I agree with Romney on health care - sort of

Over the weekend, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he wants to repeal Obamacare - the Affordable Care Act - but that there are portions of it he likes, including covering pre-existing conditions and children.

Actually, I believe that insurance companies should offer coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. I don't believe they should be forced to, but it would be to their advantage to do so.

But (yes, the infamous 'but') - they should not be forced to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same rate as other customers without such conditions.

Life insurance for a healthy person is cheaper than for someone who has heart disease and a history of heart attacks. Why shouldn't health insurance work the same way?

Why shouldn't individuals with pre-existing conditions pay more for their health insurance, especially if they wait until after they are sick to obtain it?

If the government doesn't insist that individuals are absolved from the potential negative consequences of their actions, they might just be inclined to take the appropriate action ahead of time.

If you know you can get away with being irresponsible, you're more likely to be irresponsible. That's human nature. Just like children as they are growing up, you tell them repeatedly that touching a hot stove will hurt, but they keep trying until they succeed and learn, because it hurts, that it was the wrong thing to do.

So I agree with Romney that individuals with pre-existing conditions should have access to health care, but I believe that such 'access' should come at a higher cost.

And should 'children' be able to be covered? Sure. But then, I define 'chidren' as descendants (legal or biological) under the age of 18 or over 18 and still attending school.

I would even go so far as to say that insurance companies would find an abundance of clients if they allowed relatives living in the same household to be covered under an insurance plan. They do this with car insurance - why not with health insurance?

Of course, this would work best if health insurance were purchased like car insurance and not just through your employer - with individuals receiving the same tax advantages as employers currently do.

Car insurance rates are affordable and there are plenty of policy options and coverage levels to fit every need. If health insurance were reformed to mirror the structure of car insurance, wouldn't that be a huge improvement?

These are good ideas, but the devil is in the details. Will government mandate such things, or open up the market so such structures can develop?

There's the rub...

Forget logic, you're supposed to love Obamacare

Yesterday, Ohio Democratic State Rep. Teresa Fedor held a press conference to criticize Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's announcement that he would repeal Obamacare if he were elected. She strategically held the conference on the first day of U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the law.

Of course, no Democratic press conference is complete with an appeal to emotion, so she trotted out the typical tug-at-the-heart-strings examples of what would happen if that evil Romney had his way.

The first was Jack Viren, 67, who said:

"The fact that Mitt Romney would overturn the [Affordable Care Act], which allows my wife to have health insurance, saving us close to $15,000 a year, it's unconscionable and unthinkable. We were just totally grateful to President Obama and the Congress when the Affordable Care Act was passed," Mr. Viren said.

But this isn't true. Earlier in the linked article, Viren admits that his wife had insurance:

Mr. Viren said his wife, Carol, who is 12 years younger than he, was forced by an illness to give up her practice as a lawyer and started running an online business. He said the cost of her coverage, which she obtained through a group, went from $800 a month in 2007 to $1,200 the next year. The couple said the cost would have gone to $1,600 with a $2,500 deductible in 2009, but Mrs. Viren dropped the coverage because they couldn't afford it while also paying about $1,000 a month for prescriptions.

"If she had had to go into the hospital for any period of time it could have forced us into bankruptcy," Mr. Viren said.

So what he's saying is that the costs of being without insurance were going to be less than being with insurance?!?

He then contradicts himself when saying that they chose to risk bankruptcy rather than pay for insurance.

That's liberal logic for you.

They probably supported the Ohio law that allows unmarried 'children' up to the age of 28 to stay on their parents' insurance. The minute Ohio passed this law, our own insurance jumped $1,200 per year!

The problem is that Obamacare doesn't "allow" his wife to have health insurance. She had "access" to health care and willingly chose to reject it.

Instead, they decided to live off others who are paying for Ohio's high risk insurance pool, which subsidizes a limited number of individuals with tax dollars from the rest of us.

So much for personal responsibility.

You may be wondering - what is the Ohio High Risk Pool?

