See Everyone Already Hates the GOP’s Obamacare Alternative. Excerpt:
...The bill repeals most of the taxes and penalties levied by Obamacare—including the taxes on medical devices and tanning services (lovingly known as the “Snooki tax”). And it drops the cap on how much employers can deduct for providing healthcare plans for their employees.Read the entire article HERE.
[...]
There even appears to be a hidden “backdoor” health insurance mandate...
[...]
...[M]issing from the plan were several of Donald Trump’s campaign promises: competition for health insurance across state lines, an expanded health insurance market, and a reconfigured prescription program that lower the price of key drugs.
The measure has already been lovingly labeled “#Trumpcare” by social media. For those that can decipher the bill’s complex language and weird scheme of tax credits and salary caps, none of it seems palatable....
Is healthcare reform the Gordian Knot?
Since the Federal government has no Constitutional mandate to deliver/require/fund healthcare [yes, I'm talking to you Chief Justice Roberts].....what does it even matter at this point?
ReplyDeleteThe GOP is hell bent on taking a Leftist program and putting a slightly fresher coat of paint on it. Either fully privatize it, as it should be.....or just go Single Payer and be done with the theatrics.
-CI
Yes, privatize, but change rules; go over state lines, etc...I hate Health Savings Accounts because I believe people will squander them and they're in this new one.
DeleteAlso, nobody but one senator whose name I can't remember is talking about HOSPITAL COSTS being SOOO high. Nobody should pay $10 for a couple of Qtips.
Z,
DeleteThere is also the matter of not having sufficient disposable income to fund an HSA to any extent.
That said, some people will, flat out, not save money for health crises. Thank God that I did! Never went on an ocean cruise, of course. Too determined to save money "for that rainy day." It's been pouring here since 2009.
The problem with allowing the crossing of state lines is that insurers can then only be bound by the state with the most lax regulations.
DeleteIn other words, Mississippi or Louisiana sets the standard for your health insurance. Not good.
I liked one feature of this bill. It had been that the penalty for not purchasing insurance went to fund Medicaid expenses. Under the new bill it goes to the insurers. Not difficult to see what;s going on,
Hospitals also take it on the chin. The bill is a disgrace.
"[M]issing from the plan were several of Donald Trump’s campaign promises: competition for health insurance across state lines, an expanded health insurance market, and a reconfigured prescription program that lower the price of key drugs.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but that aline pretty well tears it for me. If they're NOT going to permit us to purchase policies across state lines, and to going to allow us to buy our prescription drugs at the lowest possible cost in a worldwide open market, what the hell good could this new plan be?
It's often been said, "A giraffe is an animal that must have been put together by a committee."
It's also been said, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
With those two ancient sayings in mind doesn't it stand to reason that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a body of disparate souls as large and unwieldy as the U.S. Congress to cobble together ANYTHING that isn't a gigantic STINKING, INCOHERENT MESS?
I am disappointed in Donald Trump for the first time in that he seems to find this hastily-contrived, ineffectual, non-solution worthy of his endorsement.
The REPUBLICANS in congress never fail to disappoint. DAMMIT!
FT,
DeleteTrump has said something about this bill as it stands now is Draft #1, with more drafts to come. We shall see.
Hope springs eternal, –– but feebly these days.
DeleteQUESTIONS POSTED AT MY BLOG TODAY:
DeleteWhat Do YOU Think of
Paul Ryan's Three-Stage Plan to
Replace Obamacare?
The GOP Freedom Caucus ain't much for it.
Do you have any BETTER ideas?
If so, let's hear 'em.
And put your better ideas here, too!
DeleteHere's what I said over at FT's blog....
DeleteI have heard a lot of the debate and complaints related to thereto.
Two thoughts:
1. Perhaps this matter of healthcare reform is so thorny because it is something that cannot be solved at the federal level.
2. As long as employer-based health insurance is available -- particularly for employees of any government agency (local, state, or federal) -- the free market cannot work unhindered. I've noticed that those with employer-based health insurance are not very concerned about healthcare reform -- as long as their children can stay on the parents' policy until those children reach age 67. We the taxpayers are picking up the lion's share of employer-based health insurance premiums for all government employees. THINK ABOUT THAT!
