Connect with us

Everything

Will Graham-Cassidy lead to single-payer?

Published

on

The entire health insurance industry has come out against the GOP Graham-Cassidy bill.

Industry lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a letter to Senate leaders, outlined concerns that the law might lead to states setting up their own single-payer health systems.

The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal fails to meet these guiding principles, and would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market; cutting Medicaid; pulling back on protections for pre-existing conditions; not ending taxes on health insurance premiums and benefits; and potentially allowing government-controlled, single payer health care to grow.

The letter outlined five other principles the health insurance industry would like to see addressed:

  1. Stabilize the individual insurance market
  2. Medicaid reforms must ensure the program is efficient, effective, with adequate funding
  3. Guarantee access to coverage for ALL Americans, including pre-existing conditions
  4. Provide sufficient time for everyone to prepare
  5. Eliminate taxes and fees

The association of 36 independent Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers have also joined the lobbying effort against the bill, with their primary dig that the proposal doesn’t repeal the “Cadillac tax” on health insurance.


Further reading…

Support Graham-Cassidy, because of the sparrows and the chickens by Steve Berman

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/20/support-cassidy-graham-because-of-the-sparrows-and-the-chickens/To get the most consumers, and make money doing it, capitalist insurance companies will find a way to carve themselves a piece of the most lucrative markets. At first, they all supported Obamacare because they smelled money, and many make it hand over fist in the markets where they compete, since they’re allowed to pull out where they don’t make money. Watch them lobby state legislatures and Congress to tweak coverages and products to their liking, and block the growth of medical sharing associations, direct to consumer health care markets, and other innovations. You’ll hear them say it’s “against consumer interest” and slam quality standards. Read more…

5 foolish reasons to support Graham-Cassidy and 2 solid reasons to oppose it by JD Rucker

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/20/5-reasons-support-graham-cassidy-2-reasons-oppose/Ask a conservative Republican voting for this if they think it’s going to work. Their answer will invariably be that it will “be better than what we’ve got.” They believe that if they pass nothing that President Trump will turn on them. He will. If this bill had been introduced five months ago it wouldn’t get 35 GOP votes. At this point, they’ll take anything they can get their hands on. That alone spells doom for America if it passes. I, for one, am not excited about the Graham-Cassidy-Stepping-Stone-To-Single-Payer Bill. Read more…


Perspectives

5 Factors That Could Interfere With Graham-Cassidy’s State Waivers | Christopher Jacobs, The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/21/5-factors-interfere-graham-cassidys-state-health-care-waivers/If the sponsors believe in state flexibility, they should allow states to waive all federal insurance regulations, even ones, such as the under-26 mandate or mental health parity, they may personally support. Or better yet, they should move to repeal the regulations entirely, and let states decide which ones they want to re-enact on the state level.

Health insurers oppose Graham-Cassidy bill, citing single-payer concerns | Kimberly Leonard, Washington Examiner

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/health-insurers-oppose-graham-cassidy-bill-citing-single-payer-concerns/article/2635075“To best serve every American, we need both a strong private market and an effective role for and partnerships with government,” Tavenner wrote. “Building on the choice, competition and innovation of the private sector and the strength, security and dependability of public programs is a far more effective solution than allowing states to eliminate private insurance.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that he intended to bring the bill to the floor next week. The Senate faces a Sept. 30 deadline to pass the bill through a simple majority vote, known as reconciliation, according to a recommendation by the Senate parliamentarian.

Why The Latest GOP Health Care Plan Is The Best One Yet | John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/20/latest-gop-health-care-plan-best-one-yet/Contrary to much of the media coverage this week, the push by congressional Republicans to do something about Obamacare isn’t a desperate last-ditch effort or a “health care zombie.” On the contrary, it might be the best health-care reform idea GOP leaders have come up with yet.

A Bogus Health-Care Number from the Center for American Progress | Dan McLaughlin, National Review

A new analysis by Avalere Health, funded by the left-wing Center for American Progress, is making headlines for supposedly finding that Graham-Cassidy would cut $4 trillion in health care funding to states through 2036. Outlets like CNBC and Axios have led their stories with the $4 trillion number in the headline. But it’s fundamentally dishonest and anti-democratic.