The Ohio High Risk Pool is designed to give uninsured Ohioans with pre-existing conditions access to quality health insurance.

Viren's wife had insurance so the pre-existing condition issue wasn't applicable.

What Viren should have said was that he and his wife made a conscious decision to stop paying for the health insurance they had and now they're glad they can get the rest of us to subsidize the insurance they're currently getting.

We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

And we're supposed to want to support an unconstitutional Obamacare as a result?!?

Of course we are.

But that's not all. We're also supposed to hate the millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their "fair share" - at least according to Sen. Fedor:

"...if more people have to pay more money, especially the millionaires and billionaires, that's part of what is necessary to have a quality nation, and it's part of their fair share of ensuring we have a viable economic future," Ms. Fedor said.

What's fair about 'rich' people paying more while nearly half the nation pays nothing at all? Talk about unfair.

But again, that's liberal logic for you.

Then we have Fran Dymarkowski, 69, who clearly doesn't think things through. Her 'tug-at-the-heart-strings' story was about Medicare:

Mrs. Dymarkowski said her husband, Paul, had a drug-resistant staph infection and that their spending on prescription drugs reached the so-called doughnut hole, a situation in which Medicare stops paying for the coverage.

She said her and her husband's cost was about $3,000 or $4,000 over a two-year period in 2009 and 2010. She said Mr. Dymarkowski's health improved and he has less need of the costly prescriptions.

"For seniors like Paul and me living on limited income through Social Security these costs were not a joke," Ms. Dymarkowski said. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing." The Affordable Care Act provided a rebate of $250 in the first year and will continue providing the rebate until the doughnut hole is closed in 2020.

Let's put that into perspective: taking the higher estimated (since Dymarkoski clearly didn't know exactly) amount of $4,000 over a two-year period of time, that works out to $200/month. That's not an insignificant amount when you're relying upon Social Security for your income, but it's not more or less than what others have to pay.

As I previously stated, when Ohio passed the insure-children-to-age-28 law, our insurance went up $100/month. When my husband turned 45, it went up another $100/month, strictly due to actuarial tables having nothing whatsoever to with his excellent state of health. That's $200/month in a two-year period of time - just like Dymarkowkis.

Our income is as 'fixed' as theirs - but we're paying for her rebate with our taxes, and she thinks that's okay.

"Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing."

Really? Does actually think that a $250 per year rebate will help people who see a $200 per month increase in their prescription costs? Granted, it's better than nothing, but not much - and it comes at the cost of sacrificing our Constitution.

Did she actually think about the math before she got up in front of the media?

Apparently not.

Again - we're supposed to feel sorry for her and her husband, ignoring such facts and figures, and embrace Obamacare as a result.

Dymarkowski is happy that Obamacare closed the Medicare doughnut hole, but what about the fact that Obamacare is partially funded by a $500 billion cut in Medicare?!? How does she feel about that?

The Romney campaign responded:

"President Obama is the only president to have slashed $500 billion from Medicare, and he did it to fund Obamacare. Unlike the President, Governor Romney is committed to preserving Medicare for those at or near retirement, and unlike the President he has put forward a plan that will strengthen it for future generations," said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams.

Lest you think this is just political rhetoric, the Washington Post Fact Checker agrees:

In the health care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. In reality, the money is all fungible, but Romney is on relatively solid ground when he says “Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare.”

Does Dymarkowski think that settling for a doughnut hole rebate is sufficient payback for the $500 billion Medicare cut that it cost? Does she even know about the cuts that are helping to pay for her $250 rebate?

No one asked her.

I'm sick of being told by elitist politicians what I must do and how I must "feel." They can tug at the heart strings all they want, but I will not stand by while my liberty, my rights, and my personal property are sacrificed so they can appear to help 'stuck-on-stupid' individuals who can't do their own math or who want to live off others.

And I will NOT forget logic and just love Obamacare.

