Herring Rises as McAuliffe Falls

Mark-HerringBy Peter Galuszka

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring’s ruling that undocumented Virginians who entered the state as children can qualify for in-state college tuition is another bold and praiseworthy effort to drag the Old Dominion into the new age.

His comments on gay marriage this winter foreshadowed a U.S. district judge’s decision in Norfolk that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Both moves garnered the strong displeasure of state Republicans and positive national attention for Herring and Terry McAuliffe’s administration. But I am getting worried.

These bold plays don’t seem to be building much of a base for the inexperienced McAuliffe as he tries to push through his agenda against strong and stubborn opposition from Republicans in the House of Delegates, who seem to be winning the battle over expanding Medicaid under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

I was out of town part of last week, but I was taken aback by a poll by Christopher Newport University showing a switch in voter attitudes about expanding Medicaid for up to 400,000 Virginians. In February, a poll by the school found that a majority of voters favored Medicaid expansion, 56 to 38 percent. By April, it had switched to 53 percent opposed and 41 percent in favor.

Quentin Kidd, the CNU political scientist who oversaw the poll, says the Republicans are winning the Medicaid debate. He is likely correct, and the fault is McAuliffe’s. While the governor has visited hospitals and met with legislators time and again, he cannot break the stone wall put up by House Speak William Howell, who is willing to threaten a government shutdown on July 1 over expanding Medicaid.

McAuliffe should have been airing ad after ad showing how people caught in the Medicaid gap are suffering, but I haven’t seen many.

Now, there’s talk of a “June surprise” being cooked up by Herring that could allow McAuliffe to use some kind of executive authority to keep government running without a budget.

At this stage, doing so would be more an admission of failure than a bold move. Herring seems to have taken the initiative, but I am afraid McAuliffe has lost it. With other polls showing President Obama losing favor, the combination could help the GOP come November.

25 Responses to Herring Rises as McAuliffe Falls

  1. Given the federal change in status given to certain minors whose parents brought them here illegally, Herring’s most recent opinion is not unreasonable or illogical.

    But his legal skills and ethics must be questioned on his brief on gay marriage. Under binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a state’s refusal to recognize gay marriage does not raise a federal question. Only the Supreme Court can change a Supreme Court decision. A good lawyer would have followed precedent and defended state law even if he had to hold his nose. Change the state law through the democratic process. That’s the American way.

    And the federal judge didn’t even know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    • TMT – what about kids born here of illegals?

      re: legal decisions… Loving vs Virginia.. resolved in what courts? Massive resistance… ??? Virginia is not known as an enlightened state whose laws are upheld by SCOTUS – but rather the opposite.

      • Kids born here are American citizens from birth. It’s the law of the land. Kids not born here, who came illegally with their parents and who meet the standards of the federal executive order qualify to remain in the country and can get instate tuition. Those who don’t qualify (say they’ve been convicted of a felony,) cannot. As I said, Herring’s opinion on this was not illogical or unreasonable.

        The case I was referring to is Baker v. Nelson, which involved a challenge by two gay University of Minnesota students to the state’s marriage law. The state supreme court held the law did not violate the U.S. Constitution (the Equal Protection Clause and other provisions of the Bill of Rights). Plaintiffs appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1972 the case should be dismissed because it did not raise a substantial federal question. In other words, the Justices did not think the discrimination even raised Equal Protection issues. The case was not heard on discretionary review (a writ of certiorari), but rather on mandatory appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court was required to review the case. Therefore, under the rules of American law, the dismissal was a judgment on the merits of the case. The case stands for the proposition that a state’s rejection of gay marriage does not violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

        As I’m sure you know, under our system of government, state and federal courts are bound to follow Supreme Court precedent until changed. The U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to reverse the holding in Baker v Nelson. Lower courts do not have that authority. Obama’s judge effectively violated her oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the United States. She can certainly criticize the case, but she acted unlawfully when she did not follow it.

        Does this mean states cannot change their laws? Of course not. Minnesota amended its laws and legalized gay marriage. Virginia could do the same. I see a difference between civil and religious marriage and, with appropriate protections for churches, etc., I’d probably vote to change the law if I sat in the GA. But I also believe judges need to follow binding precedent.