Reactions

Final Thoughts

Graham-Cassidy is health care reform turned on its head. Its supporters want it because they believe it will fail, and its opponents hate it because they think it could be implemented. In reality, the nay-sayers are likely right. Most states can’t pass enabling legislation in just three years. Some state legislatures only meet for 40 days a year, and require two readings for major legislation. How in the world could it possibly be in place, at the state level, by 2020, when Obamacare has not been fully implemented in seven years?

Therefore, the nay-sayers who think this will lead to state-level single-payer are playing a Pied Piper tune. And those who believe it GC will save $4 trillion are taking some kind of hallucinogenic drug. At best, the bill is a stepping-stone to the 2018 election for Republicans to say “See, we did something!” to their constituents, and a hope that the next round of reforms (which will be required) will move more toward a private system versus a government takeover.

Clearly, for insurance companies, they’d rather have an individual mandate–what company would be against forcing everyone to buy their product? That explains their united opposition. Doctors oppose it because it can’t work and would leave the health care industry perilously unstable–if allowed to actually take effect. But I think most people who have studied it agree that this bill, if passed into law, will never take effect.

The consensus is that there’s no possible way GC could ever work. Will passing it lead to single-payer? No more than not passing it. The only difference of opinion is over whether that failure is a good thing or a bad thing.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Steve Nickerson

    September 21, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    “pulling back on protections for pre-existing conditions”
    Right there you can tell this is a lie
    Pre Existing conditions is the #1 thing the Insurance industry wants to NOT cover because it will bankrupt them

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Published

on

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Last week, I jumped in on a heated Twitter debate between a conservative writer and a pro-life policy wonk. Though they both wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions in America, they were fighting over whether it was practical or even fair to charge women who get abortions with a felony. Obviously this debate was set within a hypothetical world in which abortions were already illegal, but it’s worthwhile to plan steps that need to be taken if Roe v Wade were overturned, or if some other laws at the state or national level made abortion-on-demand illegal.

Both sides made pretty epic arguments supporting their side, but both missed the bigger picture. Abortion is, at the very least, a two-front war. There are a few smaller fronts where the war can be waged, but the two primary battlefields are political/legal and cultural. Most pro-lifers fight the political battle. They may invoke faith-based arguments or post videos from the womb to pull at the heartstrings, but when they do so within the framework of the law, they’re still making a political argument.

The pro-abortion side is focusing on the cultural side of the debate… and they’re winning. It’s not because they have the better argument. It’s because the pro-lifers are neglecting this front, and the few that are actually addressing it are doing so with a generally poor strategy. Most are relying on judges and legislation as the way to stop abortions. Meanwhile, they’re losing ground on the cultural front.

How is the left so adept at fighting the culture war? Because they’re framing their arguments within a bigger picture. Their focus on the collective rights of people groups has made their willing sheep abandon what they once knew in their hearts, that killing preborn babies is fundamentally wrong.

The left’s message is that if you believe in equal rights, then you MUST believe in women’s rights. Not too long ago they called it “reproductive rights” but they abandoned that when they realized they could position abortion within the greater women’s rights narrative and get away with it. We’ve seen some pushback by prominent pro-life women, but it’s not enough. To win the cultural war against the womb will require utilizing a variation of the same tactics used by the left.

There are three fundamental truths that pro-lifers must understand if we’re going to win the culture war as it pertains to abortion.

  1. Statistics are counterproductive. I cringe every time I see or hear someone spouting out statistics like there are 125,000 abortions worldwide every day or that over 50,000,000 Americans have been murdered through abortion since it was made legal. It’s not that the statistics are wrong. It’s that they only have an impact on those who already oppose abortion. Those who support abortion do so knowing that many abortions happen and they don’t really care because to them, these weren’t people. Whether they think of them as fetuses or potential humans or parasites or whatever, they’re not going to be swayed by arguments that abortions are rampant.
  2. Science is on our side. Every week, there are new stories highlighting certain attributes of preborn babies that need to be communicated to the masses. They feel pain. They dream. They’re often viable at a much earlier stage of development than previously believed. There’s still a large portion of the population that believes a baby’s heart starts beating when they leave the womb. So much effort is made to use the science on the political side, we often forget that it works from a cultural perspective as well, perhaps more so. We need to educate the people so they understand that preborn babies aren’t just potential humans. They’re humans.
  3. Framing is everything. Just as the left has framed abortion as part of women’s rights, so too must pro-lifers frame the right to exist as a human right. This may seem like a political argument instead of a cultural one, and it is, but when we do so from the perspective of right versus wrong, we can allow the argument to transcend into the part of consciousness that touches on cultural ethics. But framing doesn’t just end with making it a human right to live. We have to frame abortion itself with other topics that people may find despicable. Here are three examples of talking points that frame the abortion debate in a culturally favorable way for pro-lifers that have the potential to reach those who are either pro-abortion or indifferent.
    1. Planned Parenthood was born from the tenets of racism and population control and continues those missions today.
    2. Pushing for gun control to save lives while endorsing abortion-on-demand is a contradiction.
    3. The elite promote abortion knowing it is far more rampant among the poor and minorities. This is no accident. It’s by design.