I have my doubts about Phase Two and Phase Three. I don't trust those Congress critters.
What congress SHOULD have done is appoint a small group of EXPERTS like Rand Paul, Tom Price and one or two others who truly understand the economics –– and the LIMITS –– of what medicine can and cannot do, –– then have THEM craft a bill, –– open the process to debate possible amendments from individual members of congress, –– then VOTE on it.
ReplyDeleteInstead Republicans are acting like RepublicRATS again.
As Rush Limbaugh said just a day or two ago, "They had EIGHT YEARS to decide what ought to be done about Obamare, and apparently, they just frittered away the time."
PHOOEY on that!
Wish has hardly been alone in expressing that complaint.
I must agree with Rush Limbaugh on that point. 100% agree!
Delete"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein
ReplyDeleteWell, so far I don't understand a single thing that I've heard them say. Do [they] even understand what they are trying to do?
It's very disappointing, but are you REALLY surprised by that, Jon?
DeleteI'd drop dead of shock if congress ever did anything strong, decisive and REVOLUTIONARY that actually BENEFITED the public.
They've done nothing but ERODE our Freedoms and spend our money –– recklessly –– and wastefully on deadly dangerous, profitless military adventures abroad, and stupid, ill-conceived "social programs" at home that haven't done anyone a particle of good as far as i can see.
Delete@FT,
NO SURPRISE WHATSOEVER!
1. REPEAL OBAMACARE
ReplyDelete2. SHOOT ANYONE THAT TRIES TO REPLACE IT
Why is this hard?
Ryan should have drawn attention to this announcement with a giant "WHAAH WHAHH!!!" horn.
ReplyDeleteTax subsidies for people making $150K? Are they crazy? Increase Medicaid?
A first step to controlling costs and rationalizing the market would be to make employee-provided healthcare taxible, not going on to subsidize everyone else, including those making twice the US median income.
After all their eight years of bloviating, posturing and preening, this is all Policy Wonk Extraordinaire Ryan and the GOOPers can produce?
With apologies to The Who:
Meet the new Ryancare! Same as the old Obamacare!
The GOOP is a lack of imagination trapped inside a bb-brain enclosed in a pinhead.
I caught on to the Cons a long time ago. They talk a good game about small government... while enlarging it.
Anybody who though they would actually try free-market reform must have caught some hopium whiffs from the Obama hippies next door...
To quote Casey Stengel, "Can anybody here play this game?"
Ryancare for lack of a better name is not the same as the Affordable Care Act. The ACA's goal was to get as many people as possible insured.
DeleteQuarrel with the method (and there is reason) but it was reasonably successful achieving that goal.
As far as I can tell, the goal of Ryan's plan is to eliminate any subsidies to the poor and funnel that cash back to the insurers and the wealthy.
I have no idea why Trump's base would support it.
SF,
DeleteTax subsidies for people making $150K? Are they crazy?
WHAT???
Increase Medicaid?
Is increasing Medicaid supposed to be some kind of solution? What kind of solution is that?
A first step to controlling costs and rationalizing the market would be to make employee-provided healthcare taxible....
I must be thick -- or suffering from a deficit of caffeine. How would that step help to control healthcare costs?
Last night, I heard Paul Ryan say that a key element to healthcare reform is controlling the cost of medical care. But, in my view, one reason that medical care is so expensive is the high cost of all the diagnostic tests and scans. In my case, for example, every time they rolled that DaVinci Robot in to perform surgery on me, the bill showed $7000-$10,000; in contrast, the surgeon was paid only $1500 (a charge that seems very reasonable, considering his skill level).
Help me out here, SF.
"How would [taxing employee-provided healthcare] help to control healthcare costs?"
DeleteMore competition? If you aren't tied to your employer's plan (because you can't afford to loose the tax break), you're more inclined to shop for your own.
Jez,
DeleteYes, I can see the validity in your last sentence.