        Also, Herring was derelict in his duty as an officer of the court and as attorney general in not defending the state constitution and for ignoring the Baker case. Herring may be a pretty good politician, but his performance as chief law enforcement officer and attorney general are sorely lacking.

        • denying means-tested health care to those that are working – is dumb especially when we subsidize seniors who make 85K in income – to the tune of $500 a month.

          but the GOP is much, much better at promoting a different perspective.

          I’m not advocating subsidies for all – just that we treat people equitably in what we do.

          it’s dumb to give healthcare to the unemployed and deny it to the employed.

          we should reward those who work with at least something equivalent to others who work or for that matter those that are retired.

          how in the world can we subsidize those with employer-provided, seniors, the poor who is not employed – and not the working poor?

          who in the world would actually justify or rationalize such an approach?

          we give thousands of dollars in tax refunds to those who have kids – but work – to encourage them to work and not quit and receive welfare.

          I might add – that that subsidy is about 1/10th the subsidy for employer-provided healthcare and 1/20th the subsidy for Medicare.

          but the GOP has done a superlative job into making this about misconceived impressions and not the facts.

          the Dems totally suck at this game.

        • TMT:

          Well written and exactly right. Herring is 1-1.

  2. “What the pollsters do not fully acknowledge, however, is that they asked the question in two markedly different ways, making this a highly misleading, apples-to-oranges finding that doesn’t necessarily show a shift in public opinion:

    § On February 3 the question was asked: Medicaid is a health care program for families and individuals with low income that is funded by both federal and state tax dollars. Currently, Virginia is faced with a decision about whether to expand the Medicaid program to cover an additional 400,000 mostly working poor Virginians who are uninsured. In general, do you support Medicaid expansion or oppose it?

    § But on April 24 poll the question was asked: In [the Medicaid expansion] debate, the Democrats propose to subsidize private insurance for 400,000 uninsured and low income Virginians by using federal Medicaid money that would otherwise not come to Virginia. Republicans oppose this expansion because they fear the federal Medicaid money will not come as promised, and also say the current Medicaid program has too much waste and abuse and needs reformed before it is expanded.”

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/28/richmond-times-dispatch-cites-misleading-poll-o/199047

    so here is my poll question:

    ” More than a million people in Virginia are receiving more than $400 a month in subsidized health insurance.

    Do you approve of this and do you believe taxpayers should continue this subsidy?

  3. I have to agree with those who say the two CNU polls are so different that you cannot use them to measure “movement” or a change in attitudes on the part of the electorate. But I also agree that the “anti’s” are winning the PR battle, as I’ve noted before. It is always easier to win an argument that aligns to existing attitudes, and large segments of the population have long hated welfare and now hate Obamacare.

    Interesting that Peter is holding up Herring to try to create contrast/tension with the governor. What’s up with that?

    Herring’s letter yesterday I guess was timed for college admission and financial aide season, and given that the statute is hardly clear I also think Herring’s opinion is reasonable. He is not reversing any vote of the people or a black letter law. Not this time. A Republican delegate’s bill on this subject was approved by House Education on a 19-3 vote this year, but the bill did have a fiscal impact and thus was consigned to the Appropriations Committee, where it languished.

    This decision affects a very narrow subset of “undocumented aliens” and arguably these young people were not at fault and they are not ever going to be deported. Despite the initial knee-jerk reaction of the most right wing elements, if they were Virginia residents eligible for an education in the public schools, and are otherwise eligible for admission to a public college, to hit them with out of state rates is just arbitrary and punitive.

    • how many folks are like Breckinridge who had no idea that Medicare Part B is NOT earned and in fact, heavily subsidized by taxpayers?

      those people who do not know this – would they answer differently in that poll if they knew that seniors receive about 500 a month in Govt subsidies?

      • None of them. It wouldn’t change anybody’s opinion. And while my FICA taxes are not paying for Medicare Part B (so you tell me), since my teens I’ve been paying income taxes, federal excise taxes and the whole host of other little ways the government parts me from money I’ve earned so who is to say I haven’t “earned” Part B after a lifetime of work? You? Sounds like I’m subsidizing myself for once….:)

        • None of them. It wouldn’t change anybody’s opinion. And while my FICA taxes are not paying for Medicare Part B (so you tell me), ”

          you should verify that for yourself – and you’re telling me that even if it turns out that you get guaranteed health insurance for 100.00 a month – it would not change your view about you receiving subsidies ?

