Previous Post
Next Post

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) sent out this email blast about Republican plans to repeal and replace Obamacare:

No doubt, you have heard the recent debates over dismantling the anti-gun ObamaCare law. For six years now, congressional Republicans have campaigned on the promise that they would repeal ObamaCare on the first day that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House.

And they have been richly rewarded for making that promise. Well, the GOP now controls both Congress and the White House. They have for almost 50 days.

But “ObamaCare repeal” seems to have devolved into a civil war in which GOP conservatives Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have now accused the Republican leadership of proposing “ObamaCare Lite” or “ObamaCare 2.0.”

We won’t get in the middle of whether House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “repeal and replace” bill is genuine conservative reform or RINO-backed socialism.

But it is important to us that whatever bill passes be amended so that it does not become a dagger in the heart of the Second Amendment.

And Ryan’s current draft, which is still unnumbered, threatens to be such an anti-gun measure.

These are our concerns:

FIRST:  The Ryan bill must be amended to prohibit the ATF or any government agency from sending millions of names to NICS — because they have PTSD, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, “anxiety,” or because a guardian processes their payments.

This is exactly what happened with Social Security recipients under the Obama administration.

And, because of the Veterans Disarmament Act of 2007, there is no reason why, under “Son of ObamaCare,” the ATF could not troll the federal health database, or the expanded Medicaid rolls, or the lists of recipients of new entitlement funds — and send millions of names to the NICS gun ban list.

Given that “Son of ObamaCare” mandates that Americans maintain “continuous” insurance — or suffer a 30% government-mandated penalty — it is doubly important that these lists not be used to take our guns away.

SECOND:  Under a 2009 ObamaCare manager’s amendment [42 U.S.C. 300gg-17(c)(4)] — inserted as a result of GOA’s urging — an insurance company under ObamaCare is prohibited from denying insurance to gun owners and is prohibited from charging higher rates for gun owners.

Had they been allowed to do this, “gun insurance” could have quickly become so prohibitively expensive that the Second Amendment would have been “insured” out of existence.

But (c)(4) is only applicable to plans “issued pursuant to or in accordance with (ObamaCare).”  Most of the insurance plans purchased under the “Son of ObamaCare” bill will not fall within that category.

So now that “Son of ObamaCare” repeals many of the restrictions on insurance companies, it is critical that those companies continue to be prohibited from discriminating against gun owners — and that prohibition needs to be unequivocal.

Just as an insurance company cannot discriminate on the basis of race, it needs to be made clear that it cannot discriminate against Americans exercising their constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.

THIRD:  Under a 2009 ObamaCare manager’s amendment — [42 U.S.C. 300gg-17(c)(1), (2), (3), and (5)] — inserted as a result of GOA’s urging — doctors cannot be required to ask their patients about gun ownership and enter that information into a federal health database.

Obviously, such a requirement would amount to a de facto national gun registry. But the language prohibits the creation of federal gun registries.

Under “Son of ObamaCare,” it is certainly theoretically possible for an administration to require queries concerning gun ownership as a condition, for example, of being eligible for tax credits.

Anyone who thinks this is far-fetched should consider that one of Barack Obama’s 23 anti-gun executive actions was specifically aimed at trying to pressure doctors to ask about gun ownership and to enter this information into an ATF-accessible federal health database.

It needs to be made clear that doctors cannot be forced — or perhaps even allowed — to demand gun information and create such a registry.

The bottom line is that many conservatives have serious problems with “Son of ObamaCare” because it keeps virtually all of the essential elements of the original:  the mandate (now a 30% lapsed-insurance penalty), the subsidies (now a “refundable” tax credit that sends out checks to people with no tax liability), and the entitlements (now a “grandfathered” Medicaid expansion).

For our part, we will definitely oppose the bill unless it is amended to remove the anti-gun aspects.


Tim Macy

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If the GOA thinks that wading knee deep into the shit show that Obamacare 2.0 has become is a good idea I may have to reconsider my support of them. I would stay as far away from that thing politically as I could get.

    • Yeah let’s replace Obamacare with swampcare. I’m sick of this garbage. I don’t understand how the trump administration can call this bill the one. Higher fines for no insurance, more government and open doors to more control. Exactly everything we don’t need. That’s not even considering most of the issues cited for the creation of Obamacare were government induced. They create the sickness and then treat it with more government. When that fails it’s time for more government. The answer is repeal first. Replace later when we have had the time to digest it and ear beat the bad out of our representatives.

      • Yes, the old system of you get whatever your employer feels like, pay out the ass or do without were all a lot better. Because I will bet you that if they just repeal it, we are going back too where we were. And I for one can’t afford my old heath insurance (not what the rates have gone to)

        • Yes, they were. This has destroyed that system and will now self destruct, leaving nothing at all.

        • The old system beats seeing my mother kicked out of the hospital because she’s not worth saving. Yeah that really happened. It beats ever rising prices. Tell me what has government ever made better? It produces nothing and only leeches life out of the things it regulates. You would think that’s self evident after 8 years of an ever growing government and its economic stagnation from regulation. Are you better off now than you were in 2008. I’m not. My income shrank by 40 percent and I’m pretty sure I will lose my job this spring. I won’t be able to afford the fines or the healthcare. It’s a rock and a hard place answer imposed by an out of control entity not working for your best interest and never will. Frankly if you want healthcare it’s not the governments job to provide it, or your employers. If you want it go get it. If you don’t or can’t then work until you can. If that doesn’t work for you move to Canada and after a couple years come back. You’ll thank God you have to get your own. Ask me how I know.

          Either way any new law either demican or republicrat is only another opportunity to slip the hand of government into our lives. Freedom is lost in such ways. Government needs put out of the way. Period.

        • Nobody special, better cut off that goverment regulated electricity you are using. Medical care is not like most “consumer goods” is is a lot more like infrastructure. As for freedom, have you actually purchased your own insurance, not something provided by an employer? I have, and it drove me nuts when my wife would tell be about how someone was only paying a few hundred a month for their family, and I had to explain that it was supplemented one was or another. Even with PPO, I had no idea how much anything would cost.

        • You didn’t answer my question binder. Just fired off an oh well you better get out of that electricity too response. So you want the government to fix this. Well they created it and the answer you will get will be worse in the end than the one you’ve got now. I’ll just enjoy the amusement of watching people like you figure it out the hard way.

      • “Higher fines for no insurance, ”

        They want you to believe and think this applies only to those who try to game the system, only getting healthcare when they become really sick. What actually happens is that any person, any person, who does not have healthcare for more than 30 days gets fined. That means if you have employer-provided healthcare, are discharged, and cannot obtain a job providing healthcare within 30 days, you will be fined for being laid-off.

        Fact is, like Obamacare, it is better to not be employed, gather benefits and apply for 100% healthcare subsidy.

        GOA did us all a favor to point out how O-care 2.0 completely ignores any impacts on gun owners.

        • Of all the things Obamacare did, the “individual mandate” was to me the most offensive. I don’t look at it as a fine for not having insurance. My interpretation is that it’s a “life tax”. Say you don’t want health insurance. The government is going to fine you. Refuse to pay? They’ll garnish your wages. Don’t have any wages for them to garnish? What happens next? Debtor’s prison? That’s usually what happens to people who don’t pay their taxes.

          By merely continuing to live, you are now obligated to pay the government money, no matter what. It’s your penalty for living. The tax on your life. You can only avoid suffering the consequences of it by either A. Killing yourself, or B. Moving to another country.

