Bill opposing health insurance mandate signed by Idaho governor

States rights, small government and fiscal responsibility are perhaps the Governors highest priorities in this endeavor. However, to complete the logical progression of his legislation he must: 1) Ensure that no public money, neither state nor federal, is expended on the health care costs of uninsured citizens of his state; 2) Establish an on-line market place so that, in the case of illness, an uninsured person in the State of Idaho can liquidate his or her assets in order to cover medical expenses related to their treatment. Of course the size of the estate will mandate the level of treatment received.

This legislation provides someone the opportunity to opt out without penalty ("avoid a Federal mandate"). Public money is afforded to all States for Medicare and Medicaid "based on need or age" and that should not stop for one state just because they are opposed to an utterly ridiculous bill currently being voted upon.

Other states should follow suit so that the current bill is scrapped and Congress can work on truly stimulating the economy with tax cuts for investments, individuals and businesses.

Medicare and Medicaid spending is an enormous unfunded liability. Please explain why those resources should be allocated to individuals who choose to remain uninsured. How is that fiscally responsible?

The logical options are: A) public option, removing the burden of insurance from industry and adding taxing mechanisms to pay for it (thus making US businss more competitive); B) Current legislation; C) Status quo, which is unsustainable; D) State of Nature - those who can afford care receive it, those who can't do not.

The US industrial ship does not gain it's bearing from Washington. It is powered by it's ability to maneuver in a global economy. Tax cuts as a vehicle for stimulus is generally overated.

The Bush Tax cuts from 2001 to 2003 combined are by far the largest tax cuts in the history of the nation. Medicare part D and two wars, coupled with those tax cuts and combined with the recession do not allow for more tax cuts.

By 2020, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and interest on the debt will consume all federal tax revenue.

Moody's announced yesterday that US treasury securities are precariously close to losing their AAA rating.

Tax cuts (while still popular, as are entitlements) are no longer possible. If the combined issues described above are not addressed, via a combination of tax increases and entitlement spending cuts (means testing, increasing the age of entitlement), the collapse of the US and world economy can be predicted with some certainty.

Tax cuts? Seriously.

Gerry is suggesting that when you are spending too much, there is simply no solution but to keep on that path and look for more money, and steal it when you have the opportunity. Because after all, your own cause is always justifiable. When I personally ran out of money, I had to stop putting things on my credit cards, which meant eliminating some excessive things from my life which might have seemed necessary to me earlier, but were really wasteful. At the same time I had to adjust to the change by finding another source of income, and drastically reducing all my expenses. I did not do it by taking money from other people who were not responsible from my failures. Is the federal government exempt from the logic of financial responsibility? Appartently Gerry, and many like him believe so. What do you mean we cannot cut taxes, Gerry?

A combination of tax increases and entitlement spending cuts? Economy is not static. When you increase taxes, and hence the amount of money avaialable for an individual to spend, you decrease the amount of capital in the system, and hence youdecrease activity, in the economy. It does not stay the same. If the amount of activity is decreased, where are are you going to get the base to increases taxes on?

Hi Sterling, The basis of my argument isn’t in support of liberal policy. Please note that I’m basing much of my comment on the fact that entitlement spending, namely Social Security and Medicare /Medicaid, coupled with interest on our debt will consume, entirely, all federal tax revenue at some point in the not too distant future.

That’s not news, certainly. It has been known for decades that the baby boom generations retirement would create financial havoc if policies were not adjusted. Politicians being politicians, no adjustments were made. The financial threat is now imminent. This isn’t time for a point, counterpoint liberal vs conservative dialogue. The numbers speak for themselves. Expecting economic growth stemming from tax decreases to provide enough expansion in GDP to increase tax revenues to a degree which offsets the massive expansion in the entitlement spending is unrealistic, in my opinion. Of course I’m not really that smart so perhaps I’m incorrect.

Of course military spending, which currently consumes over 20% of the Federal budget is a key factor. Classical conservatives, libertarians and liberals are generally in agreement that our military spending is not sustainable. Neo-conservatives would counter that argument, perhaps bringing up the specter of continued threat of terrorist attack, and support continuing current spending levels. Oddly we are currently borrowing money from other industrialized nations in order to protect them, to be their police.

Following your logic, if I may:

The Bush era tax cuts would then, have added so much capital to the economy that the economic engine would produce sufficient resources required to support Medicare Part D and two wars. Looking at the economy prior to 2008, this logic does not pan out. Those cuts (cumulatively, the largest in history) should have generated enough economic growth, and coincidentally tax revenue, to offset substantially the costs of Medicare part D and war effort.

I'm not a proponent of continued spending and taxation growth. I understand what you're saying. However the numbers just have not played out since 2001, in terms of GDP growth and tax cuts.

The big 3 in terms of government spending are: military, entitlements, interest on debt. All other spending is inconsequential as it relates to solving the baby boom entitlement dilemna. When you went broke, you likely attacked your largest cost centers first, am I correct?

What do yo propose we do to address the entitlement and interest expense issue? Do you suggest that social security or medicare get axed? Those are two extremely popular programs.

What do you propose we do to avoid a complete economic collapse, worst case scenario in terms of entitlements? Realize that our US debt instruments are on the cusp of losing AAA rating, making borrowing more expensive should we lose it.

If we do hit the tipping point in terms of entitlement and interest expenditure, we will have lost our ability to borrow. Our economy will likely collapse, bringing down the world economy with it. Tax revenues will fall. State and local governments will go into default. It's a death spiral. I'm sure I sound like a freakish conspiracy theorist, but empirical evidence would suggest that the scenario is at least somewhat likely (yet avoidable).

Paul Ryan in Wisconsin is really one of the few politicians willing to tackle this problem at the moment.

I hope this personal mandate is worth a civil war to these leftie communists, because like our founding fathers, I am more than willing to DIE for freedom. ORDERING me to become a slave to an industry is not freedom, and I will die if I have to, to fight it.

Every other advanced nation in the world has universal health coverage. Are their citizens lives worth more than ours? I don't think so. Yes, health care costs money -- a lot of money -- but other countries spend LESS than we do and have BETTER outcomes. Their people are healthier than we are!

We've tried the "everybody goes it alone" approach, and the "bring a chicken to your doctor" approach for a hundred years --- and it never worked. Never! Millions of people suffered with chronic diseases and millions died because we couldn't get everyone covered.

And why was that? Because the people in charge of setting health care policy had 1) Excellent comprehensive health insurance and 2) a vested interest in the profits of insurers, pharma companies and health care institution, which translated into dividends, campaign contributions, etc.

Look. Everyone needs health insurance. Right? Right? If you don;t agree with that, then we're back to where we started with skyrocketing costs and millions of sick people.

If you do agree with that, then the question is what's the most efficient, least expensive, and best way from an outcomes perspective to get that result? The "market approach" benefits only healthy people, so that won't work. The only sensible solution is universal coverage. And frankly, if we were really serious about containing costs, it would be single payer.