          “since my teens I’ve been paying income taxes, federal excise taxes and the whole host of other little ways the government parts me from money I’ve earned so who is to say I haven’t “earned” Part B after a lifetime of work? You? Sounds like I’m subsidizing myself for once….:) ”

          no you haven’t. If i had my way – I’d be using my taxes for something other than our military so neither you nor I get that choice and the truth is your taxes don’t get you Medicare PartB.. or for that matter your “entitlement” to buy it for 100.00 a month.

          What would you do, come retirement, you had to go out on the private sector market to buy your health insurance?

          do you think you’d be able to buy it at all much less for 100.00 a month?

          and you still don’t care about others who can’t get what you have?

          what makes you more deserving of it than them?

          luck?

          • Breckinridge

            Larry, I think I’ve said I can support the Marketplace Virginia approach proposed by the Senate. This argument started because I said I UNDERSTOOD and could sympathize with the opponents, I got their point. I remember a hilarious argument I had with my father and brother over Obamacare when it was first proposed, both of them violent opponents and both of them retired military officers. You want to talk about subsidies?

          • re: ” Larry, I think I’ve said I can support the Marketplace Virginia approach proposed by the Senate. This argument started because I said I UNDERSTOOD and could sympathize with the opponents, I got their point. I remember a hilarious argument I had with my father and brother over Obamacare when it was first proposed, both of them violent opponents and both of them retired military officers. You want to talk about subsidies?”

            I think what I reacted to was the idea that “I Pay taxes, therefore I am entitled to… whatever I think I am” concept.

            my primary point all along has been that we as a society are either “okay” with or ignorant of – existing subsidies in our system that arbitrarily favor some over others and that the ones who do enjoy the subsidies subsequently take the attitude (with much encouragement from the right) that the folks who don’t get the subsidies – don’t deserve them – that they somehow have failed – even if they work full-time but don’t have insurance.

            It’s totally bizarre to me that we’d give free health care to folks who are unemployed and deny it to people who are employed.

            what kind of sense does that make and how in the world do 50-60% of Virginias think that is a fiscally-responsible and moral choice.

            we have a system that is a financial disaster, costs twice all other OECD countries and is eating 17% of our GDP and much of it is not due to giving the poor medical care but instead providing those far better off with subsidized medical care.

            but the opponents want to make this issue about the bogus concept that people have to “earn” their health insurance and that people who do not “earn” it – deserve to not have it.

            this is the narrative that is coming from the right and 1/2 of Virginians have
            been convinced of.

            it’s like we’ve collectively taken a stupid pill and we have no other ideas or alternatives other than oppose the one thing that is on the table.

            this is the state of politics these days.

  4. The two questions were different so the results are not necessarily fully reflective of a change in opinion. But the second question was better because it gave both Parties’ main arguments. It gave some context to the question. I think it shows a lack of faith in the federal government and that there will be any savings from expanding Medicaid. It looks to me as if a lot of Virginians, including some who voted for McAuliffe, think they will get the short end of the stick if Medicaid is expanded. But keep in mind, if my “flow-through” plan would ensure benefits are flowed through to the public – but only if you believe there will be savings. I don’t think most knowledgeable Democrats in the GA think there will be savings either.

    • ” The two questions were different so the results are not necessarily fully reflective of a change in opinion. But the second question was better because it gave both Parties’ main arguments. It gave some context to the question. I think it shows a lack of faith in the federal government and that there will be any savings from expanding Medicaid.”

      and absolutely no intelligence on things like DOD spending for Virginia or Medicare spending for Virginia’s seniors.

      “It looks to me as if a lot of Virginians, including some who voted for McAuliffe, think they will get the short end of the stick if Medicaid is expanded. ”

      so the ones that get employer-provided subsidies and Medicare will get the “short” end of the stick if the working poor are given something similar to what they’re getting?

      “But keep in mind, if my “flow-through” plan would ensure benefits are flowed through to the public – but only if you believe there will be savings. I don’t think most knowledgeable Democrats in the GA think there will be savings either.”

      Please let me know of your “flow-through” ideas for subsidized employer-provided healthcare and Medicare.

      why do you expect “flow-through” – ONLY for MedicAid?