          The replacement for this putrid governmental overreach by the GOP still has the individual mandate? Yeah, no thanks.
          (In case you’re wondering, I have health insurance through my employer. But that’s not the point.)

          • “By merely continuing to live, you are now obligated to pay the government money, no matter what. It’s your penalty for living. The tax on your life. ”

            Aahhhh. Now you’ve hit on it. Repubs argued that O-care was not a tax. That meant government could not force anyone to buy a product. SC declared that whatever the intention of Congress, the personal and business mandates were/are, in fact, taxes. Thus O-care was not unconstitutional.

            Now, Repubs are hung by their own rope. In order to replace O-care, they must somehow make the new national healthcare a tax, or they cannot replace O-care. Sweet when politicians have to eat their own…whatever.

            Without a personal mandate, the O-care replacement is not a tax.

            See how the circle goes ’round and ’round?

        • HP says, are you for real. You have employer insurance??? If you feel so strongly, insist that they pay you instead of the premium money to your insurance company or you will quit. Then you can talk.

        • binder: Let’s not make disingenuous arguments. His argument is no less valid because he has employer-provided healthcare. This is the world we’re in because of politicians’ decisions, and it would be foolish to punish ourselves further by not taking what advantage we can of the results.

          What you’re doing is like when someone says, “The government should not be in the business of public education,” and someone responds, “Pay to send your kids to private school, then!” The person is already being forced to pay taxes for the public school and might as well take advantage of it. The argument still deserves to be debated on its merits.

          • How could both of you miss the point so completely.

            Fact: a lapse in insurance greater than 61 days (I originally stated 31) will require a person to pay a 30% surcharge in order to regain coverage.

            Fact: there is no exception for people who had employer insurance and are then discharged from employment. If such person crosses the threshold, regardless of reason, the surcharge applies.

            My commentary does not address any means or methods of obtaining healthcare as being better or worse. My comment was information, nothing more implied or intended.

            Stated at the beginning was the observation that the likely general notion that the surcharge would only apply to those who wait until they are sick, and then applying for healthcare, is faulty. It is dangerous to presume one’s own mindset about a law is what the law intends. These politicians do not make mistakes in legislation. Everything is plotted, even the “unintended consequences” because that opens opportunities to fix those outcomes.

        • My point was that I find the government intrusion to be morally repellent, even though I’m not technically effected by the law because of the insurance I already have. That was where I was going with my post.

          • “My point was that I find the government intrusion to be morally repellent,…”

            Yes !

            We agree. Completely.

            My comments were to inform people how the “penalty” really works, not an endorsement.

          • You live in a fantasy world. Unless you are a Congressmen your insurance will not cover your bills, especially your drugs if you are stricken with a major illness.

            As far as Government intrusion being morally repellent your like most Conservatives you get it all backwards every time. Its morally repellent when you let people die because they could not afford proper health care. Its also a blasphemy of Christianity as well which I might add is practiced by most fake Christians who always seem to be Conservative. If you want to live a truly Christian Moral life become an Atheist as they are the only ones who seem to follow Christian teachings. I am in no way trying to be facetious.

            Many of the poor never go to the Doctor because they know they cannot afford it and they often put off life saving treatments they desperately need because again they have no money to pay for such.

            Obama care stepped in and kicked the crooked insurance companies right in their balls by making the no good bastards pay for preventive testing and treatments and now the Prostitute Republicans what to do away with these preventive treatments which actually end up costing everyone way more money when people get diseases they never would have gotten if they had had such treatments. Brilliant!

            The cheap ass Republicans could not be bigger Morons except when it comes to making money in the drug and insurance industries by letting them rape everyone who is ill.

            Make no mistake about it. The Prostitute Republicans had 8 years to come up with an alternative plan and all they have is “lets turn it back over to the greed monger crooks in the Drug and Insurance Companies so we can laugh all the way to the bank”. Lets face cold hard facts we are only going to move into the 21st Century when we come to the realization that we must follow what ever other Industrialized Nation has already done decades and decades ago and that is a single payer system monitored by the Government that is ready to monitor and beat the hell out of every crook that thinks he can rip people off with their health care.

            In France under public health care you may not like sharing a room with another person but you do have the option of getting a private room if you purchase insurance. This is not necessary for your free treatments but only for your privacy. I could live with that but what I cannot live with is going bankrupt because even the most expensive insurance under an obscene Insurance run Health Care System is designed to bankrupt you before you are even admitted for treatments or given life saving drugs.

            None of this is rocket science you either have an obscene, immoral, unjust Insurance run Health Care system designed to bankrupt you or you have 21st Century National Health Care which is not a privilege for only rich Congressmen but a Human Right that should be guaranteed for all people. Its called being civilized.

            If Insurance based health care was so wonderful why do Corrupt Congressmen have their own insurance system. I guess that’s beyond the comprehension of the Neanderthal Capitalistic Stingy Conservative who wants to save a penny today so he can go bankrupt tomorrow. If you put Congressmen on our present system they would pass National Health Care faster than a cat can jump off of a hot time roof. No sane person would argue otherwise.

            Every Nation must tax people to run a civilized Country. You can use your tax dollars to help your own people with socialistic programs or squander it all on endless wars of rape, pillage and conquest designed only to enrich the top greed mongers in the Government and the Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about so long ago. So went the way of the Roman Empire and so went the way of the American Empire, its only that the Romans managed to last 1,000 years and we fucked our country up in only 241 years. It would not surprise me a bit that in the near future Canada will be building a wall to keep all the Americans out from fleeing their own country. MSNBC News Fareed Zacharia did a study and found all things taken into consideration Canada is now the much better place to live and work in and is a safer country as well. Ditto for many of the advanced Western European Countries as well.

            • “Conservatives you get it all backwards every time. Its morally repellent when you let people die because they could not afford proper health care.”

              Life is hard, harsh and unfair. Or to borrow a more appropriate statement on point:
              ” If you can’t take a little bloody nose (Picard), maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It’s not safe out here. It’s wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it’s not for the timid.”
              – Q

              • Spoken like a true Nazi. You missed your calling by a few decades. I am sure you would have volunteered to murder the mentally ill and the mentally challenged. Its in your blood. But what the hey, isn’t that what true Conservatism is all about. My condolences that your beloved leader Hitler is no longer here for you to worship.

              • Nazis were a bunch of incompetents. If you want to read about true depravity in action, study Stalin and Lenin. They had it going on.

        • Individual mandate – whether enforced directly by the government applying a “tax” to you, or indirectly by the insurance company demanding a higher rate, as in the new GOP bill – is inevitable in a system that demands universal coverage. If pre-existing conditions are to be covered without some implementation of this mandate, people will wait until they get one before buying insurance – effectively, the insurance risk pool will then only consist of sick people, defeating the whole purpose of it.

          So it’s really a very simple issue, and it all hinges on the answer to that one question: does everyone deserve healthcare coverage, or not? If you’re okay with people being refused coverage because of some existing medical issues that they have, then we can go back to the old system where this was the case (and was routinely practiced). If not, then there’s got to be some kind of mandate to make the healthy subsidize the sick.

          The way Obamacare did it was not particularly well designed, although the new GOP bill is even worse in that regard. Really, it’s just a misguided attempt to pander to the “but what about free market?” crowd, by pretending that the industry remains fundamentally private. This gives you the worst of both worlds, with neither actual free market (since companies are forced to sell insurance to everyone, and patients are forced to buy it), nor with proper checks on healthcare costs, because they’re still set by private for-profit companies.

