another way?
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:05am.
A property in a high-risk area for tornados, and one on which the improvements have resulted in several damage claims, at some point becomes an unacceptable risk and coverage is dropped. The government -were it insuring the property- would react no differently.
They do this for health insurance too, by the way. Although instead of dropping the coverage, they simply refuse to treat the afflicted. Donald Berwick has this all worked out.
What is up with this Canadian welfare snowbilly?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:49pm.
How stupid do you have to be to be blamed for an accident that happened to your PARKED car? How utterly brain dead is this snowbilly? So stupid he ILLEGALLY parks his car on a street in such a careless way as to be a HAZARD to traffic.
Then he comes here and whines because he gets blamed for the accident.
It is not bad luck. It is stupididy.
The drain on society, Mandrake the snowbilly comes here and admits he never brushed his teeth ever. Then has to see a doctor about his rotting gums when he is in his 20's. His 20's for heavens sake and he already has such horrid peridontal infections that he has to go under emergency medical care to take care of them.
And this welfare queen snowbilly has the gall to give us advice on our politics.
Vet
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:31am.
I am truely touched that you remember the story of my dental woes. Not to worry though. I had all my teeth taken out shortly thereafter and now keep them in a glass of Polident overnight ;)
snowbilly indeed!
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:45am.
Proud that you are a drain on the medical resources of your country huh? Yeah, that is something to joke about.
You were dropped, because someone backed into you?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:51pm.
Either that is not correct, or your driving record is horrid?
You smell that too Mr Boudin?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:10am.
Someone is lying. There is no country on earth where a parked unattended car can be labeled even partly responsible for an accident. Since that is blatantly untrue, we are left guessing what the truth should be.
The snowbilly drove home drunk one night and haphazardly parked his car with it hanging more than halfway out into the street so as to be a hazard to traffic.
Why do snowbillies think it is ok to lie?
Guess when your a lib
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:19am.
Any story will do?
That's not the whole story
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:12am.
The other incident was more serious. It was a december morning at 5:00 am and the road was slippery. I needed to get into work early. Some jackass coming the other way was driving way to fast and drifted into my lane..only quick reflexes prevented a head on. But he did take out the side of my car and a bus stop. (which luckily noone was waiting in). He ended up on someone's front lawn.
Anyway, it appears the insurance company came to the conclusion that. (1 I shouldn't drive at 5:00 am and 2) I shouldn't park on the street.
Both incidents happened the same year..which apparently is a no no.
Well you seem to be a magnet for
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:17am.
"accidents" how can you blame them? BTW, your first post was a bit misleading wasnt it?
You sure it wasnt the guy who ended up in the yard, that needed the quick reflexes that morn?
As the old song goes
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:22am.
"If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all"
And no I was doing the safe speed for the conditions, and driving to work cold sober.
The Snowbilly welfare queen LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:44am.
Looks like Canada is the only country on earth with no fault auto collision laws. Phweet.
The welfare queen Mandrake the snowbilly LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:42am.
The entire point of auto insurance is to protect you financially from damage YOU cause. His description of both accidents puts the fault on the other driver.
LIE: ...the insurance company..... ...but insurance company.... --- The TRUTH - the other guys insurance company would have had to pay damages were he at fault. There was no reason at all to even attempt to contact your insurance company when the other guy is at fault..
LIE: He blames the other guy. The TRUTH --- His insurance company would only be involved if he was at fault.
LIE: ...insurance company did not see it that way... ...insurance company came to the conclusion... --- The TRUTH - the police determine fault in accidents and insurance companies pay based on the police report.
Why don't you try telling us the truth for once snowbilly welfare queen.
Vet
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:48am.
Were I come from there is legal requirement to report any accident to the insurer that involves more than $1000 damage reguardless of who is at fault. Which I did. Now I don't read minds so I cannot explain why my insurer decided to drop me or why Allstate claimed I couldn't be insured..It just happened. You going to insist that I am lying? Why would I do that..to what end?
Snowbilly continues down the same road.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:12am.
Hard to back out of a lie huh?
Reporting an accident to your insurance company where you were not at fault is not the same as FILING a claim when you were at fault. The insurance company does have to know the condition of the vehicle it is insuring. You would not be dropped for accidents you were not responsible for. You got some kind of magical insurance in snowbillyland now?
YOU LIE. Every statement you made here indicates YOU WERE FOUND TO BE AT FAULT.
Keep lying snowbilly. We are used to it.
You even type like a snowbilly. Wur I cum frum... The word is where. Snowbilly. Pronounced /(h)we(ə)r/
LOL
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:20am.
Vet I would really love to stay up all night and play, but I have a big day tomorrow. It's going to be hard enough to get sleep cause I'm laughing so hard. You're the best, keep up the good work!
I would not know.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:23am.
I don't lie so I don't know what the reaction of a liar would be. I guess lying is funny in Canada. Thank Gawd you are not employed in the Tourism PR business. Yet another turnoff for Canada.
Canada - The home of laughing liars. Fly the skies and visit us now.
Fail.
Keep shopping around.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:38pm.
"What happens to people who may have a pre-existing medical condition when they apply for health insurance?"