Obamacare lawsuit update from Mike DeWine

Received via email and sharing:

I was in the U.S. Supreme Court today as arguments began on Obamacare. Twenty-six states, including Ohio, are joined in the lawsuit challenging the act's constitutionality. As you will recall, the first thing I did after taking office as Attorney General was to authorize Ohio to join this lawsuit.

Today's arguments dealt with whether the case was ready to be decided, which we believe it is. Judging by the questions that the justices asked, it would appear they believe that, as well.

There were large crowds outside the Supreme Court, with a ton of media. Inside, while the normal routine was followed, there was a sense that we were witnessing a historic moment.

Tomorrow, the Court will hear arguments on the most contentious issue -- the constitutionality of the individual mandate. We do not expect a decision until June. I will keep you updated as things progress.

GOP House caucus asks Cordray to challenge federal health care proposal

This in via email:

House GOP to Attorney General: Challenge the Federal Health Care Proposal

COLUMBUS—Ohio House Republican members today issued the attached letter to Attorney General Richard Cordray urging him to join their caucus in an effort to challenge the federal health care legislation that is currently being discussed in Washington D.C.

“As more details emerge from the compromises that are being brokered behind-the- scenes, I grow more concerned for the state of Ohio and the hardworking tax payers of our state,” State Representative Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said.

A current provision being discussed exempts the state of Nebraska from paying for any newly eligible Medicaid recipients ad infinitum, while other states would have to pay for Nebraska’s new enrollees. Additionally, in another brokered deal, Florida residents keep their Medicare Advantage plan at no additional cost to the state.

“I believe Ohio is being placed at a disadvantage as discussions on the federal health care reform continue,” House Republican Leader William G. Batchelder (R-Medina) said. “Though the outcome of the final legislative product remains to be seen, we question the constitutionality of the deals that were reached for the states of Nebraska and Florida.”

View the letter.

Not-so-pleasant 'surprises' in Senate's Obamacare bill

* In case you missed my interview last night with Erick Erickson of RedState.com, here is his column detailing the very scary provision in the health bill that prevents future Senates and Houses of Representatives from changing, amending or repealing regulations imposed by the unelected, bureaucratic "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards" - the new government agency people were calling a 'death panel.'

You must read the post and the transcript of the Senate discussion in order to understand just how dramatic this is. Not only is the Senate violating its own rules to put this 'forever' provision in place, they're imposing upon the House and their ability to make changes in the future.

* Another little gem reported by The Wall Street Journal This Morning radio show, deals with construction companies with fewer than 50 employees.

Most of the mandates on businesses to provide health insurance to employees or face penalties apply to companies with 50 or more employees. But Sen. Jeff Merkley (D - OR) thinks small construction firms - with more than five employees and payrolls of more than $250,000 - should be included. So he inserted an amendment that places the mandate on these particular businesses as well.

And this is the only industry that will have the mandate on companies with five or more employees.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a spokesman for Sen. Merkley said this was to address the problem of fairness in bidding:

Ms. Edwards said the goal was to level the playing field for companies that have to bid against others who might not be providing health-care coverage. She said 90% of construction firms employ fewer than 20 employees, so with the 50-employee threshold, most of the construction industry would have been exempt, she said.

Think about the logic here - beyond the difference between large and small companies. The government is creating a new law that puts some companies at a disadvantage in the marketplace. So their solution to the interference in a free market is to apply to the mandate to almost everyone in a single industry.

If this needs to be 'fair' in the construction industry, then why not in the plastics industry, or the janitorial industry, or any industry???? Why not everyone, since the logic of competitive disadvantage applies to all?

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?

I believe these little hidden 'bombs' are part of the reason they want this rushed through - so we don't know about them and don't object. In fact, CNSNews reported on a recent Zogby poll that showed:

More than 80 percent of Americans agree that Congress drafts lengthy, complex bills to hide spending on special interests and to prevent constituents from understanding what's in them before a vote is taken, according to a new survey.