          Which is exactly why every other developed country except for US has some form of what’s called the “public option” here, where the government is either directly in the business of providing healthcare, or indirectly by providing a state-run insurance company that negotiates (effectively, controls, because of its monopoly) prices for private healthcare providers. It’s also why all those countries have healthcare costs that are several times lower than US.

          US will end up there eventually, because most voters do want universal / pre-existing conditions coverage, and that is the only sensible way to implement that. But, unfortunately, because of the misguided worship of free market (which is plainly incompatible with this goal), it will have to fumble through a series of failed experiments first.

          I actually kinda hope the Republicans do ram this bill through. Its spectacular failure once implemented might just be the thing to provide the much needed support for a proper public option bill later down the road.

          • You entirely missed my point.

            The “mandate” is not a question of whether good fiscal policy or not. The “mandate” puts people who were covered and lost jobs in the same category of those who game the system. Not only does one need to find another job (a full-time hobby), one must also find new health insurance in a time when there may be no money coming in. Then, if your job hunt is not successful in two months, you are considered a “gamer”, subject to the penalty for not having insurance that you would have except for being unemployed.

            • That’s why it’s a shitty system. I agree entirely.

              It should just be a tax on income that goes directly into the public funds that are used solely for healthcare. Just like we do social security and Medicare. In fact, just take Medicare and expand it gradually until everyone is in it.

              It’s also the most logical thing to do, given how pretty much everyone agrees that Medicare is one part of the system that’s working best right now.

          • quote——————-I actually kinda hope the Republicans do ram this bill through. Its spectacular failure once implemented might just be the thing to provide the much needed support for a proper public option bill later down the road.———————quote

            I could not agree with you more. No matter which way the warped Republicans move they are going to screw up Health Care good which will result in 2 years of them losing a lot of seats in Congress. As you said its our big chance for the Public Option which Obama wanted from the very beginning. We have to take health care out of the hands of the corrupt and heartless Insurance Companies as right now we are the laughing stock of the entire civilized world in regards to our current Health Care System.

    • Man… what do I gotta do to suppress that STUPID popup from appearing on every page on this site?!!!

  2. Simply put, the Republican Party is NOT pro-2A. Tolerant of 2A, mostly. But not pro-2A.

    The elites of both parties go to the same schools, the same law schools, the same parties, clerk for the same jurists. Why should we believe they will be diametrically opposed to each other politically?

    • Exactly. The differences in the parties are marginal, and both kneel to the same power brokers.,

      • It’s actually right at the top, and unlike healthcare/etc doesn’t cost much money & is far less controversial. But so long as the democrats remain steadfastly opposed, there is no competition to see gun control lessened, and the issue remains more valuable as a tool to rally voters than to pursue for policy. Maybe if there were more publicly traded gun companies for congress to insider-trade on there would be more interest.

    • The only difference between the Dems and Reps is in the voters…the actual politicians are the fucking same.

    • 2A supporters to the Repubs are analogous to the Dem’s minorities. People to control in order to gather power

  3. It would’ve been difficult to believe a government would stoop so low, but the recent WikiLeaks release made it clear that no only were they willing to do so, they were willing to go much farther.

  4. The Republican Party has had 6 years to actually do something about ObamaCare other than blow smoke up our ass’s about how they were going to repeal it. Now that the ball is in their court they got nothing.

    • “Now that the ball is in their court they got nothing.”

      They never had “nothing”.

      Repub are the permanent minority party. The only expect to be able to slow, delay, confuse the processes in efforts to deny the other elitist party steamroller power. The Repubs were safely opposing Demoncrats throughout Big O’s regime. They never expected to be in such high cotton. Now that they have the spotlight, they show us that they were never united in anything but simple opposition for symbolic purposes.

      Now the Repubs are showing their true elitist, big government selves. Their offerings are not change, but nibbles around the edges because they are not opposed to big government, elitist rule. They only propose to manage it better than Demoncrats.

      Do not look to career politicians to do anything but polish their careers. Your gun rights are still in dire jeopardy.

  5. Don’t want socialized medicine. They need to repeal the taxes and the mandates – as they promised.

  6. Yeah… This is one of those things I’m going to call Trump out on. His support for this dumpster fire is disgraceful. While a full repeal of Obamacare may not be practical, this is not a viable solution.

      • I would be ok with a phased repeal. Pulling the regulatory rug out from that huge a chunk of the economy is a more than a bit retarded.

        • The health care system might hit a bump, but would be much better off, along with all who they serve, without the government pulling regulatory strings with its sticky fingers. And I believe the pain would be over quicker than most would think.

        • Rand Paul offered a pretty good alternative, at least from the highlights I read, but of course the devil is always in the details…

  7. I get the angst about broken promises (Australia is the home of broken political promises) and info being used to create a gun registry (our state based systems are ridiculously expensive and notoriously useless as anything other than a shopping list for criminals) but you do realise that health care in the US is massively inefficient and generally more expensive compared to government funded “socialised” health care in other Western countries?

    Making healthcare so expensive that primary care is neglected and tertiary care is over utilised massively increases costs within the system. Your more than slightly retarded system of allowing pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise to consumers doesn’t help the situation either.

    • Not anywhere, any time, has making something “free” made it cheaper. If you think that has happened, just everywhere, I’ve got some prime land about 100 miles east of Miami to sell you. Similarly, putting goods or services under government control has the same inflationary effect.

    • “you do realise that health care in the US is massively inefficient and generally more expensive compared to government funded “socialised” health care in other Western countries?”

      More expensive? Overall, in aggregate, maybe. But the way taht works on an individual level is costs go up for the vast majority, so that they can be dropped substantially for the few. Thats great, if you only care about emotionally-appealing sob stories of sick kids and old people, and you place the greater good of society as a whole over the self-agency and free-will of the individual.

      Me, I ahve the unfortunate curse of being a man who worked hard to establish a lucrative professional career as a result of my own blood sweat and tears. I also have the misfortune of being young, very healthy, and with no chronic health issues or risks. So for me, purchasing health insurance on an open market, would be EXTREMELY cheap. Under a socialized system (and to a lesser degree under our current US system) I pay higher taxes/premiums than I would otherwise, so that others with poor health, chronic conditions, low incomes, high risk, etc can pay substantially lower. Again, the net result is “cheaper” health care en toto. But thats accomplished by using theft at the point of a gun (taxation with the threat of the power of the gov’t behind it) in order to raise costs for the majority…. sounds awesome right?

      What happened to a world where people were responsible for themselves and their families?

      • That works until you do end up with some condition and you go through a policy renewal cycle and your premium gets jacked up, or you have a kid who suffers from some genetic condition that costs a ton of money to manage and your cost go up an insane amount. Essentially socialised healthcare is insurance against any individual suffering from an unexpected or cripplingly expensive health condition. An argument from personal exceptionalism is weak in the face of the overwhelming likelihood of requiring expensive treatment at some point. Living in a civilised country is based risk and cost distribution via collective action (think policing, national security etc. Overall the cost to society is less through such a system as people remain productive (and contribute to the economy for longer thus generating tax revenue to pay for other government programs).

        Do you really think that a person without the ability to pay out who’s insurance doesn’t cover their treatment week is handed a bill for a $500,000 dollar hospital stay ever really pays that bill? Of course they don’t, the government does and it uses your tax dollars to do so. You are already subsidising the cost of healthcare for others so why not use a more efficient (albeit ideologically distasteful) system to do so?