    • re: ” … but only if you believe there will be savings. I don’t think most knowledgeable Democrats in the GA think there will be savings either.”

      let’s say you work for minimum wage and you get a chronic illness that the lower level of MedicAid will pay for if you have a medical condition and are unemployed but you get no help if you keep your job?

      so you need medical care you cannot get if you are working but if you quit because you are disabled with a chronic condition -you’ll get MedicAid medical care.

      do you think this will save money TMT?

      have you thought about how many people are now trying to get disability – because in getting approved for it – you get free medical care?

      Do you think you’d save money if you provided some level of subsidized insurance if the guy keeps his job and does not go on disability?

      what do you think would happen if the honest facts about this were put into a poll along with the costs associated with a person quitting his job to get medical care verses continuing to work with a subsidized insurance?

      my assertion is that the average Virginian is dumb as a stump with regard to the actual facts and so dang gullible that the right can easily fool them with propaganda and misinformation.

      I bet if you asked 100 people if people “earn” Medicare Part B – 99 of them would say yes and if they believe that – what else would they believe – also in error and then go answer a poll based on beliefs that are not facts.

  5. I am an independent voter. I was leaning toward Medicaid expansion, now I am leaning against. I guess I am one of those people tipping the polls.

    This has nothing to do with McAuliffe and everything to do with Obama.

    I don’t trust Obama or the federal government. Obamacare has been a fraud perpetrated on the American people by politicians like Barack Obama and Mark Warner. The rules are being changed constantly and for political reasons to defer even more bad news until after this fall’s elections.

    Maybe we shouldn’t rush into yet another potentially ill-conceived health care stunt pushed by the very politicians who lied through their teeth to get the first fiasco passed.

    Given the outright deception around Obamacare I see no reason to rush into Medicaid expansion.

    Barack Milhouse Obama needs to understand that there are consequences for politicians who get their way through the use of willful deceit.

    • Obama did not pass the ACA – Congress did – and only Congress can undo it or change it -not Obama.

      being an opponent of the POTUS and the ACA without an alternative is Clown Show in my view.

      anyone who believes we don’t have a problem with 17% of our economy going for health care- and focuses only on what they oppose and supports no other alternative – is part of the problem.

      don’t blame Congress – blame ourselves if the most we can do is opposed something – because Congress takes their cues from us and that’s why we have this lie – “Repeal and Replace” – a lie as bad and egregious as “you can keep your doctor”.

      we have a chattering class of folks and not much more.

      anyone who thinks you can give free health care to the poor but not help out the working poor is delusional. we’re convincing people to quit their jobs and go for disability…. and it has nothing what-so-ever to do with Obama and everything to do with our own failures to do anything other than blame others.

      • What a crazy response! First, Obama not only supported Obamacare he all but railroaded it through Congress. He owns it. It’s his. Secondly, he has proven that he can change the law. He’s done that over and over again. while his actions through executive order are probably un-constitutional he has made many unilateral decisions about when various parts of Obamacare will be implemented and whether there will be enforcement or not. All of these decisions have been made with the hope of evading responsibility for whatever new flaws arise in this Fall’s election.

        Obama and others knowingly lied about Obamacare in order to get it passed. Obama and his ilk have proven they cannot be trusted to tell the truth when they want to get something done.

        I don’t want to see Medicaid expanded until Obamacare is done rolling out. Period. I want to know all the lies that Obama, et al told to get this abortion of a law passed. And we won’t know that until all the pieces of Obamacare are in place and being enforced.

        Sorry LarryG – Obama owns Obamacare. Obama lied about Obamacare. I don’t trust Obama when it comes to Medicaid expansion. He lost the trust I would give a president when he took to the airwaves and claimed that you can keep your plan if you like your plan. Just like McDonnell lost his credibility when he took that Rolex.

        Obama must proves that there are no more aspects of Obamacare predicated on lies before I’ll support any more health care plans coming out of this administration.

        • “What a crazy response! First, Obama not only supported Obamacare he all but railroaded it through Congress. He owns it.

          he DOES OWN IT because he did support it – but he could not pass it – only Congress can do that.