I've been "lucky" with health insurance premiums because, for me, they've long been a tax deduction. I am a sole proprietorship. But Mr. AOW's health insurance premiums were not tax deductible because his employer-based health insurance premiums -- Huge because he worked for a private business! -- were not tax deductible; Mr. AOW's premiums were paid with pre-tax dollars.
That DaVinci Robot that rolled in costs between 1.5 Million and 2 to purchase. Doesn't cover the cost of staff, maintenance. It will be out of date probably in 5 years. The cost of an MRI and CAT scan machine a bit less. Add the ten percent tax that was paid thanks to Obamacare that was added. Today's tech costs, and we have to decide if the benefits outweigh the costs.
DeleteMalpractice insurance is where the eye should go. In our area, a few years ago, the cost per Doc in the OB and Neurosurgery specialty ran around $300,000 per with a 3 million deductible.
The problem is, jez, that health care is a service with almost unlimited demand and health insurance is a monopoly industry.
DeleteIn that environment, competition is not possible.
This talk of "free market" solutions overlooks the facts.
Bunkerville,
DeleteThank you for weighing in. I know that you're a specialist in these matters.
Bunkerville,
DeleteBTW, one of my cousins is a tech who maintains robots and other related equipment. There are hordes of such techs -- all specially trained, of course. Without them, the robots cannot last for long and, worse, pose a danger to the patients who need those robots to save their lives.
I don't know what the answer is. Do know that most hospitals are on a razor thin profit margin if at all. Many have merged in an attempt to stave off bankruptcy. Because of all the requirements of Obamacare, huge number of Docs have become employees of the hospitals, in order to meet all of the requirements. This was all intentional in order to achieve a VA like health system. It was created to fail and take us with it.
DeleteThere is nothing inherently monopolistic about healthcare, so Mr. Ducky's Here is incorrect.
DeleteLook at the history of monopolies. There is a government or some large coercive power behind almost every one.
Ryan's GOOP has united the nation... In scorn for him and the Republican party.
ReplyDeleteTort Reform has to be part of this thing and - how hard is it to declare that Health Insurers can cross state lines????
ReplyDeleteBut hey the beast is Not int he white house and e will likely get the SC judges. No minor accomplishment.
It's easy to understand why the right supports tort reform. It can be laid out in a few simple steps.
Delete1. Medical malpractice is insurance is basically a monopoly. There are only a few companies in the business.
2. When companies have monopoly pricing there is no is no market force to reduce prices.
3. Tort reform will limit premium outflow.
4. Profits increase which is why the insurance companies have been propagandizing this scam.
Richard Adam Schickenader said
DeleteWhat is it about "profits" that so anger the radical Marxist Left?
Insurance that crosses state lines is not as easy as it appears. First of all, taking hospitals as an example. Each Insurance company contracts the amount of reimbursement it will give to a particular hospital for example. Aetna may pay hospital X a different amount for a procedure than United. Healthcare is the only "business" in America that does not conform to a business model. This just one example of how totally screwed up the thing is, and beware of the changes. Medicaid is a loser. Providers get about 23 cents on the dollar on what it costs. Private Insurance has made up the difference up to now. The dirty little secret no one talks about. When our hospital negotiated contracts, that little fact was taken into consideration. So you and I and our employer for decades have been subsidizing Medicaid.
Delete"What is it about "profits" that so anger the radical Marxist Left?"
DeleteI don't know; why not ask Kim Jong Un. His wonderful socialist, non profit nation stands shoulders above the pathetic, evil, profit making, capitalistic, irrelevant little banana republic to the south, where those of the same ethnicity are forced to live materialistically, in health with un-surpassed longevity. I'm sure that this sorry lot envies those of their brethren, luxuriating to their north. If you can't get ahold of Kim try Ducky!
Remember the days when Blue Cross/Blue Shield was a non profit company, Berg? Single wage earner families used to be able to afford coverage.
DeleteNon profit companies are an important part of the insurance program in countries like Germany (commies). So maybe the idea is to try a program like Germany's, no?
Kim Jong Un --- clever, is that the depth of your thought?
Kim Jong Un --- clever, is that the depth of your thought?
DeleteNo but as you say it's clever.