        • “You are already subsidising the cost of healthcare for others so why not use a more efficient (albeit ideologically distasteful) system to do so?”

          Two thoughts: England and Canada
          England – a leading American heart surgeon, age 66, was in England on vacation; had a heart attack. Because of his age, the National Health Service was prevented from treating him, it’s the law. They put him in a wheelchair in the waiting room, until he died. Then they put him in a body bag. Government cannot be counted on.

          Canada – national healthcare is so good, so benevolent that hundreds come every year to the US for treatment. Haven’t read a reliable statistic on the number of Americans flocking to Canada for healthcare.

          Oh, yes…no one has a natural, human or civil right to “free” healthcare. Before Obama, health insurance against catastrophic illness or injury was affordable to buy, and to use. People were not paying $24,000 per year for it. You worry about catastrophe, but that is rare. The risk analysis was taking into account the variables for insurance companies, so pricing was reasonable. You want total healthcare for little cost, so that nuisance sickness and injury will cost everyone. If we must have national healthcare, establish unlimited health savings accounts, with a government plan that covers catastrophic events, not the other way around.

          • Quote——————————- from Sam I am. To elicit more of a response from you, try this…no matter my financial or health condition, nobody has a natural, human and civil right to healthcare. Period. Full stop.——————-

            Your old man must have worked for the Nazi’s who exterminated people who were sick or mentally impaired. Health Care is a right in the civilized world or haven’t you noticed how other industrialized nations treat their people. And yes we do have the money for health care we are on average 50 times bigger and many more times wealthier than the tiny European Nations and they have been affording National Health Care for decades so all of your bullshit is refuted by actual Historical Fact.

            Our problem seems to be one of the incessant Imperialistic warfare we are constantly engaged in. No other Nation squanders its tax dollars in such huge amounts on the military for wars of rape, pillage and conquest. Therein lies the real reasons Republicans do not want to spend more money on Health Care, they want more money for war and they want higher profits for the drug and insurance companies that they are heavily invested in. Its called greed and power and it rules the U.S.

            • “Health Care is a right in the civilized world…”

              Nothing is a “right” that depends on the largess of government. “Rights” are not subject to political whim. The fundamental “rights” are outlined in our founding documents. There is no “law of Nature, or Nature’s God” regarding healthcare.

              Actually, my Dad shot Nazis. Treating people as sovereign, responsible, free agents is no where close to totalitarianism. Treating them as hapless and hopeless victims of the universe is the ultimate insult.

              • Quote——————-Nobody has a natural, human or civil right to healthcare. ————-Quote

                Your the poster boy for Socialized Mental Health Care. That way you in your stinginess you would have no excuse not to seek it since it would cost you nothing out of your moth ridden wallet. You are in dire need of it. You take first place for some of the most warped posts I have ever read on this web site. Its chilling to know that you would have fit right in with the Nazi’s of the WWII era.

                Of course you cannot realize that sane people are shaking their heads in total disbelief when reading your mentally ill rant.

        • “Canada – national healthcare is so good, so benevolent that hundreds come every year to the US for treatment. Haven’t read a reliable statistic on the number of Americans flocking to Canada for healthcare.”

          If you try to find out the actual statistics, you’ll quickly find out that this entire statement is pure bullshit.

          • Interesting information, but not persuasive. I have direct experience with single-payer systems. Not to be envied. Look at Medicaid and the VA. Would you want any of your family forced onto those systems? They are single-payer.

            As to the links provided, one referenced a near-decade old data set. The other is from the single largest proponent of government controlled healthcare. Still, interesting information.

            • I have lived in 4 different countries for any substantial period of time (as in, over a year). Of these 4, 3 had single-payer systems. Yes, I would definitely prefer a single-payer system, even though my income bracket and employment prospects are such that I would actually benefit from a return to pre-Obamacare system. Shit happens in life, and I want a system that provides good coverage as a baseline, even if that means I have to pay a higher tax while I’m healthy and earning money. It’s just not a thing where true free market works best, in the collective experience of Western countries.

              By the way, do look into the history of the Canadian healthcare system. It didn’t even start on the federal level – it appeared in one province first, because the voters wanted it, and it spread very quickly from there because of how successful it was. And it’s still run by the provinces themselves – the federal government does some allocation of grants from the federal budget, but according to the Constitution of Canada, provinces are still fully in charge of delivering the actual healthcare and setting standards for it. So in theory any province could withdraw from the system and go back to pre-single-payer… but none of them do, not even the conservative Alberta. And even the most conservative party in Canada – which is the Albertan Wildrose Alliance – doesn’t want to repeal single payer. Their own voters won’t let them.

              • “Shit happens in life, and I want a system that provides good coverage…”

                Which I had before O-care. I could have as little or as much as I could pay for. It was called insurance. Government provided healthcare is welfare, plain and simple. No thanks.

              • Do you remember that whole part where if you had a “pre-existing condition”, basically no amount of money would buy you insurance?

              • “Do you remember that whole part where if you had a “pre-existing condition”, basically no amount of money would buy you insurance?”

                Yes I do. I kept insurance current, not matter what. One policy would not cover a child with pre-existing for two years, but then allowed payments, with no increase in cost. It is only now, as a small business that I am facing problems, all because of O-care. The costs are deductible, but first I must have the money to purchase the policy. It was tough to give up corporate insurance, but the chance for my own business clouded my thinking. I have a family policy through an association, but the charges are becoming unbearable. Oh, there was one period, back when, I had COBRA insurance, and that was expensive, real expensive. We learned a lot about budgeting that year. We also benefited from long training as youngsters that made us save 15% of salary in an emergency fund (1yr salary total). All choices that had to be made in light of other expenses. So….we took one vacation in 18yrs. Not a true sacrifice. Enabled us to put children into private school (no, not elite schools) and invest in their future. With good brains and values passed down, they are managing the same way.

                There will always be horror stories, but it is not the duty of society to protect the entire population from realities of life. One does not grow strong avoiding pain.

              • One does not grow at all without healthcare, with many diseases that are easily treatable or even preventable.

                You know the best part about universal healthcare? It’s preventative care. That’s actually what saves most money with those systems – when everyone has insurance that covers regular screening, dental etc, and any early (relatively small) problems that arise, they don’t get a chance to develop into bigger problems that are much more costly to deal with.

                And on the other hand, we have US, where without subsidies, tens of millions of people cannot afford even basic routine maintenance and preventative care. And as a result, they get sick, then they get even sicker, and eventually they end up in ER – which treats their symptoms, writes them a bill that they can’t pay anyway, and sends them packing. Of course, since the actual problem wasn’t handled, they’ll end up in ER again, and again, and again.

                And guess who foots that bill? Not the hospital, of course. Its paying customers. Meaning you.

                How do you propose to resolve this, without basically saying that ER simply doesn’t come at all if you don’t have coverage? That you can just die for all anybody cares?

                And if you are willing to say that, then please go ahead and say that. Because that is the only logical end result of these types of policies.

              • “How do you propose to resolve this, without basically saying that ER simply doesn’t come at all if you don’t have coverage? That you can just die for all anybody cares?”

                Maybe you are right. All wealth, all life, all rights, all everything springs only from the graciousness of government drones, and we should gladly surrender everything to the collective in order to make sure everyone has very little, and no one has too much. Fairness, don’t you know.