The war on the womb cannot be won through political means. It cannot be won through cultural shifts. It can only be won when both fronts are addressed simultaneously. Pro-abortionists are doing it. It’s time pro-lifers learn a lesson from the enemy.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Democrats

Tucker on new NJ gun ban: Venezuela banned gun ownership before country’s collapse

Published

on

By

Tucker on new NJ gun ban Venezuela banned gun ownership before countrys collapse

Tucker Carlson makes the point that the Leftists opposing Liberty should target criminals instead of the innocent.

Letting Tucker Carlson speak for himself, But we’re emphasizing two important points:

  1. Gun Confiscation has nothing to do with ‘safety’ or ‘protecting the children’ but empowering the Socialist Left. Crime has skyrocket in the Socialist Utopia of Venezuela after the government disarmed the people. Just as the Left wants to do in the states.
  2. He also made the point that indicates the other party is arguing in bad faith.  If they really were concerned about gun violence, then they would go after that small segment of the population that is committing this violence. Instead they are going after innocent gun owners.
Tucker on New NJ Gun Law: Venezuela Banned Gun Ownership Before Country’s Collapse

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/17/new-jersey-gun-law-bans-magazines-more-10-rounds-tucker-carlson-bernard-kerik-reactHe said that in Venezuela, the point was not to make people safer, but to “disarm the public.” Now, it is a felony in New Jersey for ordinary citizens to “defend themselves,” Carlson added.

Bernard Kerik, who was Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s NYPD police commissioner, said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that the law is a “cunning way to attack the legal gun owners.”

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Economy

Nearly $5 billion being sent to Mexico while border wall languishes in political hell

Published

on

Nearly 5 billion being sent to Mexico while border wall languishes in political hell

Talk about adding insult to injury. Not only are we nowhere nearer to getting the wall built on our southern border, but now taxpayer dollars are actually being sent to Mexico to fund development.

This is not a joke, though it’s actually pretty funny.

Today, we learned the White House may be backing down on shutting down the government to get Congress to fund the down payment on the border wall.

Is the White House backing down on the government shutdown?

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/18/white-house-backing-government-shutdown/The White House seems to be in damage-control mode as it shifts from claiming the President will shut down the government if he doesn’t get $5 billion in wall funding to now saying the President could find other ways to get the money for the border wall if DHS budget isn’t sufficient.

This is a clear departure from the bold words during last week’s public standoff between the President and his friends on the Democratic side, Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi. At that point, the President was willing to “carry the mantle” of “Trump’s Shutdown” if he didn’t get a CR that included $5 billion for DHS.

Now we’re learning that the United States is sending over $10 billion to Central America and southern Mexico in an aid package designed to stimulate economic growth in the impoverished region, including $4.8 billion to Mexico.

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/18/us-pledges-10-6b-aid-central-america-southern-mexico/The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital.

“In sum I think this is good news, very good news for Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Newly inaugurated President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador waxed poetic about the plan to provide jobs so people won’t have to emigrate.

I wasn’t one of those who fell for the idea that the President was going to get Mexico to pay for the border wall, but I never thought I’d see the wall languishing in political hell while we’re sending nearly the exact amount needed to start the wall to Mexico instead. This isn’t the type of change we were promised. This isn’t draining the swamp.

Drudge encapsulated it perfectly with their current top headlines.

Drudge Report

Whether this is some sort of poetic justice against those who thought things would be different or a cruel joke on the nation, one thing is certain. We’re not seeing the progress on stopping illegal immigration that we were promised. Not even close.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report