Bunkerville,
DeleteInsurance that crosses state lines is not as easy as it appears....
Thanks for clearing up some of the misunderstandings about that matter. I've known about that discrepancy in the contracts, and for healthcare costs to be kept down for consumers, those contracts are essential.
Duck,
DeleteRemember the days when Blue Cross/Blue Shield was a non profit company, Berg? Single wage earner families used to be able to afford coverage.
I think that there's more to it than the matter of profit and non-profit.
For one thing, it used to be that health insurance was purely for hospitalization. Back in the day, we didn't have all these outpatients procedures -- often expensive procedures, in part because of the medical equipment involved.
The ACA s not entirely "rotten," as many who think of themselves as Conservative-Libertarians would contend.
ReplyDeleteObamacare has been a great blessing to the millions who never had access to health insurance before, or who had reached their lifetime benefits cap, as happened to a friend of mine who is cancer patient. HE would have DIED if Obamacare hadn't kicked in at just the right time to keep his treatments going.
The trouble with the ACA is –– like all Marx-inspired Utopian Schemes –– it robs Peter to pay Paul.
And it has robbed many people of the comfort of being able to choose which doctor, which surgeon, which hospital and which laboratory they want to use –– a voice often critical to the success of dealing with complex chronic medical conditions.
In addition the ACA has RAISED TAXES on the Middle Class, raised PREMIUMS –– on some areas to stratospheric levels, and has raised the average DEDUCTIBLES to the point where the policy is almost unusable, except for CATASTROPHIC "Major Medical" situations.
Meanwhile, it has done absolutely NOTHNG to keep costs down.
So what people think of Obamacare depends entirely on their socio-economic status. It DOES help the "poor," but it DEGRADES and DIMINISHES the quality of medical care for the Middle Class. The Rich, of course can AFFORD to absorb these costs, and purchase the kind of medical attention they want PRIVATEY, but at gfreagtl inflamed cost over what i would have been if Obamacare hadn't arrived on the scene
There HAS to be a better way to deal with this problem and "Single Payer" is NOT it. "Single Payer" would only guarantee that everything veterans and their families find objectionable about the VA would be transferred to all the REST of us.
In other words rich and poor alike would have their chances of DYING while waiting on long long lines to get treatment of highly dubious quality greatly increased.
FT,
DeleteFYI...
As a result of the ACA, medical providers now require up front about 1/2 of the applicable deductible -- otherwise, no treatment, scan, or surgery. I ran up against this problem last year when I had to pay so much before I could access the medical provider, including the operating room.
Mind you, I never had ObamaCare per se, but rather a grandfathered private policy.
The exception to paying the deductible up front: going through the emergency room, where the up-front deductible is not required. Most often, however, one cannot get the necessary scans or surgeries by going directly through the ER.
Fortunately, because Mr. AOW and I have always been savers, we have always had the funds to pay our deductibles. To manage saving that much, we never got our European tour, ocean cruises, many vacations, and other luxury items. We were also able to avoid having to buy new cars because Mr. AOW was such a fine mechanic and kept our hoopdies running (until he had a stroke, that is, at which point I bought my first and only new car). Also, we never had a mortgage because I inherited the family homestead.
FT,
DeleteObamacare has been a great blessing to the millions who never had access to health insurance before, or who had reached their lifetime benefits cap, as happened to a friend of mine who is cancer patient. HE would have DIED if Obamacare hadn't kicked in at just the right time to keep his treatments going.
That's good about your friend. Not so sure about that stat of millions, though.
But the reality is that those caps were established to protect medical providers so that they'd be available at all.
As for those who never had access to health insurance before, some of that is true. What is ALSO true, is that many have had access to health insurance but have CHOSEN to opt out so that their weekly paychecks are larger. In some companies, participation in the company's health insurance plan is optional. Such was the case for the last company for which Mr. AOW last worked, and most employees CHOSE to opt out. Good thing that Mr. AOW didn't! Because he'd never had a lapse in health insurance coverage, we were able to get private medical insurance when the COBRA benefits expired. $900/month, but 8 weeks later Mr. AOW had a stroke. It's a good thing we had sacrificed so as to pay that $900/month (which continued until Mr. AOW qualified for Medicare due to disability -- 24 months, I think). Lots of franks and beans for our suppers! Not an exaggeration! We had to cut a lot of other corners, too.