              • No-one is talking about surrendering everything. You’re dealing with absolutes, ignoring the fact that government regulation is a sliding scale. Public healthcare doesn’t mean public everything. It just means public healthcare. In fact, it doesn’t even mean the lack of private insurance – most countries with a public healthcare system have additional services (for better quality, or shorter waiting times, or for non-covered procedures) that can be obtained outside of the system for cash, and there are private insurance industries in those countries catering to that segment of the market.

                By your definition, you “surrender to the government” the moment you accept the first law as binding, or pay the first cent in taxes. If we’re talking about US government, that would be pretty much since the Revolution.

              • “By your definition, you “surrender to the government” the moment you accept the first law as binding, or pay the first cent in taxes. ”

                As you point out, we have done a pitiful job of controlling our government. It is we who are willing servants.

                At the founding, there were no national programs, no personal taxes. We have simply recreated what we overthrew.

              • You sound like you don’t really want a government, at all. Government is, by its very definition, an entity that compels people to do something by force of violence, or threat of such force. Even in representative republics this is the case, except that said compelling is done by representatives of the majority against minority. Thus, so long as you have a government, you will have to surrender some part of your freedom to it. If you find the concept objectionable in principle, regardless of the scale, the only way to avoid it is to not have a government at all.

                And yes, there were absolutely such things as national programs at the founding. The Navy was one, as were arsenals and other things to do with defense. The postal system was another. Registry of copyrights and patents, as well.

              • In the beginning, there WAS almost no “government” as we know it today. No central government. States were another matter, and they were not tyrannical potentates. Any entanglement with government only leads to further entanglement. The object today, is to avoid contact as much as still permitted. Government directing traffic, doing what states and individuals cannot do alone (control the seas, wage war, defend the coasts, that sort of thing) was the founding guide. Government was not intended, nor intended to be permitted to take over virtually every personal decision in the nation. Indeed, citizens were not supposed to wake up everyday and ask, “What is D.C. doing to us today?”. Government was not to be the central event, element, actor in our individual lives. Extremely limited government was not a matter of “No government at all.” Even stating individual action, independent of the government, is equivalent to anarchy shows how far we have submerged our citizens in servitude.

              • Quote—————There will always be horror stories, but it is not the duty of society to protect the entire population from realities of life. One does not grow strong avoiding pain.————-Quote

                Spoken l like a true Nazi. Hitler said the exact same thing many times and we all know what type of a person he was.

                Even when you are faced with the plain truth about “pre-existing conditions” your ego and arrogance will never let you admit to yourself you are 100 per cent wrong. Facts are Health Care Reform has been over due for decades in the U.S. and its only because the Republicans have been blocking reform out of blind greed that we do not have what the rest of the civilized world has had for decades.

                No form of health care is prefect but your disinformation on Canada’s National Health Care System showed you haven’t got a clue as to how well it has worked. Survey’s taken with the Canadian Population showed that the overwhelming majority said it was unthinkable to go back to the way it was before i.e. with a greed monger Insurance based system.

                In regards to National Health Care you have your back to the wall holding a base ball bat and trying to beat off the many truth attackers coming at you from every direction. There are just too many of them to prevent the truth from overwhelming you and convincing sane people which direction the Nation should go. To civilized people lives do indeed matter no matter what race you are or your socio-economic status. Its called being civilized. Its exactly why Hitler and people like you were and are doomed from the start.

              • “No form of health care is prefect but your disinformation on Canada’s National Health Care System showed you haven’t got a clue as to how well it has worked.”

                Yes, I did fail to properly document my statement. However, no one has documented hundreds of Americans rushing to Canada for treatments.


                No sane person wants to turn over their healthcare to a government that cannot manage Medicare and the VA properly. Do you seriously think that the “good intentions” (of which there were none) of O-care were enough to make it work (no, it was designed to fail so the incompetent government could control your life…if you don’t live and eat right, you may not get healthcare)?

                There is no condition that can convince me that surrendering freedom of choice, freedom to spend what I like on MY health, will ever be the right thing.

            • This info really cuts thru Sam’s propaganda about single payer systems and his rant against the horrible Canadian Health System.

              Health care systems differ, and there can be many myths about their pros and cons.

              En español| How does the U.S. health care system stack up against Canada’s? You’ve probably heard allegedly true horror stories about the Canadian system — like 340-day waits for knee replacement surgery, for example.

              To separate fact from fiction, Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems.

              Join AARP today – Receive access to exclusive information, benefits and discounts.

              Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.

              How many times have you heard that Canadians, frustrated by long wait times and rationing where they live, come to the United States for medical care?

              I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.

              The most comprehensive study I’ve seen on this topic — it employed three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them — was published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs.

              Source: “Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,” Health Affairs, May 2002.

              The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.

              Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.

              Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

              Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.

              Myth #2: Doctors in Canada are flocking to the United States to practice.

              Every time I talk about health care policy with physicians, one inevitably tells me of the doctor he or she knows who ran away from Canada to practice in the United States. Evidently, there’s a general perception that practicing medicine in the United States is much more satisfying than in Canada.

              The Canadian Institute for Health Information has been tracking doctors’ destinations since 1992. Since then, 60 percent to 70 percent of the physicians who emigrate have headed south of the border. In the mid-1990s, the number of Canadian doctors leaving for the United States spiked at about 400 to 500 a year. But in recent years this number has declined, with only 169 physicians leaving for the States in 2003, 138 in 2004 and 122 both in 2005 and 2006. These numbers represent less than 0.5 percent of all doctors working in Canada.

              So when emigration “spiked,” 400 to 500 doctors were leaving Canada for the United States. There are more than 800,000 physicians in the United States right now, so I’m skeptical that every doctor knows one of those émigrés.

              In 2004, net emigration became net immigration. Let me say that again. More doctors were moving into Canada than were moving out.

              Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States.

              When people want to demonize Canada’s health care system — and other single-payer systems, for that matter — they always end up going after rationing, and often hip replacements in particular.

              Take Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, for example. A couple of years ago he took to the House floor to tell his colleagues:

              “I just hit 62, and I was just reading that in Canada [if] I got a bad hip I wouldn’t be able to get that hip replacement that [Rep. Dan Lungren] got, because I’m too old! I’m an old geezer now and it’s not worth a government bureaucrat to pay me to get my hip fixed.”


              This has been debunked so often, it’s tiring. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, concluded: “At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] … were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85.

              The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people.

              But there’s more.

              Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.

              Know who pays for care for older people in the United States? Medicare.

              Know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.

              Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.

              The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.

              Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.

              Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.

              In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

              Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.

              Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.

              Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.

              This one’s a little bit tricky. The truth is, Canada may “ration” by making people wait for some things, but here in the United States we also “ration” — by cost.

              An 11-country survey carried out in 2010 by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based health policy foundation, found that adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost. In fact, 42 percent of the Americans surveyed did not express confidence that they would be able to afford health care if seriously ill.

              Source: “How Health Insurance Design Affects Access to Care and Costs, by Income, in Eleven Countries,” Health Affairs, November 2010.

              Further, about a third of the Americans surveyed reported that, in the preceding year, they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, didn’t fill a prescription or skipped doses of medications because of cost.

              Finally, about one in five of the Americans surveyed had struggled to pay or were unable to pay their medical bills in the preceding year. That was more than twice the percentage found in any of the other 10 countries.

              And remember: We’re spending way more on health care than any other country, and for all that money we’re getting at best middling results.

              So feel free to have a discussion about the relative merits of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. Just stick to the facts.

        • @Sam I am: I would be interested in your sources on the UK heart Dr. and stats on CAD. Please cite them.

          Your larger point is that government run programs ration care, yes?

