An angry and animated Congressman Frank Pallone slammed his Republican colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning for holding a “Monkey Court” designed to discourage enrollment in ObamaCare.
Pallone, after a bobble head soliloquy, angrily refused to yield to “this Monkey Court.” “Do what ever you want”, Pallone shouted, “I’M NOT YIEDLING!”
For a better quality video of Pallone’s outburst, click here.
Star-Ledger file photo By Salvador Rizzo and Susan K. Livio/The Star-Ledger TRENTON — State officials are bracing for a federal shutdown this week if a squabbling Congress can’t agree on a budget solution by Tuesday’s deadline, but it could take…
Question: If a $600/month insurance policy only costs the individual $33, what does it REALLY cost?
Answer: $600, with $567 less in purchasing power for the hard-working taxpayer who is subsidizing it.
Smoke and mirrors make for bad policy. When we buy any type of insurance, we weigh the benefits of the policy against the loss of the money we must put out to purchase the policy. When we ask the taxpayers to subsidize our policy, all such reasoning disappears.
Most of us have limited funds, so we must choose carefully. Wise people insure against major loss, such as our house burning down. Most of us believe that paying $1,000 per year is reasonable, as the cost to rebuild a house is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Insurance gives us peace of mind, even though the chance of our house burning down is statistically very low.
For many reasons, we have allowed health insurance to defy all the principles of insurance. There is something emotional about health insurance. Maybe it is because we fear death and want to be sure it does not happen to us any time soon. Maybe it is watching others suffer from illness and want insurance to assure that they get well, do not suffer, and have all their bills paid.
We have actually been duped into thinking that someone else ought to pay for all the health care we need. Politicians gain support and votes when they assure the masses that they care about their health. And insurance companies are more than happy to offer generous policies since commissions and CEO compensation are a percentage of the premiums.
Governor Christie Continues Prudent Approach to Federal Health Care Implementation with Veto of State-Run Exchange Legislation
Veto Avoids Saddling State Taxpayers with Huge, Open-Ended Exchange Costs Without Comparative Details of Alternatives from the Federal Government
Trenton, NJ – Continuing a careful and thoughtful approach that appropriately considers the best interests of the state’s residents and taxpayers, Governor Chris Christie today vetoed legislation that would have begun to establish a State-based health care exchange in New Jersey in line with the federal Affordable Care Act. Though December 14, 2012 is the deadline for states to decide whether to establish a State-based Exchange, the federal government has failed to provide critical information and to answer basic questions about the operation and implementation of each of the options provided, making any decision made now hasty, incomplete, and perhaps fiscally detrimental to the taxpayers of New Jersey.
Governor Christie has consistently stated that once legal issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act were settled, New Jersey would comply with the federal mandate, but only in the most responsible way among the available alternatives. The creation of health care exchanges is provided for in the Affordable Care Act as the vehicle for eligible individuals and businesses to access care, with three exchange options being given to states: Federally Facilitated, Partnership, or State-based. Though the federal government’s deadline for states to select the type of exchange they will participate in is nearly here, New Jersey and all other states still await substantial federal guidance on all three options.
“We will comply with the Affordable Care Act, but only in the most efficient and cost effective way for New Jersey taxpayers. Such an important decision as how to best move forward for New Jerseyans can only be understood and reasonably made when fairly and fully compared to the overall value of the other options. Until the federal government gives us all the necessary information, any other action than this would be fiscally irresponsible,” said Governor Christie. “Thus far, we lack such critical information from the federal government. I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a State-based Exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to other options, and how much control they will give the states over this option that comes at the cost of our state’s taxpayers.”
Governor Christie has previously and continually cited the importance – both from a fiscal and health care policy perspective – of having additional clarity and guidance from the federal government on a host of critical issues related to implementation of the Affordable Care Act at the state level. Absent this critical information about cost, cost-sharing, scope of control, and the federal rulemaking landscape, New Jersey cannot fairly evaluate the best or most fiscally prudent path to follow for its residents.
“Financing the building and implementation of a State-based Exchange would be an extraordinarily costly endeavor,” continued Governor Christie. “While the federal governmental has enabled states to apply for grant funding to cover some of the initial costs of such an endeavor, the total price for such a program has never been quantified, and is likely to be onerous. Without knowing the full scope of which Exchange option would be most beneficial and cost efficient for New Jerseyans, it would be irresponsible to force such a bill on our citizens.”
The ObamaCare backstory gets worse all the time, Save Jerseyans.
We can never really know what happened in chambers. That said, emerging anonymous accounts seem to comport with what we can plainly observe about this repugnant capitulation to unconstitutional, unrestrained big government by Chief Justice John Roberts.
It was supremely political.
Be assured, I’m not leveling this charge simply because I don’t like the decision! The Chief Justice simply didn’t do a very good job of masking his purely tactical motivations.
If you read the conservative Kennedy-Alito-Thomas-Scalia dissent (click here – pdf), one of the first things you’ll notice is how the dissent frequently refers to the majority opinion as the “dissent.” Is the current batch of High Court clerks just sloppy? Or is something else going on here?