FT,
DeleteThe trouble with the ACA is –– like all Marx-inspired Utopian Schemes –– it robs Peter to pay Paul.
And it has robbed many people of the comfort of being able to choose which doctor, which surgeon, which hospital and which laboratory they want to use –– a voice often critical to the success of dealing with complex chronic medical conditions.
In addition the ACA has RAISED TAXES on the Middle Class, raised PREMIUMS –– on some areas to stratospheric levels, and has raised the average DEDUCTIBLES to the point where the policy is almost unusable, except for CATASTROPHIC "Major Medical" situations.
Meanwhile, it has done absolutely NOTHNG to keep costs down.
Ponzi scheme!
The ACA s not entirely "rotten," as many who think of themselves as Conservative-Libertarians would contend.
DeleteWe would contend such, since we firmly believe that there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to enact such a mandated measure. In any form.
CI,
DeleteMuch of what the federal government has been doing for years has been outside the bounds of what the federal government should be doing in the first place.
The frog has been on the boil for decades!
I'm not sure that there is any going back. That's my realistic view, anyway. And it's not to say that I approve.
AOW - Of course. It didn't start with the ACA.....it didn't even start with Social Security. But why do we take very....single....Leftist....program, and try to re-brand it?
DeleteWhy do we convince ourselves that the next GOP 'thing' [tea party, Trump, etc] is the next Conservative revolution.....when all it ends up being is warmed over Socialism? And then we argue about it.
CI, if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are indeed founding values and the Constitution demands providing for the general welfare, then it isn't unreasonable to make health care a mandate.
DeleteDucky - Explain to me the Constitutional definition of "general welfare" and then explain to me the enumerated powers.
DeleteUsing your logic, you can make any argument regarding general welfare...given the manner in which Social Justice Warriors bandy about the term "right".
Ironically, there are actual Constiutional rights that the Left doesn't believe are applicable to the Citizen.......
CI,
DeleteBut why do we take very....single....Leftist....program, and try to re-brand it?
I don't have an answer except for the adage about the frog being boiled. It must be that almost all are subject to that concept.
CI,
DeleteAlso, that it is human nature to "vote" one's own entitlements.
"Like the diet prescribed by doctors, which neither restores the strength of the patient nor allows him to succumb, so these doles that you are now distributing, neither suffice to ensure your safety nor allow you to renounce them and try something else."
Delete~ Demosthenes (384-322 B. C.)
And THIS was reportedly said three-hundred-fifty years before the birth of CHRIST!
I don't suppose I'm getting an explanation from Ducky...who clearly favors the Hamiltonian approach to the General Welfare clause - also endorsed by Quincy Adams...but opposed by Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
DeleteMadison explicitly stating: Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
It should also be noted, that immediately following the statement on common defence and general welfare [Article 1, Section 8]....come the enumerated powers of the Federal government.
- CI
Hamilton was an unrepentant oligarch. I certainly don't put much stock in his vision. His concept wasn't as distasteful as Trump's but he was no champion of the common man.
DeleteUnited States vs. Butler is a good jumping off point.
Hamilton and yourself agree with laxity and latitude of the General Welfare clause...when it suits your political agenda. I'm not sure highlighting the 10th Amendment is the way you want to go with this issue...
DeleteNo one has made the point that needs to be made in ths debate more tellingly than KIPLING, of course. In my never humble opinion the following could never be posted or pondered often enough. We should remember he published these sage observations in NINETEEN-NINETEEN!