          “It’s his. Secondly, he has proven that he can change the law. He’s done that over and over again. while his actions through executive order are probably un-constitutional he has made many unilateral decisions about when various parts of Obamacare will be implemented and whether there will be enforcement or not. All of these decisions have been made with the hope of evading responsibility for whatever new flaws arise in this Fall’s election.”

          that’s pure right wing blather and/or repeated blather from the gullible.

          every single law passed -gives the administration the latitude in implementing it – whether it’s Medicare Part D that the GOP passed or the EPA in implemented the Clean Air Act.

          if he really broke the law -you can bet dozens of lawsuits would make it to the SCOTUS… and that has not happened.

          Any POTUS has latitude in implementing the laws – standard procedure in legislation.

          “Obama and others knowingly lied about Obamacare in order to get it passed. Obama and his ilk have proven they cannot be trusted to tell the truth when they want to get something done.”

          lied about what in particular? the “keep your doctor” thing? okay.. what else?

          “I don’t want to see Medicaid expanded until Obamacare is done rolling out. Period. I want to know all the lies that Obama, et al told to get this abortion of a law passed. And we won’t know that until all the pieces of Obamacare are in place and being enforced.”

          where is your alternative? opposition alone is worthless. we have a problem. you don’t like this solution. give me a better one or go sit down.

          “Sorry LarryG – Obama owns Obamacare. Obama lied about Obamacare. I don’t trust Obama when it comes to Medicaid expansion. He lost the trust I would give a president when he took to the airwaves and claimed that you can keep your plan if you like your plan. Just like McDonnell lost his credibility when he took that Rolex.”

          do you trust the GOP that passed Medicare PartD at 3am ? DId Bush lie and people die? Did Clinton have sex with that women? Did you read Bush I lips about taxes or pay attention to Reagan being “out of the loop” for Iran-Contra?

          politicians lie guy… I don’t condone it.. but where were you when Bush was kidnapping people and torturing them in cognito? were you outraged then?

          “Obama must proves that there are no more aspects of Obamacare predicated on lies before I’ll support any more health care plans coming out of this administration.”

          it’s not about lies. There has never been legislation passed that did not have flaws and needed changes. Medicare alone has been changed more than a dozen times.

          If you want people to keep their doctor – then pass legislation that says that – in the House and in the Senate and to the POTUS – if all you want to do instead is complain about what you don’t like while not having any alternatives, what are you accomplishing?

          lead, follow, or get out of the way.. Your company probably works like that right? OH.. and does anyone in your company “lie”… ???? I ain’t never seen a company – including govt administrators that cold not be accused of “lying”.

          does your insurance company promise you that you can keep your doctor?

          how about Medicare ? do they promise you can keep your doctor?

          How about AARP and Medicare Advantage?

          what they POTUS did was dumb and yes it has grievously undermined the entire law -no question about it but the opponents have nothing – other than that.

          they have no alternatives.. they talk about “concepts” like patient-centered health care or free-market health care… totally bogus..

          I do not support the ACA because I like this POTUS. He’s a politician – like Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Nixon.. he lies, yes but no better, no worse.. than the others..

          I support the ACA because our health care system is grievously harming our economy and workers. every penny of increased productivity is getting sucked up by health care premiums… and we have how many proposals to do something about it? One.

        • my problem is basically that our health care system is a disaster that is damaging the economy – and damaging individuals – and has been for quite some time.

          I’d be just fine with a GOP alternative that actually does allow you to keep your doctor.. and guarantees insurance and non-denial of pre-existing conditions – and whatever else they want to add in to make it a competitive alternative to the ACA.

          I’d love to see it pass the House – then the Senate with enough Dems voting in favor of it.

          At that point – you COULD blame the POTUS …

          but we’re no where near that. We have opposition and nothing else.

          the biggest lie is not “you can keep your doctor”. Nope. The biggest like is “Repeal – and REPLACE”. what a whopper!

          in the immortal words of Clara Peller – “Where’s the Beef”?

          Obama might be a liar but the GOP is worse .. feckless hypocrites.. who feed the gullible horse feathers.

          “death spirals”, “death panels”… and more.

  6. here’s the problem:

    People who DO have employer-provided healthcare are seeing every increase in productivity sucked dry by increased insurance premiums.

    this is money that is not spent on retirement plans or college or a new house or new car.