        • Sam I am, most of your sources referencing cardiac surgery are about surgeons avoiding risk by avoiding surgery on high risk patients. In these instances it is not age descrimination but risk discrimination which was brought about by publishing mortality figures for individual surgerons, thus giving them an incentive to avoid as much risk as possible, older people, who are generally in poorer health would suffer under such a setup but note that it is not a “rationing” that causes this but risk minimisation by individual practitioners.

          Indeed the story about the 78yo bloke that was told he was too old for cancer treatment eventually got his treatment through the NHS after it was arranged by a different oncologist. In this case the individual practitioner was again to blame due to allegedly “professional opinion” (this case was before legislation banned age limits on treatment however it appears that there was no age cap on the treatments recommended in this case). It is even stated in that story that the 2010 Equality Act outlawed age discrimination in NHS treatment so there can be no official discrimination (although individual pratitioners may remain risk averse).

          • Yes, all of it government healthcare. You want that sort of thing for you and family?

            The incident reported happened well before the internet, and I cannot find the right combination of keywords to resurrect the article. So, bad on me. I was much younger (20s?), but it seared into my brain a total disdain for any sort of mandatory government healthcare. (Full disclosure: when I was in the military, I had government medicine available. I also had the ability to seek care “on the market”, without penalty)

            When you are in advanced age, under a free market insurance system, you and the doctor get to decide if the risk of something is too much. In England, and other socialist countries, the government determines, without your input, what will and will not be covered. In the private world, you can find what you need, even if you must “pay more”.

            I like having options, the ability to buy as much healthcare as I can afford. I like knowing that if the need is severe enough, I can increase my income, I can borrow, I can crowd fund, etc. I have no expectation that society as a whole must make me comfortable so that I can have a carefree life, 30hr work week, “living wage” paid for limited skills, the knowledge that no matter what I do, or don’t do, society is there to take care of me. The fact that others do not want to live a life of challenge does not persuade me that living off others is a noble life.

        • @Sam I am: I missed the link to the US heart doctor being sentenced to death by the UK NIH. It sounds like sensational bullshit but I will take your word for it. Do private insurers ration care?

          • As noted before, the report was from the late 60s/early 70s, when newspapers were the only source. Have not organized the correct search criteria, or the article was not digitized. Point was it was a defining moment; no national healthcare run by government. Government cannot do a better job at much other than wage war, than the private sector.

            It is interesting to be reading a blog about personal freedom, opposition to big government, rights and government infringement, where there are also people who trust the government for their healthcare. Irrational.

        • @sam I am: I am not ideological on this topic and truly just trying to get to the bottom of the issue. Any form of insurance is dependent on subsidy, that is the very nature of a risk pool, whether is it is administered by the government or not. Young and healthy subsidize old and unhealthy. Unless you are paying out of pocket, you are subsidized or subsidizing.

          Further, all payers ration care whether public or not. I do not know what the claim denial rate for medicare/medicade/VA is but private insurers deny 22% of all claims. Here are some examples that are every bit as spectacular as the NHS links that you posted.

          HC policy is tricky because we pay for it as a society whether we like it or not.

          • A risk pool is voluntary. Insurance should be voluntary. You choose which risk pool you wish to join. Insurance is a payment now for when you might someday need the benefit. You can choose to not have any insurance. If you choose to not volunteer to have insurance, you manage the risk on your own. If you choose to later voluntarily go into a risk pool, that is your choice.

            Notice all the “you” above. Notice all the “voluntary” above. Notice all the “choice” above.

            So let’s look at the difference between government mandated subsidization, and voluntary subsidization; real world.

            Shriner’s Hospital for Children. No family is denied care because they lack ability to pay. Where doe the money come from? Let’s set aside the profits plowed back into the hospital, and focus on VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUITONS. I get to choose whether or not I wish to “subsidize” the healthcare for the children and families served by Shriner’s. I get to choose the amount I wish to voluntarily contribute/subsidize. I get to choose whether or not to even be involved. I choose, I choose, I choose. That is freedom. When it comes to government, I have two choices: participate, or face jail time for failure to pay taxes. Notice…there are no other choices; as to amount, frequency, or amount of “contribution”. With Shriner’s, I do not have to put up with an ever encroaching government, a malevolent encroaching government. With government, you are an indentured servant.

            Can I make it any plainer?

        • @sam: Your point of choice is a good one. Unfortunately the point fails since care is provided even if it cannot be paid for. Which means those that pay subsidize those that do not and you are a member of the risk pool whether or not you choose. “Personal choice” is a fantasy for as long as care is provided to all regardless of ability to pay.

          • “Personal choice” is a fantasy for as long as care is provided to all regardless of ability to pay.”

            Implying that once the government steps-in, in any manner, individuals should succumb to the monster, and abandon efforts to retain any personal choice?

            The idea that everyone must be treated at the ER, regardless, is a fiction of the courts, not the constitution, or even legislation. I may be forced to subsidize the ER, but I refuse to submit to subsidizing the entire populace.

      • Like Most greed monger Conservatives your behavior is below that of even a wild beast. In Civilized Countries and even our own uncivilized one the Constitution itself guarantees that the greed mongers like your self are not the only ones that should have the privileged of health care and be dammed to the poor or the incapacitated that cannot afford it.

        You live in a fantasy world. You believe your health care will pay for your drugs and health needs but no matter how much wealth you have accumulated it probably will not come close to covering your medical costs if you are stricken with a catastrophic illness. Your idea is what most obscene Conservatives believe. I can do it on my own and I would rather save a penny today even if it means I must go bankrupt tomorrow. Blind Greed totally blinds people like you. Yes in a civilized country you do indeed have a duty to help others besides your greedy self and if that is unacceptable the country would be better off without people like you. History has shown that every Industrialized Nation is the world has adopted National Health Care and none absolutely none has gone back to the greed monger Insurance based system. A civilized government and society views all of its people like an extended family and unlike greed monger Capitalism where everyone is out to screw everyone else the government and the people all take responsibility to help those in need whether or not they have the wealth to afford it. Its called being civilized and that is why countries like Nazi Germany were doomed to fail from the start. We do not want a repeat of it despite Herr Trumps belief that we should mimic Nazi Germany and get rid of everyone that cannot work because they may have had the misfortune to not have been born in pristine and vigorous health or been given several million dollars to start their own business.

    • I don’t know about Australia, but most western countries put price controls on pharmaceuticals preventing the companies from recouping the costs of research. This causes the price of the drugs to increase in the countries, like the U.S., that don’t have the price controls. This means that the U.S. is subsidizing the other countries health care. Drug costs in the U.S. are higher because they are lower in other countries.

      The advertising budget of pharmaceutical companies is insane, but we have the 1A in America, and it protects commercial speech, especially from paternalistic regulations. (SCOTUS applies a strong intermediate scrutiny).

      • The majority of pharma companies spend considerably more on marketing than they do on R&D. We’re being ripped off, simple as that.

      • Australia has a fairly simple system wherein pharmaceutical companies apply for their drugs to be subsidised under our Pharmaceutical Benefits System and then negotiates an agreed price with the government for each dose/treatment so the end user pays about $30ish for each prescription filled while the government picks up the rest of the tab. Note it is a negotiation and if the drug is useful enough then the agreed price can be very high.

        New drugs get a 7 year exclusivity period before generics are allowed to apply for approval to be on the market as well so there is plenty of time to recoup costs.

        There are also laws against direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers because it’s impossible to provide detailed info on indications, contraindications, adverse effects etc. in targeted marketing. That being said over the counter drugs such as paracetamol (acetaminophen) and ibuprofen are allowed to advertise did to their minimal risk profile.

