Friday, February 8, 2013

SB 780, 921, 922, 1261; HB 1769, 1784, 1900, 2246: Insurance

Virginia Senate Bills 780, 921, 922, and 1261 and House Bills 1769, 1784, 1900, and 2246 all deal with state-funded insurance plans, and were therefore referred to me in a batch as bills this web site probably wouldn't support. Patricia Evans was right about that. I can't say whether one of these bills "is paving the way for Obamacare" more than the others; they're all long eye-glazing bills full of insurance industry jargon. Generally this web site opposes any attempt to get state, local, or federal budgets entrapped in any kind of insurance gamble.

Each of these bills has passed the State Senate and been considered by the House of Delegates.

Each of these bills has passed the House of Delegates and been considered by the State Senate. Two were sponsored by Terry Kilgore. Yes, I had read those two...I don't loathe them, but neither do I like them. I think the intention is to block rather than pave the way for Obamacare; I'm not sure they'll accomplish that, nor am I sure that they're sustainable, and they're still a long way from what I want.   This web site also acknowledges, in a distant and frosty manner, the correspondence we've received in support of some bills demanding "identical policies that don't cover birth control" that were sponsored by Bob Marshall. Yes, I think this effort to block rather than pave the way for Obamacare is narrower, and thus likely to be even weaker, than the widely popular idea of setting up state insurance plans. No, it's not about my Delegate scoring a point off your Delegate--at least I hope it's not that for them, and it's not that for me. Presumably Delegate Marshall is doing his job of representing a constituency that includes more Catholics, and Delegate Kilgore is doing his job of representing a constituency that includes more Republicans, and the man representing the constituency with broader nationwide appeal is at least drawing ahead. However, by and large, my reaction to all "alternative insurance scheme" proposals is more or less the same. If youall still want to buy into insurance gambles, bless your hearts, I'm not even trying to argue with you, as long as you're not counting on me to finance the game.   I think each of these bills has been supported by at least one Tea Party correspondent; all are opposed by at least one Tea Party correspondent (Patricia Evans). Because they deal with the idea of an elective state insurance program rather than a mandatory federal insurance program, which some Republican and Tea Party correspondents want, they've been supported by conservative Republicans and not even denounced here (yet). This web site is not particularly interested in the "How could you?"--"No, how could you?" sort of bickering among different Tea Parties, of which my e-mail contains a fair amount. Some readers like one or more of these bills. I don't.
I'm not vehemently opposed to yourall's having whatever insurance schemes you want as long as I'm not forced to buy into them, but my opinion is that the state should refuse to support any insurance gamble and focus on setting up a fund that pays actual expenses of treatment, only. Uncle Sam can't afford to spend money foolishly. Aunt Ginny can't afford to spend very much money foolishly either.