You keep shopping around until you find one that will cover you. You may have to pay larger premiums, or pay a higher deductible, but that's the cost of covering a pre-existing condition. You know, it's not that hard to figure out.
Here's the thing about insurance, it isn't a cost sharing program, nor was it ever meant to be. It's meant to help you recoup part of the costs of catastrophic, unexpected medical bills. You should never expect it to cover all of your medical cots for every conceivable medical condition or necessity. If you want a cost-sharing program, join an HMO.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Here's the beauty of it
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:42pm.
Under the Canadian system, I don't have to shop around. It's kinda just there. And in the event I need something more drastic than saving my leg, I can spend my own money and go to the US..perfect :)
So what's the problem?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:48pm.
It seems that you really don't need insurance to cover a pre-existing condition. So, what's the problem? Were you just asking a rhetorical question?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Liberals Love to be Generous with
Submitted by boscokraft on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:12pm.
other peoples money. If you want to make a law that insurance companies must provide insurance to all and regulate the price, go for it. But the government running healthcare is insane.
I resent the implication that I am heartless because Im opposed to government run healthcare.
What Linda doesn't understand
Submitted by JohnK on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 3:51pm.
What Linda and the other big-government nanny-state Liberals fail to understand is the nature of freedom.
In a free country, people are allowed to choose to be smart, choose to be stupid, choose to be decent, or choose to be criminal.
Of course, the choices may have consequences, and the chooser must be prepared to deal with them. Hopefully, society's values and education will promote more good choices than bad ones.
But the Government should not be a participant in the individual's choice process.
It is correct for the Government to be involved in the consequence process, in cases where the chooser makes a choice where someone other than the chooser is harmed.
It is not appropriate for the Government to assign consequences for instances where a bad choice harms no one but the chooser. And, if the "harm" is defined to be a financial drain on some Government resource, that is an indication that the resource is being incorrectly used.
As long as the Government is involved in the individual's choice process, we are not a free country.
Greenhouse and other liberals
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 4:01pm.
Greenhouse and other liberals have no concept of either personal responsibility personal charity. To them, all caring comes from the collective by way of government programs.
Linda's one-track liberal mind....
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 10:11pm.
....is going right off the rails. Wastes of skin like her are advocating more and more taxes and more and more handouts, but of course the realities of this economy would never put a dent in that thick skull of hers.
Of course she can't grasp it.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:12am.
Concepts like personal freedom and self-reliance are completely alien to her, and anything going against statist/collectivist thinking is amoral and backwards-thinking as far as she's concerned. As a former NYT reporter, she's lived her whole life front row center in the left-wing echo chamber.
Oh, and the whole insurance=healthcare thing? Yeah, because that's exactly why the Dems all supported Paul Ryan's Medicare reform that gave recipients vouchers to buy insurance, and didn't say anything like "having coverage doesn't guarantee healthcare". Oh wait, that's right, the Dems lied, demagogued, and completely trashed the Ryan plan, and actually did say that coverage can't guarantee care.
I'll restate that because it bears repeating, Obama himself demolished the primary talking point for advocates of Obamacare and the Individual Mandate by actually saying coverage=/=healthcare.
I think we'd do well to use the Dems' anti-Ryan plan demagoguery against them as they gear up to defend Obamacare.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
“I don’t understand the moral
Submitted by TerryWest on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 1:25am.
“I don’t understand the moral compass of the owner of the fancy car I saw the other day that sported the bumper sticker: ‘Repeal Obamacare.’”
I couldn't understand the logic & reasoning compass of a young lady I saw the other day in an old smoking Buick pulling into the unemployment office parking lot with an Obama /Biden sticker still on her bumper.
civil war?
Submitted by superllama on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:06am.
why is it that when liberals talk about the civil war, it's always in terms of slavery? there were much greater issues at stake....as someone here said "might makes right", i.e. the power of the northern states for force the southern states back into a "union" that had become detrimental to their welfare. you do realize, that when the southern states were defeated, they were all made to change their constitutions so that they could not leave the union...which brings to question the legality of the north's ability to force them into joining it again. if it had to be made a law that we could not leave, was it legal in the first place? remember, we were first and foremost, a collection of states that were granted independence separately, and decided to band together for mutual defense against england. no where in the constitution, or the declaration of independence, is any clause prior to the civil war that says anything about a state leaving the union. that war, ultimately, led to what we have today, what the founder's opposed most vehemently...a controlling central government that only cared about getting re-elected and staying in power. a government that in reality, is not so different from the one we had a revolution against.
Wait a minute, superllama...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 5:51pm.
Are you suggesting that liberal Democrats view the genesis of the Civil War in the context of slavery, while conservative Republicans see the conflict in terms of states rights' issues? If so, the argument cuts the legs out from under the vast majority of your fellow conservatives at this website.
Jer
All right mister. That is it. I am on you like white on rice.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:17pm.
First of all, I can't read that block big big block paragraph without... No, I could not read it at all. We use capitalization at this reading level little boy. Come back when you want to interact with adults.
Second, what does a Loon that apparently spent 12 years sitting in English classes and walked away thinking he can piss all over everything we all learned about punctuation and capitalization have to do with conservative Republicans?