Dr. Nick and Cletus on Children’s Health Care

Yesterday, the GOP-controlled House Health and Environment Committee debated Senate Bill 128–a bipartisan bill that would require insurance companies in the individual market to offer child-only health insurance plans. The bill did pass the committee, but not before two rather memorable nays: from Reps. Janak Joshi and J. Paul Brown.

Here’s Rep. Joshi–remember that this is a former doctor who lost his license, as we’ve discussed in this space, a few coincidental months before he decided he wanted to be a legislator. For some, what we suspect to be a very poorly thought-out reason, Speaker Frank McNulty nevertheless saw fit to assign Dr. Rep. Joshi to the House Health Committee.



Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

Thank you Madam Chair. We have heard here that several states, the insurance companies have pulled out of this market. That just tells me there is not enough money to be made. And also in our own state only two insurance companies have left, and they are even threatening to get out of this market. So that just tells me something about this market. And if it was a money making business, like McDonald’s or anybody [Pols emphasis], they would just come and open their shop on the corner. We don’t need to mandate them, and since this is a mandate I will be a no vote.

Well? Do you know anybody who wants their health care to be “like McDonald’s?” We noted last time Joshi embarrassed the Republican caucus on health care that he might not be the best guy to, you know, represent on the issue. Doesn’t look like he plans to prove us wrong!

And then there’s the view from…so, we really don’t want to insult our rurally located friends, who we’re happy to say Rep. Brown is not representative of (in the broader cultural sense, anyway) by making a bumpkin geographic stereotype of him. Rep. J. Paul Brown, who just happens to have grown up in a place with…a lot of barns…and corporal punishment:



Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

Thank you Madam Chairman. What this bill does, is it tells all the insurance companies that they have to be in the market. And, they’re going to spread the risk by everybody being in the market. And it will drive up costs for others, because they will, uh, they’re going to be paying, the risk will be spread out and everybody will be paying for that risk. So, that is the way I see the bill, and, if I’m wrong, I guess, take me out behind the barn and give me a whipping. [Pols emphasis]

A cue to Republican Rep. Cindy Acree, Health and Environment Committee vice-chair and cosponsor of Senate Bill 128: we’re pretty sure he’s talking to you.

As for Democrats? How could they not hope these guys have a comment on every bill?

8 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Fidel's dirt nap says:

    pooling of risk in the market = driving up costs

    Now for your remedial economics lesson, and a swift shovel to the back of the head.

  2. BlueCat says:

    Once you untangle the almost unintelligible language, this is a perfect argument for why health care shouldn’t be among those things that are available only through  private companies until a person has lost everything, including their home, or made it to 65, that is if we don’t let the Rs have their way. Private companies are, quite naturally and appropriately, governed only by the profit motive. Humans, particularly innocent children shouldn’t be subject to death panels governed by the profit motive which is perfectly fine for many other products and services.  

    Since healthcare is something absolutely necessary for life and which only a tiny super wealthy elite could possibly afford out of pocket in the instance of serious health issues and procedures, a public, universal, single payer healthcare plan is the only kind that makes sense.  Every other civilized country on the planet provides health care for all in this way and most also have a thriving private sector for those who prefer and can afford other options.  We alone are as backward as the developing nations in this regard.

    In the meantime, the least we can do is provide decent healthcare for children who made the mistake of not being born into more affluent households, silly things.  No wonder Rs lose all interest in their well being as soon as they exit the birth canal. There’s no cure for stupid and those babies should have known better than to pick low income parents, shouldn’t they?

  3. nancycronknancycronk says:

    Does anyone speake Brownese?

    • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

      Translation:


      Thank you, Madam Chairman. What this bill does, is it tells all the insurance companies that they [must enter a market in which they may not have previously chosen to business, that being child-only policies]. And, they’re going to [distribute risk across the industry by forcing all companies to offer these policies, which eliminates competitive advantages previously enjoyed by companies that chose not to carry child-only policies]. And it will drive up costs for others, because [insurance companies will raise premiums for more profitable policies in order to subsidize the more risky child-only policies]. So, that is the way I see the bill, and, if I’m wrong, I guess, [my party and/or constituents would be justified in punishing me for that failure].

      Another reason y’all keep me around…  

  4. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    “Hi, everybody!”

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.