        • You must live on the planet Zircon. MSNBC News did a study and found out that foreign countries pay way less for drugs sometimes as much as 100 times cheaper. Foreign Governments put price caps on drug companies to keep them honest as well.

          As far as foreign drugs being unsafe. Again you live on another planet. Germany, France, Britain and Canada drugs are second to none and if we only let certain countries have duty free drugs choosing those 4 alone would lower the price we pay for drugs dramatically. Are you naive enough to think that these 4 countries would feed drugs to their citizens that were unsafe. Just the opposite occurs as they are often studied and approved far sooner than the U.S. We study our drugs longer and still release drugs that are often unsafe. In other words the top industrialized nations get safer drugs to market faster than we do because we often screw up twice. Once in testing and another in delaying getting them to market. Even when drug companies find that their drugs are unsafe they often market them anyway as this has happened far too often. The fact that our Drug Companies can charge just about anything for their drugs makes greed the major marketing factor rather than safety when they market drugs. All this proves the top industrialized Nations are producing safer drugs, getting them to market faster and keeping the cost way below what the American companies are doing. Our drug companies are the most obscene, immoral and unjust companies producing drugs in the entire industrialized world.

        • Cisco kid, not sure if the living on another planet comment was aimed at me but I can assure you that I live on Earth, just the bit at the bottom known as Australia.

          I don’t know about other western countries but in Australia the government doesn’t have price caps for drugs that it puts on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, depending on the function of the drug and it’s risk profile the price they are willing to accept varies wildly. eg. There are some new chemotherapy treatments that have a price tag of $100k (that is about US$86k) per treatment cycle that the govt subsidises so the end user pays about $40 for the treatment and others that cost far less that were knocked back due to the vastly different levels of efficacy.

          The government also has a fair bit of bargaining power as most new drugs (particularly chemo) are targeted at diseases with a decent patient load. Therefore if the asking price is insane ie. $250k/treatment to allegedly cover R&D costs (and it does everything short of giving the patient a reacharound while curing their cancer, regrowing their hair and regenerating their internal organs) then the government may offer far less per treatment as part of the contract (and get the pharmaceutical company to agree) due to “volume discounts” and pointing out that the company is better off with say $50k/treatment and treating all the patients with that particular condition (lets say a thousand patients) in their patent exclusivity period than hoping that a ton of rich folk (201 in this example to net more money) will pay for the treatment at the original asking price.

          Australia has become the darling of the biomedical research world due to our fairly permissive regulatory regime for clincal trials and I’m sure that this also plays a part in keeping costs down for the end product. Many of our drugs come from offshore suppliers (hence a recent shortage in last line antibiotics due to a contamination issue at one vendors manufacturing centre). I know that a large number of drugs used in the US aren’t made their hence the change in drug cocktails for lethal injections due to European companies refusing to supply certain drugs to the prison systems in certain states. As long as certai ISO standards are met for the production facilities there is effectively no difference in batches of drugs produced by different suppliers, the only exception I’m aware of at the moment is with warfarin. Australia uses both Coumadin and Marevan supplied warfarin and they can’t be substituted without undertaking the original dosing buildup to ensure correct INR levels in individual patients.

          There is patent exemptions in 3rd world countries to allow life saving drugs to be produced by generic medicine providers for fractions of the original cost to allow for the treatment of large population groups. eg. AIDS in Africa when the triple cocktail anti retro viral meds were insane prices in the US (at least $1k/month) they were costing African countries $7/month per patient (see Dallas Buyers Club for a story of US patients importing drugs for their own treatment as they didn’t have insurance to cover the US based costs). Even the pharmaceutical companies agree it would be immoral to let millions die for the sake of a profit margin and intellectual property rights and some even supply the lower cost generics to 3rd world countries (because none of the generics are priced below the cost of manufacture).

          • Yes your right. My comment was not aimed at you. I do not know how things got crossed up.

        • The Australian laws against marketing are exactly the kind of law that the Supreme Court would strike down. I don’t know if they would take a “but healthcare is different approach,” but they typically strike down commercial speech regulations that are paternalistic.

          I’m not saying drug companies advertising budgets aren’t a problem. I’m saying I don’t think there is a simple legislative solution.

          I gather from your comments that the drug companies can come in and sale for whatever price they want; it just won’t be covered by government. That seems fair.

          It’s not fair if the government says “we won’t respect your patents if you don’t agree” or “you can’t sell in our country if you don’t agree.”

        • @TX Lawyer: Commercial speech is certainly subject to regulation, particularly if the government has substantial interest in its regulation. If tobacco ads can pass this test, I imagine that pharma ads can, too.

          • Most “regulation” of tobacco advertising in the U.S. is the result of a lawsuit settlement over tobacco companies false advertising. The tobacco companies agreed to the settlement and received immunity from private suits in return. The additional federal regulations probably aren’t worth the effort of fighting to the Supreme Court. I don’t know if the laws have been challenged in court.

            I don’t know if tobacco ads have passed this test. I also don’t know if the government has a substantial interest. Everyone knows tobacco use will kill you.

  8. I, for one, am totally ok with the GOP replacing the ACA with their own version. One where people are able to choose their doctors and how much they want to pay for health insurance. Or where they can even choose not to have insurance without suffering a massive penalty. A system where Trump’s government doesn’t decide what plans are available or what benefits they contain.

    Maybe they can call it the Free Market Healthcare Act…

  9. I don’t know about the truth or consequences of anything the GAO says about Obama Care Lite. What I do know is this is year 3 of ACA/ObamaCare and in my state the first year there were 3 insurance companies offering plans. In year 2 there were 2 insurance companies offering plans. This year there is 1. Guess what happens next year w/o some sort of government intervention or repeal and replace?

    • “I don’t peruse TTAG to read about Trumpcare.”

      Then you would have been “shocked to learn there is gambling” in a casino. GOA is the only analysis I have seen that highlights the danger to gun owners presented by the new healthcare sausage.

  10. Posted it before, I’ll post it again.
    Check out the:
    UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

    If you read that 40 page communist manifesto, you’ll see that the UN’s agenda [Page 20, Section 3.8] is to obtain “Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality
    essential health care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential
    medicines and vaccines for all”.

    The 2030 Sustainability Agenda piggy-backs on the UN Agenda 21 (published April 23, 1993) which had essentially the same goals, AND, you may remember, was exactly when Hillary Clinton started pushing her “universal healthcare”.

    Plus there’s stuff in there about green regulations and carbon tax, anti-gun related language.

    It’s all communist globalist progressive evil house of (D) crap and it’s being spewed by the RINOs now because it seems like they’ve already been paid for the job and now they have to produce.

    OUST THE GLOBALISTS [from the planet]

    • Behind “evil house of crap”, if you threw in “designed to ensure we all become poor people fully dependent on the government to exist” and I will find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with you on this one.

  11. One of the primary features of Obamacare was its built in death spiral feature. It was designed to fail, leaving us with no alternative but to accept the will of the Queen to implement a single payer system.

    That didn’t happen. I’m talking about the coronation of the Queen, the death spiral is well into its spin.

    Why the Republicans are trying to re-brand this stupid, unworkable system baffles me. They will now own this lemon and won’t be able to blame it on the Democrats that have successfully managed to unload it on them.

    • Maybe we need a single payer system and have just use insurance as a supplement to basic coverage?