ReplyDeleteAs I pass through my incarnations
___ in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations
___ to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers
___ I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings,
___ I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us.
___ They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us,
___ as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift,
___ Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas
___ while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed.
___ They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne
___ like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress,
___ and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield,
___ or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on
___ they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton;
___ they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses;
___ they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market
___ Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming,
___ They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons,
___ that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us
___ and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
___ "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones
___ we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour
___ and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children
___ and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
___ "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch
___ we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter
___ to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money,
___ there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
___ "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled,
___ and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled
___ and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters,
___ and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings
___ limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future,
__ it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain
___ since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit
___ and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger
___ goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished,
___ and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing
___ and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us,
___ as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
___ with terror and slaughter return!
The Gods of the Copybook Headings (1919)
~ Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
1919?
DeletePenned in reaction to WW1 ad the subsequent influenza pandemic?
Stop me if you've heard this... Until Tort Reform is included this will be a stinking pile...
ReplyDeleteKid,
DeleteI think so, too. Did you see Bunkerville's above comment about medical liability insurance? Scroll up to 9:00 AM, March 9.
Bunkerville made several other comments, all of them worth reading and contemplating.
Most states have enacted a cap on non-economic damages.
DeleteWhy hasn't it been reflected in lower premiums?
Are the studies that peg the malpractice costs at about 4% of healt care expenditures to be believed?
Duck,
DeleteDo those studies reflect the legal costs of defending against a malpractice suit? I doubt it.
I hope that you have read Bunkerville's comments above. Bunkerville has a lot of knowledge about health insurance matters.
Mary Baker Eddy said
ReplyDelete"There is no life, truth, intelligence or substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is all-in-al. Spirit is immortal truth. Matter is mortal error. Spirit is God, and Man is His image and likeness, therefore Man is not material., he is spiritual."
For al its toil and torment, broken dreams and betrayed ideals life is always worth living –– even at the worst of times. Let us try not to waste our precious time in fruitless argumentation over trivial details, bitter denunciation, mockery, or wanton dissipation.
ReplyDeleteShelley here reminds of what we all just face sooner or later –– and of the heartbreak felt by those left behind when all opportunity to move and are amends becomes forever lost.
__ The Cold Earth Slept Below __
The cold earth slept below;
____ Above the cold sky shone;
______ And all around,
______ With a chilling sound,
From caves of ice and fields of snow
The breath of night like death did flow
______ Beneath the sinking moon.
The wintry hedge was black;
____ The green grass was not seen;
______ The birds did rest
______ On the bare thorn’s breast,
Whose roots, beside the pathway track,
Had bound their folds o’er many a crack
______ Which the frost had made between.
Thine eyes glow’d in the glare
____ Of the moon’s dying light;
______ As a fen-fire’s beam
______ On a sluggish stream
Gleams dimly—so the moon shone there,
And it yellow’d the strings of thy tangled hair,
______ That shook in the wind of night.
The moon made thy lips pale, beloved;
____ The wind made thy bosom chill;
______ The night did shed
______ On thy dear head
Its frozen dew, and thou didst lie
Where the bitter breath of the naked sky
______ Might visit thee at will.
~ Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.
ReplyDeleteMy help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth.
He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber.
Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.
The Lord is thy keeper: the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand.
The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.
The Lord shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul.
The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.
~ Psalm 121 - Holy Bible (KJV)
FT,
DeleteAll those things are uplifting spiritually and can serve to prevent us from sinking into a state of despondence, but they are not policy solutions at the governance level.
I think that this is the reality...
ReplyDeleteKrauthammer: ObamaCare an ‘Entitlement that Nobody, Republican or Democrat, Will Take Away'
EXCERPT:
KRAUTHAMMER: “The problem is that the big thing here is an entitlement that nobody, Republican or Democrat, will take away. The one thing everybody agreed, conservatives and Republicans, in this election and all the elections is we are not going to change the innovation that you cannot lose your insurance or be priced out of the market if you have a pre-existing condition. Is anybody going to vote to take that away? No. That’s the essence of ObamaCare. That’s what was introduced. And the reason that you have this, even in the Ryan plan, why you have this intrusion into the market and the federal government dictating is because in order to keep that provision you have to create an entitlement."
Recently, John M. Berger said this at Z's site -- and I've come to think so myself:
ReplyDeleteSometimes I just wonder if we are seeking more medical coverage than we are willing or able to pay for. If that’s the case this issue will never be solved.