    Forget the deficit and debt – we have a 17% anchor on our economy that directly affects the middle-class and has reduced their ability to be economically secure.

    and why are health care premiums continuing to consume most of our productivity? Because hospitals and doctors have to recover what they are losing to charity care is one reason. Another is that we pay according to how many services are used not according to whether they work or not.

    so if the plan will pay for both a CAT and an MRI – the providers will order both. This is “profit” that they then use to help support services they lose money on – like charity services.

    worse – we encourage people who work full time but don’t have health insurance – to seek disability. The Social Security disability trust fund is now maxed at payouts because it has grown to almost twice it’s original pool of recipients. The states also are impacted as people who need medical care are better off being unemployed and on disability rather than keeping their job and getting no medical care.

    and yet – the opponents are worried about paying “more”.

    think about this. We are the worst OECD country on the planet for health care costs and life expectancy as we spend more than twice as much as any other country and have worse life expectancies- and we essentially defend the status quo because we don’t like the current proposal – the ONLY ONE on the table ….

    we’re downing stupid pills at an astounding rate! we are so worried about not “paying more” or “helping those that don’t deserve it” that we are setting our own selves on financial fire!

    how dumb can we get?

  7. Larry, so how much will health care costs decrease with the expansion of Medicaid; by when; and where will the cost savings go?

    The FTC chases those who fraudulently peddle services and devices that don’t deliver as promised — except for when the government does the peddling. http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-sends-refunds-consumers-duped-marketers-who-claimed-fuel

    Maybe I misinterpret you, but what I read is you are saying: Things must get better somehow if we expand coverage, but I’m not willing to go so far as to give a guarantee to the skeptics that things will get better, who, in my mind (Larry’s) are greedy people who won’t share their benefits with others. With all due respect, your argument seems to flip-flop between expansion is better and life is wrongly unfair whenever one argument is challenged.

    Either expansion will save money or it won’t. If it does, the law should force government and providers to pass along the savings. When legislators won’t do this, why should I trust their will be savings? When I argue this, you seem to shift gears and argue health care is unfair. When I argue, if health care is unfair, the Democrats should step up and propose taking away Medicare Plan B or something similar. Because you know that won’t happen, you want the Republicans to do it. Which is it?

    • ” Larry, so how much will health care costs decrease with the expansion of Medicaid; by when; and where will the cost savings go?”

      how would you know? how would you know that FOR ANY proposed reform? Your goal would be to reduce ER costs and cost-shifting – and to get to a point where our costs are similar to other OECD countries.

      “The FTC chases those who fraudulently peddle services and devices that don’t deliver as promised — except for when the government does the peddling. http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-sends-refunds-consumers-duped-marketers-who-claimed-fuel

      once again – you’re personalizing your blame. Do you think, for instance, they have a similar problem in OECD countries? your response to these things is to find someone to blame – for something – so you can demonstrate that govt “does not work”. That’s FAUX news logic but it ain’t the real world.

      the govt screws up the same way that GM or Atria does.. what’s your point – that the govt cannot?

      “Maybe I misinterpret you, but what I read is you are saying: Things must get better somehow if we expand coverage, but I’m not willing to go so far as to give a guarantee to the skeptics that things will get better, who, in my mind (Larry’s) are greedy people who won’t share their benefits with others. With all due respect, your argument seems to flip-flop between expansion is better and life is wrongly unfair whenever one argument is challenged.”

      there are no guarantees with version 1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 with reform efforts but you must have a goal you want to reach – and be willing to do things including making course corrections to get there. To argue that we do nothing because we do not have “proof” it will work – is .. well. it’s ignorant TMT.

      you KNOW what we have now is broke. if you don’t like what’s on the table where is your proposal – and how would we know that your proposal would work any better or worse – and would we dismiss your proposal because you failed to “prove” it would work?