      • “Maybe we need a single payer system and have just use insurance as a supplement to basic coverage?”

        Might want to be careful with that idea. Government already has programs that can be supplemented by private insurance, and those policies will not cover anything not covered by the government program.

        In essence, the “supplements” pay the difference between the government-allowed charge (which is not simply a Demoncrat invention), and the amount the primary program pays. So, if government allows $100 as a reasonable and necessary charge/cost, and government pays $80, the supplement will pay $20. You still need a doctor/hospital willing to accept the $100 as full payment, and the procedure/visit must be allowable at all under the primary program. This is pretty much Hilarycare, without the threat that if you try to pay the doctor/hospital directly that is a felony. Or if you are discovered going to a foreign nation for the procedure, that too is a felony.

        To use a dangerous phrase/descriptor, government is the ultimate Tarbaby.

    • “Why the Republicans are trying to re-brand this stupid, unworkable system baffles me. They will now own this lemon and won’t be able to blame it on the Democrats…”

      The Repub elites are truly playing with fire on this one. With no help from Demoncrats, the Repubs are driving a wedge deep into the base, believing still that the base will accept anything put out there because there is no alternative. Stupid.

      It is not only the far left wing agitators who cannot begin to understand what happened in 2016. The Repub establishment believes they are safe from the revolution of 2016.

      • I posted above, but people keep “wondering”. . .

        The globalists have paid for this course, our reps appear to be in collusion with them. They are pushing it hard enough for one to believe their urgency might be due to the fact that they have already taken payment for the completion of these processes and now they HAVE TO produce on the promises paid for.

        It’s like the Hillary campaign, the Clinton Foundation dried up faster than granny over grandpa’s E.D., after the election, when she could no longer provide any influence. I would like to see if the Foundation has had to make any huge remissions of donations lately.

        Read the damn UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, I posted a link above, it’s 40 pages, and you will get the feeling real quick that all of this has been orchestrated for a looooong time, and you will immediately see who the globobasturd players are, and how you can defeat them.

  12. The penalty is a 30% surcharge on a year’s premium for someone who didn’t have insurance for 63 consecutive days and then applied in the individual or small group market. The small group market is businesses with 50 or less employees, or maybe 100 or less. (I’m not looking any further than I have).

    I’m not sure if the insurance will have to meet certain standards to avoid the penalty.

    • “I’m not sure if the insurance will have to meet certain standards to avoid the penalty.”

      That is one of the details we will “…have to pass the bill to know what is in it.”

  13. Nobody has ever paid insurance thinking, I enjoy paying for something that I might not ever use.
    As long as the law requires people to be treated at the ER no matter what, we ALL pay for the uninsured. Just think if a law was passed that if you didn’t have enough cash or insurance you could be turned away for health care.
    ACA for the most part was conceived at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990’s. Here is one version submitted in the Senate: For those who might not know about the Heritage Foundation be sitting when you google it. Also when you look at who submitted this bill.
    Those demanding repeal then we’ll get around to replacing, when has Congress EVER acted quickly since Dec 8th 1941? If it is repealed, those with children 18-26 could have a bit more money as the kids could be excluded from the policy. Those with high cost illnesses could be dropped, sorry you’re cutting into our profit margin, we’re dropping you we have to look out for our stockholders. Careful what you ask for. Also the right had 6 years to come up with a better plan than just scream about repeal, don’t remember them submitting a better idea via a bill then letting the American public say you know what that is better, left, get behind that bill.

  14. Bah. Go figure the whole campaign was useless bluster, why should this be any different? This is everything bad about Obamacare without the benefit of at least helping some poor people.

    Either get rid of it or keep it. They’re treating it like Vietnam.

  15. I don’t post personal stuff here because this place can be a shit show of bad attitude, but now I will go so far as to say that someone very close to me undoubtedly had their life saved because of Obamacare. They didn’t have (couldn’t afford) insurance before the ACA and there’s no way that their savings (including house and land) could have paid for their chemo. They were hard workers while they could work and until 10 tears ago they had no real options for affordable insurance. I’m only posting this here because it’s sport here to hate on anything “Obama” but the ACA is something good (or at least *better*) that came out of those 8 years.

    • Happy that your situation turned-out so well. As it happens, tough situations make for very bad law. The worst imaginable case cannot be the minimum standard for anything. There will be fallout for everything. Even total government control and “free” healthcare has very bad outcomes. Not intellectually honest to claim that because one extreme case was mitigated by something, that something must be the only acceptable proposition.

      Incidental question, did your compadre have insurance thru an exchange or Medicaid?

      I think it has been established that O-care only expanded welfare (Medicaid) enrollment, while taking affordable care from others in order to provide healthcare to another. People are really paying $24,000 in health costs BEFORE their “insurance” takes effects. Such was not the case prior to O-care. See the problem?

      But to have a clear understanding of the healthcare situation, one must have a firm grasp of “free” universal, government-provided anything. Fact: everything provided by the government is a federal budget line item. That means the amount of “service” any program provided is determined by the political wars surrounding the federal budget.

      Upshot? The government (and bureaucrats) will determine what service you will have, and how much of it. Case in point, Obamacare. In order to get the budget amount to initiate O-care, Medicare budget was slashed $500,000,000. Get that number firmly in your mind. $500,000,000 that was TAKEN AWAY from people already eligible for Medicare. What happened next? The amount of money available to pay physicians and hospitals dropped by $500,000,000. Once the remaining budget amount was exhausted, no more payments could be made. Then what? Doctors and facilities stopped accepting new Medicare patients, current patients were put on long waiting lists, all until new Medicare budget was established. Some doctors and hospitals refused to ever again take Medicare patients.

      Life is one case of rationing after the other. Everyone has to face limits, even tragic ones. With private healthcare (as it was before O-care), the rationing was predicated on your ability to pay. But healthcare was rationed. As a trade, you could buy as much healthcare as you wanted (or none, if you preferred).

      Under private healthcare (which is true insurance, not dressed-up welfare), you had the opportunity to pay for the risks associated with advancing age or disability. With welfare (government-provided healthcare), you do not get to determine the level and length of coverage.

      Everyone views “free” government healthcare as an open, inexhaustible checkbook. Not true; not true. The federal budget is not limitless, nor is the budgeted amount of federal funds for any particular program (see drastic cut in Medicare, above).

      In private healthcare, you could get as much as your checkbook allowed. In government (welfare) healthcare, you get only that which is “sensible” for your age (remaining economically profitable years). Insurance is not universal “sharing” of a pot of money. Insurance is purchasing a risk mitigation proposition. Like car insurance. You pay to guard against utter financial ruin, SHOULD YOU NEED IT (sorry, I don’t know how to italicize in this text box). If you become a greater risk than the “average”, you are asked to pay more against the likelihood you will need more. Under government healthcare (welfare) you can get and get, with no concern for what it takes from others (because there is not cost to abusers). This is welfare, pure and simple.

      As I said, there will always be positive, heroic outcomes for the worst of any government program. But exceptions do not govern the lives of the populations, and exceptions do not justify burdening the rest of the nation with unending taxes.

      Again, very happy your close someone had a good outcome. Betting on exceptions is not prudent in life, love and checkers.

      • OH, You must not have paid for you own insurance. Over the course of 7 years we had a total $93000 in premiums $4000 in deductions and Blue Cross paid out $5000. By the end of it, we were paying $14000 a year (family of 3 in perfect heath) with a $6000 / $3000 deductible. It was insane, for very $1 we dropped the deductible the premium would go up 80 cents.