According to a Zogby poll conducted last week, 83.5 percent of respondents agreed at least “somewhat” with the lengthy-bill premise, and 61.2 percent of Americans agreed strongly. Only 14.4 percent disagreed, and just 5.8 percent did so strongly.

I've not read the manager's report that contained all the agreed-upon amendments, but am glad some are doing so - and actually reporting on them. Unfortunately, the outrage of the American public over the health care bill doesn't seem to have any impact whatsoever on the politicians in Washington. They don't care what we think or want them to do, so our objection to certain items in the amendments won't stop them from passing this abomination.

Even after so many of them couldn't cite where in the Constitution they get the authority to mandate the purchase of product with imprisonment as the consequence of not doing so, they are going to vote on the Constitutionality of the health care bill. I doubt they'll take testimony from 'constitutional scholars' before doing so...and that the vote will run along party lines with a 60-40 outcome.

If they don't care about this basic, core question, what makes us think they'll care if we object to a minor provision trying to 'level the playing field' in the construction industry, especially knowing that they're the ones who made it unlevel in the first place?

In Case You Missed It ...

Most people who get their news from the Internet didn't miss the news of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) objecting to the unanimous consent to forgo the reading of health care bill amendment SA#2837 (co-sponsored by our Sen. Sherrod Brown). As a result of his objection, the clerk started to read the 767-page document - a process that was estimated to take about 38 hours.

The issue made news when, violating Senate rules, the amendment was withdrawn during the reading process.

However, you might have missed what happened just prior to Coburn's objection.

Sen. Coburn asked unanimous consent for an amendment certifying that all senators had read and understood the bill prior to voting on it:

"Mr. President, I have another unanimous consent request. Following consent request would be associated with a Coburn amendment that would certify that every member of the Senate has read the bill and understands it before they vote on the bill. And the reason I ask the unanimous consent that that amendment be agreed to and accepted is that's exactly what the American people expect us to be doing. And so we don't have a bill right now. We don't know what's going to be in the bill. The chairman has a good idea of what's going to be in the bill, but he doesn't know for sure. Only two sets of people, Senator Reid and his staff and CBO know what's going to be in the bill. I suspect somebody at the White House might. But we ought to -- we ought to take and embrace this idea of transparency and responsibility that the American people can expect every one of us to have read this bill plus the amended bill and certify that we have an understanding for what we're doing to health care in America with this bill. And I'd ask unanimous consent that that be accepted."

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) objected and here is the exchange:

"Reserving the right to object, I certainly agree with the basic underlying import that we should know what we're voting on here. I must say to my good friend that presumes a certain level of perception on my part and understanding in delving into the minds of the senator, that not only do they read, but take the time to understand. What does understand mean? Understand the first, second levels of questions? I think it is impossible to certify that any senator fully understood."

Senator Coburn: (12:00 PM) Responded.

"I would clarify my request, that the individual certify themselves. I'm not asking some group of senators to certify some other senator. I'm saying Tom Coburn tell his constituency, I've read this puppy, I've spent the time on it, I've read the manager's amendment, and I, in fact, certify to the people of Oklahoma, I know how terrible it's going to be for their health care."

Senator Baucus: (12:01 PM) Responded.

"The senator is always free to make any representation he wants. If he wants to certify he has read it, he has understood it, that's the senator's privilege."

So, the Senators, prior to voting do not have to certify to the American people that they have read - and understood - what they're voting on.

Personally, I think every bill in the House and Senate needs to have this certification on it. Maybe then, we'd have less ridiculousness coming out of Washington.

New health care bill is out!

Well, it's here - the combined House of Representatives health care bill. It's only 1,990 pages and contains the word 'shall' only 3,425 times.

Oh - and it has a separate 13-page bill to repeal the sustainable growth rate caps on Medicare spending ... and it doesn't say how it's going to be paid for ... and it's projected to cost more than $200 billion even though it's called the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

And ... in the age of proclaimed transparency, they checked IDs and prevented some people from attending the press announcement on the bill.

Read it and weep, America!