      “Either expansion will save money or it won’t. If it does, the law should force government and providers to pass along the savings. When legislators won’t do this, why should I trust their will be savings? When I argue this, you seem to shift gears and argue health care is unfair. When I argue, if health care is unfair, the Democrats should step up and propose taking away Medicare Plan B or something similar. Because you know that won’t happen, you want the Republicans to do it. Which is it? ”

      what I argue is this – what caused the Savings and Loan failure under Reagan and what was done about it – and did we know when we proposed reforms that it would work or not?

      why do you make this about Dems or GOP when the issue is reform – and the imperfect way that intended reforms – do evolve over time?

      would you just say we can’t do anything about bank failures so we should not do reforms?

      you have an opposition to change guy. you don’t want change. you oppose it and you line up reasons why it “won’t work” …

      wrong. wrong. wrong. guy.

      things are broke. they need to be repaired. there are no guarantees that what we do initially will be 100% successful. but we never assume it will.. we know it’s an evolutionary process.

      why do you oppose – the process – of trying to reform?

      • If health care reform doesn’t save money, why do it? The bulk of the people are happy with what they have. I’m happy with what my wife has for insurance, just as she liked what I received when I worked for a big company. I don’t need reform unless it will save money. Just because you want to redistribute money doesn’t mean others do. I don’t feel guilty about what I have.

        And before you start on Medicare, that was a Democratic program started and enhance largely by Democrats. They are the ones who told me that, if I pay my Medicare taxes, I get Medicare when I turn 65. It’s my turn to collect. If Obama and Warner want to reduce my take (and that of all other people who turn 65), let them do so. Obama doesn’t care because he can’t run again. But dollars to donuts, Warner would run from and not on a platform that cuts back on Medicare. He isn’t going to touch the status quo. It seems to me that you are PO’d at the Democrats for not taking on seniors with money.

        • re: “If health care reform doesn’t save money, why do it? ”

          how do you know it won’t? It took decades for it to get into its’ current state so why do you expect changes to take effect right away?

          “The bulk of the people are happy with what they have. I’m happy with what my wife has for insurance, just as she liked what I received when I worked for a big company.”

          most people are happy that their premiums have more than doubled, thati they lose their job and have or their child has a pre-existing condition they may not be able to keep insurance? People are happy that they are not rewarded for increased productivity because their health care premiums take it ?

          people were seriously complaining about these issues long before ObamaCare but then they said they were happy after?

          ” I don’t need reform unless it will save money. Just because you want to redistribute money doesn’t mean others do. I don’t feel guilty about what I have.”

          just because you benefit from subsidies you oppose them from others?

          “And before you start on Medicare, that was a Democratic program started and enhance largely by Democrats. They are the ones who told me that, if I pay my Medicare taxes, I get Medicare when I turn 65. ”

          they did not “tell” you . You chose, like many, to not see the facts yourself. You will not get Medicare Part B unless you pay for it. You did not pre-pay for Medicare PartB. The Dems did create Medicare over the objections of the very same people who now oppose the ACA and the same reasons. They have had 60 years and many GOP administrations to do something different and have not. They’re total hypocrites. The American people want health care. They not really informed about the facts of the current system. Most of them that have it don’t know that they are subsidized – and don’t care if they’ve got what they need.

          “It’s my turn to collect. If Obama and Warner want to reduce my take (and that of all other people who turn 65), let them do so. Obama doesn’t care because he can’t run again.”

          No it’s not. Tell me what you’ve done to deserve Medicare PartB. You’ve not paid a penny for it so why do you deserve a 400 a month subsidy after you’ve had years of employer-provided subsidies?

          “But dollars to donuts, Warner would run from and not on a platform that cuts back on Medicare. He isn’t going to touch the status quo. It seems to me that you are PO’d at the Democrats for not taking on seniors with money.”

          You’re wrong TMT. They have already cut the subsidies to Medicare and transferred them to MedicAid and they further plan to cut the subsidies to Medicare Part C (gap) and change the means testing so that people with 85K in retirement income will have to pay more than 100.00 a month.

          Tell me why you deserve guaranteed non-deniable health insurance for 100.00 a month. Tell me what you’d pay for insurance when you reach 65 and there was no Medicare.

          you are benefiting now and will benefit more in the future – at the expense of others and sure you’re fine with your current situation -who wouldn’t be?

          People who work 40 hours a week are JUST as deserving of some kind of a subsidy for health insurance than retired seniors with 80K in income are and those that can’t see the unfairness and disparity are basically of the ” I’ve got mine,screw you” group.

          how can anyone be receiving a subsidy – and know it – and be opposed to equivalent treatment for others – some kind of level playing field for all – even if it means less subsidies for some?

          this is an ugly part of human nature apparently.

Leave a Reply